This is something I have thought about for a while now:
It seems to me that the attack page is unfairly biased against the older players. I don't know about other people, but I tend to attack maybe the first 50 or so players on the list, sometimes more, sometimes less. This means that overall, the older players will lose far more experience that the newer players. This seems an odd way of configuring it - the players that have stuck around for longer have to fight harder to maintain their experience.
I was wondering if there were any other way of ordering the names more fairly?
Cheers
This is something I have thought about for a while now:
It seems to me that the attack page is unfairly biased against the older players. I don't know about other people, but I tend to attack maybe the first 50 or so players on the list, sometimes more, sometimes less. This means that overall, the older players will lose far more experience that the newer players. This seems an odd way of configuring it - the players that have stuck around for longer have to fight harder to maintain their experience.
I was wondering if there were any other way of ordering the names more fairly?
Cheers
The original idea was to order it by who was last online.
Then again, the original idea was also to just have a list of players that were recently online, and not filter the list at all, except a quick attack range check.
It's evolved into Random Slaughter again
I just fear that the most recently online people will be the people which might have money vulnerable and end up losing it more swiftly
and who knows, maybe they'll learn how to bank