I did read the text to this. I liked not 1 bit of it. And not many people are on vacation for 2 weeks. So, that's your problem. Seems to me you lost your Ee due to being off KaW for 2 weeks and you got mad. Now you propose and idea that shortens it down to 7 days so everyone can be in the same boat as you. And to the war comment, I can't always assume you have an account that wars. If it doesn't show on the account you post it with, anyone had the right to assume you don't do it.
Also, I agree with Kezzer. Eb builds would have no disadvantages to doing Ee. They could simply war everyday and not lose Ee. That would cause indi's to become way worse. We don't need something like this. Indi's are already bad enough.
Cannot see how this idea helps EE Wars. More of a penalty to real war builds. Idk how Ops thinks his idea improves EE in any way whatsoever other than make EE less interesting n less prominent.
First i'd like to say op did put in a lot of effort in this thread so cudos to that! Then a comment from my point of view: The current ee makes me to war at least once every 1,5 weeks. More, when i'm at zero level to gain level 1. I can't do a fixed schedule of wars(needed for a warclan) due to RL but try to get this 1 hour for a good indi when i can. Goal of op is to increase participation in indi(which includes eb-builds i think) so decreasing time the ee-level expires will aid to that. (5 days sounds good to me) As it seems too hard to loose it all in 5 days, the idea of decreasing one level sooths it out and 10 instead of 5 lvls aids to that. Overall i think the idea will get more ppl to war in indi. It's not suited to keep eb-builds and low-effort ppl out of it though. There is always a trade-off here.
To Toxic: Re point #1, nope, you guessed wrong, actually the internet connections in Mandalay are pretty decent these days ... good enough for some EE wars, so I neither lost an Edge nor got mad. As for the length of vacations, here in Europe most people get 6 weeks vacation per year and it is not at all unusual to take 2 or 3 or even 4 weeks off in one piece during the summer. As for my proposal, frankly, whether it is 5 days or 7 days or 14 days is not a material issue (but shorter time encourages more frequent wars) ... what is an important part of my proposal is that the EE decays over time rather than suddenly going "poof". Re point #2, you have the "right" to assume whatever you want, but making accusations based on ungrounded assumptions may not always be a wise approach, a simple question at me would have been sufficient. As my boss many years ago often used to say, "when you assume you make an ass of u and me."
Trade-off is watered down war. EE doesn't need EB builds in war. They can milk eb's hence EB build. Bad idea thru n thru its war not a promo. If as u say Ops is trying to get more participation for EE then encourage ppl to build for war.
EB builds have the disadvantage of being less successful in wars, i.e., having a lower probability of winning a war and obtaining the rewards. That does not necessarily mean that EB builds should never war. How please are iWars "already bad enough" and how please would my proposal cause iWars "to become way worse?" Please explain your reasoning. Just by way of illustration: Under the current system, an EB build signs up for iWars until a win and gets a whopping 25% bonus for two weeks. Repeats this every two weeks. Under my proposal this same EB build would only get a 5% bonus for one week for a single win, and would need to win 4 more wars in order to achieve the 25% bonus. Which of the foregoing two options makes it easier for EB builds to get a 25% bonus with minimal effort? I think it is the status quo.
An "EB Build" is one that does better in EBs and a "War Build" is one that does better in wars ... and there is a continuum of builds in between. This term is indeed shorthand and somewhat imprecise but I think it is a term that we all understand. What please do you mean by "punish war builds suffering with eb builds"? What please is the punishment and suffering that you refer to? Thanks in advance for explaining.
I think you need to learn that eb builds don't NEED a plunder bonus. War builds have towers which DECREASE plunder. Ee MAKES UP that tower plunder decrease. If you can't understand this, then you shouldn't be proposing new war stuff. War builds are a lot more costly than eb builds.
Eb builds leak n waste of an xtal to leak more. War builds waste xtals is the Punishment carrying moochers in war. Anyways tiring of eb threads suggesting how to improve EE. Pointless to comment further.
LOL, please, I know very well how much less plunder my "war build" makes than does the "EB build" that I happen to be posting this from. What I do not understand is what the point is that you are trying to make. It sounds to me like you are saying that so-called EB Builds should not be able to get the EE bonus? Or should not be able to participate in EE wars altogether? Or what exactly? Thinking about it, it seems like we are on the same page ... both of us are fighting the fact that EB builds sign-up for iWars, pray that despite their presence they get a win and a huge 25% bonus for two weeks with minimal effort. My proposal goes a long way to fixing that, seems like you should like it.
I agree with NightHawk. This is an eb thread trying to make Ee better, which does not work. It is YOU who is not understanding. Posting further on this thread IS pointless. And if you have a war build account, post with it.
I regret that you tire so easily ... and not like you have put much effort into this discussion with your cursory and conclusory statements. It is fine that you shan't comment further, but let me summarize how I read what you have just written: The "bad" EB builds leak in war and moreover these poor bad EB builds then also waste one of their xtals to leak even more; consequently, the "good" war builds must waste their xtals and these "good" builds are punished by having the "bad" EB builds "mooch" by merely being able to participate in an EE war they have no business being in. Or to put it in economic terms, you see this as a free rider problem (although it is isn't, actually, since you have (in iWars) an equal probability of leaks on your side that hurt you and leaks on the other side that help you and in other war types you pick your roster). I still haven't figured out how my proposal makes the alleged "moocher" problem worse, other than that more builds that do not meet your strict criteria of a "war build" might actually try to war more often.... And here is where our views differ ... I think that this would be a good thing! I am coming to understand what is going on here and the eerily Machiavellian undercurrents driving your sentiments.
Ur to obtuse to understand anything. What strict criteria do u speak of? Quote me if u can find one. Show this war build u claim to have. Your idea bites n u being argumentative to posters hardly makes this idea a good one. Lastly u ignore war clans n presume only IWars exist. Go back to the drawing board.
I see you reconsidered your decision to not comment any further. No, I don't know what criteria one must - in your opinion - meet in order to fit your definition of a "War Build"; however, you clearly must have such criteria, by which you draw your distinction between the bad "mooching" builds on the one hand and the good "War Builds" who are being punished by the bad moochers on the other hand. You tell me. What about this build? What if I sign-up for the next war with this build and we're on the same team, would you tar and feather me as a moocher? Based on what criteria? What if I am on the other team? As I wrote earlier, and as every good WC knows, a key part of the WC's job in devising the strategy is to minimize the damage caused by their own leaks and to take maximum advantage of leaks on the other side. I just don't see what the big deal is. No, i do not ignore war clans (on the contrary). But your comments about moochers are not relevant to war clans as there the rosters are selected (you don't want to war with certain mooching builds then you don't pick them for your roster), so our discussion - based on your comments and criticisms - has therefore been focused on iWars. In what way do you think that I am ignoring war clans? If you are going to make a statement like that, perhaps you could also add a sentence or two of explanation, perhaps an example, so those of us less clairvoyant than you can figure out what you have in mind?