#6 is 300k force limit, which means that a single beacon attack could be done with 1-2 billion offense with current food consumption reduction abilities.

Is this really what the #6 voters want?

option #6

2. 

Option 2   my understanding of this it's per attack

Option 6

I vote # 6 option

Too low of force limit will ruin the game just as much as no force limit. People will have a false sense of security, defend too low and they will be slaughtered like the last reckoning.

We need to make this a league game, a team game. We now have league activity (Not sure if it is activity or login) so if we want activity and a team based game lets address that issue. 

We have two sides campaigning for the opposite limits, neither choice will fix the problem IMHO.

Lets increase the amount of members to a league attack and make it equal amounts from each player. 

requires more planning, more teamwork and limits the handful of elite spenders from making such a big impact on the game.

This is called a league strike so my vote, none of the above

If you do not pay attention you will  further cripple this game and let the few rule. The problem is the food on the new units, double the power and a third the food.

Crowned Knight 

Harpy 

Do the math on above with whatever force limit you choose

We can't build them so only the people spending can get these and some have bought a bunch of these. 

If it were me and I had 4500 of these new units I would vote for a low force limit, wait for people to level their beacons and get all cozy feeling safe with these new limits  and when the big XP or PvP event comes on, wipe the map out again and collect my 150k sapps for winning 1st 

I didn't do the math but I am guessing this is close to the 250k FL

The Devil is in the Details and if you want to fix the game, limit the individual force limit, move this back to a team effort and fix the food consumption of new units that only can be bought.

What was the reason for creating Force Limits based on food consumption rather than just limiting attacks based on the offensive attach strength?  It seems confusion over this issue complicates this discussion and as pointed out by TheFray, has resulted in a serious design issue that endangers fortresses as well as beacons.

I vote for option #2. Reason for this: Is it gives the smaller leagues and players a fighting chance in this game. With out these leagues and players the game would not last. A lot of us spend a lot of cash on this game that's fine and dandy but with out these non coiners we are nothing. It takes membership in a game to make it great.

option 6

option 6

option 2

In my opinion anything above 20% of the lowest current level 5 beacon is to much.  The big coiners should have to work to take a beacon not buy their way in.  I bet you are losing players that are not big coiners.  You might even consider cutting the bottom level down to 50k.  that would require multiple attacks on a beacon by the same player or league. 

I understand the big coiners really want to be able to ruin the little guys in one hit.  Your big revenue would be many ( 200k or 300k) little players spending $10 or $20 per month if you gave them a chance.

I think you currently rely on 400 or 500 players willing to spend $200+ per month.

Option #2     How many players can actually send that much.   How about a limit of 25k, I can actually imagine getting that much.  The more I see new stuff arrive the more I realize you only want players who spend well over 100 per month.  The rest of us can  just go away and you will not even notice the revenue difference.

Devs need to review The Fray's comments and clarify force limit/league strike.  Then set this up as a proper poll.

Option 6

Option 6

I vote for option 2

Option 6 without a doubt!

Option6 is fair

Definitely option 6

option 4