Why would they make it 20, that's even worse, so only the very top guys get good stuff lol. They should make it available for everyone and make more then one SS plunder cost ingots or remove the ingot cost from convoys.

now you're just being *...you really got no ideea what programing is and how it works...you got any ideea what adding minus to programing would do????you will get 5 bugs for every 2 steps taken

I am sorry if I offended anybody, but please guys i got 1 request...Before coming and complaining about 1 thing, find a solution yourselves, and after you do that, try to imagine what your solution would mean, all the factors that it will change, or else you would risk to be considered 10 year olds that just like to complain because....well because that's how 10 years old are

nothing need to change , i'm pure f2p and i rank 6th on my server , if u cant make it to the top 50 then u shouldn't play and those coupons are amazing for me , if anything need to change is making convoyer could do 4 SS missions without consuming ingots , this way rhe plundrer will get 150 cp and the convoyer 120 cp

Just so you know, there is not really risks for Wanted players. Cause there is tricks.
If you see you'll lose, just restart the game, that'll don't count as a lost fight, so no coins penalty.
If you already have zero coins, no need to care about challenge, if they win, they'll gain zero coins lol
If you can't challenge a red player cause he's in a party, no prolem, make a party too, and click on the leader of the party which have wanted player(s).
A wanted player will lose his red name after 3 fights, results are irrelevant.

Interesting, nothing popped up when I clicked on them.

So instead of insulting people how about practice what you preach. People wanted a solution, I gave one, I didn't complain out it.

Personally there needs to be something in the plunder that says IF YOU LOSE, YOU WILL LOSE COINS. Someone lost 80k in one fight, that means in total you could lose 240k a day. It should have clear wording for what happens to when wanted.

So here's my take on convoy and plunder.
YES currently the system is quite inbalanced and favor the strong and big spenders. Only the strong would consider plunder because they can guarenteed to win in any fights whatsoever. In my server, most plunderers are super strong and normal people cannot take them out. I'm ranked 6-7? The top 5 players normally do plunder while the rest do convoy. All people in the top 5 belongs to 1 guild (and they only plunder our group). The friend help doesn't work at all because a ranked 6 would always lose to ranked 5 and 2nd round a ranked XYZ would always lose to a ranked 5 fully healed.
What they should do is make the friend fight ALONGSIDE with you so it's a 2 vs 1 and there's a chance to win against a plunder. (Indirectly forces the plunderers who are just slightly better th* but can't fight a 2 vs 1 to give up and just do convoy).

This post was last edited by sai***@gmail.com at 2017-1-9 12:32

Sorry to disagree with ya... or rather kinda agree...
If it were to be set so the Runners could 2v1 it'd have to be rebalanced, say have the partner in 2v1 nerfed like a secondary ranked battle team -25% etc. It would give a fighting chance without making them potentially unplunderable as 2 full lvl 70's against a 80 could too often lead to the *s winning, but with a slight minor handicapped you give the * a fighting chance without them having too high of a win margin.

As for getting plundered throughout the day outside of the mission... If your smart about how you play it shouldn't be an issue. sure you need to be a bit of a scardy cat but would you as a lone genin wander a warring state with a bounty on your head and expect not to be attacked? It's not perfect but it could be much worse. This post was last edited by Rikanisu at 2017-1-9 13:35

Due to the way * works thou, at the very best it will be enough to * some of the SS in the group safely, the top X player of your group providing * to the to 3X of the group, including between themselves.
Therefore, the plunderer would still have almost free reign on S, just a limited SS pool to somewhat diminish their income, that would actually be far more balanced. It won't exactly do to make plunderer plunder all the SS from the weakest players after all(even with *), instead, something that make them plunder a few SS from the weakest and then S from the strongish would make more sense.

Of course, if there is a more lax * limit, then full 2v1 would be a problem.

Whether or not two weaker team can take out a stronger one depend on team compo as much as relative power. Generally speaking, you can reach a bigger gap with more control style teams on the weaker side, because between two teams, it would be roughly possible to fully cc one team and grind him down. As far as full frontal assault team goes, strength plays a much bigger part. There are ptws that c*most wipe me out by end of turn 2 and I can barely damage one of his char pass half way by end of battle(thou my mysteries are AoE, so it's usually like 20-55% damage on everything), and I'm a 85 with up to 40k power. I seriously doubt he'd have any issue killing two lv 80s if they don't completely cc him to death.
I really don't expect most people to start making */convoy specific teams so they can 2v1 more effectively.

Ptfff, how to fix this problem? Here is a solution :
Remove ingot cost for SS mission convoy.
Change plunder so only top 20 can do it or even top 10 is ok.

To people who gonna say why top 20 get more reward than everyone else? Well, because there is reason for them to be top 20 maybe? They're better than you, they're richer than you, they're spending more time and effort into the game than you, etc...

Then how does one ever get to * it to the plunderers and claim the bounty?

To be 100% honest, I think its a cowardly move (Just to keep from cursing about this) to plunder someone and then hide in base all day or hide in a team with a Non-wanted captain. I mean you just took something from someone automatically and got 150 coupons daily to do so. The least you could do is not hide like a little (Expletive).

Amirite?

Umm pay more? Or just be active and hope someone from the top will become lazy and eventually fall off.
You just can't expect others to stop growing so you can reach to the top easily. It may take 1 month, 2 months or even year for that to happen. But it's what it is, people who paid and people who put more effort into the game should be reward more than those who don't, that's how the game work. Every reward are placed behind ranking wall.

For those who still beg for "balance" and "fairness" from an activity that's literally called "convoy and plunder": https://youtu.be/N3472Q6kvg0

well anyone can just boost their bp with 5* nins just to be on top so...

So it's fair :v Because anyone can do it

I don't think only letting the top 10-20 would be the best option, especially 10. It kind of locks certain features of the game from current C2P & F2P players who were smart enough to invest their resources to acquire a high ranking. Although the option to get more coupons without spending ingots would be a great idea. Top 50 should allow for a decent amount of servers to have all three types of players at the top. How to balance the plunder? Ask a game designer.

It's true that those who are smart or those who pay should be rewarded for their efforts, but you can't have a game like this without throwing a bone to the C2P & F2P people playing because the game kind of needs them to be brutally destroyed by whales to keep the whales happy so they'll continue paying more. If everyone but the whales are neglected, then the whales gonna quit because whales won't be happy fighting other whales who have whaled more. Gotta think about the money, because money makes the world go round.

Umm, I'm rank 1 and I can see how the current setup there is no way for the victims or any group to take me down. Kouka I believe a system needs to be in place that makes it so there is a chance of actually being able to succeed or else there really is no downside to ever plunder. More reward vs more risk doesn't exist.