Forgotten attacks vs no attack servers.

b97cbae3213388ee

This option seems to not matter as far as how fast the first fortress is defeated.
Should forgotten base strength be more for attack servers?
Should all servers be no attacks?

gamerdruid

I would throw in a little extra question on fortresses.

Once the first three fortresses have fallen (using the Championships servers as model, three prizes are given), should the killing of the fortress result in gains for those that participate? By participate I mean those that both inject a virus and shoot at the fortress. Data could easily (famous last words!) be collected and the more runs at the fortress you make the bigger the share of the fortress loot. At present there is no loot so obviously some would have to be introduced. As a result of this the fortress level could rise beyond the existing settings be that a 65, 75 or 80 level world.

Another variation, each time the fortress falls, every forgotten base regenerates +5/+10 higher throughout the world on non-attack worlds. On attack worlds they regenerate +2/+5 higher.

Whilst I don't like forgotten attack worlds I've come to know how to play them to some extent. Some people like them.

A world without attack or malus would get my vote, however that type of world seems part of history now!

b97cbae3213388ee

I myself like forgotten attacks worlds in fact firestorm 21 would have been my example of an optimal challenging and fun server with attacks.
Instead of loot, let a prize be an invite to a championship server class and a certain amount of personal invites to give away?