Land Cap

[Tapeyy]

This is a sugestion with the aim of preventing one alliance from running away with the round right from the start and to fix the bashing problem.

I think the solution is a land cap, the max land you can get in the game is 7000 or whatever is a better value. To promote attacking bounty is increased on everyone by 50% or so and keep the current L/F system, if you are honourable the bounty in reduced, if you are dishonourable it is increased.

This way the top cannot just sit on massive land and win after round start. The only way to to get extra funds is through attacking and getting bounty. With this there will be genuine competition as people have to attack. Firstly they have to attack to increase there funds at a faster rate than there rivals, and secondly now you cannot just bash low alliances to outgrow your rivals... you have to attack your rivals, this would become the best way to get bigger than them.

Taking down rank one won't be so hard because they will have similar land and it will be profitable because of the increased bounty. bashing for land will be pointless as the people at the top will have max land and bashing reduces the amount of bounty you get. The fairer the battle the more bounty % you get.

This is a total change of game but best I can come up with. Sure some etas of the troops would need to be thought about as now rushing will be far more domenant and something would have to be done abut poms, both are however workable

A failure of this has been pointed out that everyone will just run from every attack so to counter this I suggest a new unit. I call it the land burner. Its purpose is to make you capped land more important than your troops.

It works like this, Land burners burn land destroying the crops on it and prevent you from planting new ones for X amount of ticks. X is determined by what sort of battle it is, if it is a fair battle and the defender runs the land is burnt for 1 full real life day. however if it is a bash 10 people on one tick type stuff and the defender runs the land gets burned for as little as 6 ticks. Up to 50% of the land can be burnt, the further down you attack the less land the land burners can target, so if you attack at 30% you can only burn 10% of the land but if you attack at 70% you can burn the full amount. In this way It promotes defending when you will be on the losing side, defending your land becomes important as you could lose half your production for a full day by not defending instead of how it currently is where you lose a small amount. One time this won't be so bad, but repeatedly having your land burn will really hurt you. An important not I think a max of 60% of you land can be burnt at one point in time.

The big catch here is that if there is a battle land burners do not work, they need to be unmolested to work. So a certain % of the defender score has to be there in troops or there land gets burned. This is to make sure people who do defend there land vs a reasonable incoming don't get punished by also having there land burnt for a full day. The land burners should also die very easily.

So any thoughts? Any glaring unfixable gaps? Personally for me this games weakness is that there is very little point in attacking those around your score, better is to attack down to get more land to out grow your rivals instead of attacking them, I think this solution fixes this without punishing those at the top, It just means they have to keep working to stay at the top. This makes protecting your land vital or else you find yourself not growing as fast as those around you.

Some things that I think would have to be changed or at least thought about are

etas on so LET because this does in my mind promote rushing
Protester route
land score - you don't want you land keeping you in range of others with far more troops than you when you have none meaning solos physically cannot stop there land getting burnt.
Am I predicting the effects all wrong? How so?

feel free to point out all the other things that will make this far worse than things currently are.

 

[willymchilybily]

i read the first paragraph and had to stop because the suggestion could likely undo so many things that are good about the game. any cap will mean that when that cap is reached by the top alliance they cant grow fine i get that.

but as the second rank alliance gets more land they will eventually reach thier cap too as rank 1 can no longer steal thier acers. so they have no real threats except for bounty.

meaning they can just be contactable and run thier men and score queen the round. and guru/pom kill if possible any seed thiefs. or just grow them as once you reach your cap there is no need to try and stay in range of targets. so in affect it would force score queening and stagnate a round. as each next alliance could reach the cap and not worry about thieves on incomings. until it just becomes a case of who can rewach the cap first and not die during the round. and maybe even score some bounty.

with people having no threat from any incoming if they are contactable the game will become boring and make alliance play essential nearly forcing out the solo play option for inactives.

the only way i could see this being possible is if stealing land still allowed the player being attacked to lose the land even if the attacker was at the cap but simply redistributed it to something like you alliance hq or something.

also a problem may be people hiding at hq. as the attackers will then get no bounty. as if he whole alliance (apart from a few poms on rotation) are at hq even if killed they will not get any bounty for the kill. and take posibly just as many losses as they are about the same size and attacking 15 odd people camped at hq......anyway i should really read the rest of your post so thats all i have to say for now

 

[Alvestein]

i read the first paragraph and had to stop because the suggestion could likely undo so many things that are good about the game. any cap will mean that when that cap is reached by the top alliance they cant grow fine i get that.

but as the second rank alliance gets more land they will eventually reach thier cap too as rank 1 can no longer steal thier acers. so they have no real threats except for bounty.

meaning they can just be contactable and run thier men and score queen the round. and guru/pom kill if possible any seed thiefs. or just grow them as once you reach your cap there is no need to try and stay in range of targets. so in affect it would force score queening and stagnate a round. as each next alliance could reach the cap and not worry about thieves on incomings. until it just becomes a case of who can rewach the cap first and not die during the round. and maybe even score some bounty.

with people having no threat from any incoming if they are contactable the game will become boring and make alliance play essential nearly forcing out the solo play option for inactives.

the only way i could see this being possible is if stealing land still allowed the player being attacked to lose the land even if the attacker was at the cap but simply redistributed it to something like you alliance hq or something.

also a problem may be people hiding at hq. as the attackers will then get no bounty. as if he whole alliance (apart from a few poms on rotation) are at hq even if killed they will not get any bounty for the kill. and take posibly just as many losses as they are about the same size and attacking 15 odd people camped at hq......anyway i should really read the rest of your post so thats all i have to say for now

no because when people reach the land cap its more to do with gaining money/score via bounty hunting. but seeing as bounty hunting is more efficient the closer the target is to your score it will encourage fairer battles as opposed to the bashing that happens nowadays.

I think a problem with the land burners is what if you come up against a route that decimates yours? if you run you lose half your income for the day but if you stay you'll definitely lose all your troops? seems like a lose lose situation :/

 

[Jonny]

I generally like the idea but aside from a lot of work needing to be done to make it work Im afraid it might chang the flavor of the game too greatly.

Figured Id try to make a list of routes which would need major workovers to function. Please note though that every single route would need reworking as land would no longer be the most important thing around.

1)PoMs - Along with the next two these wont be able to bountyhunt which seems to be a major handycap.
2)Extremists
3)Bunkers
4)Puppets - This one may sound odd, but really with everyone massing LETs and attacks vs much weaker being unprofitable, it seems the route will suddenly be majorly underpowered.

 

[Tapeyy]

i read the first paragraph and had to stop because the suggestion could likely undo so many things that are good about the game. any cap will mean that when that cap is reached by the top alliance they cant grow fine i get that.

but as the second rank alliance gets more land they will eventually reach thier cap too as rank 1 can no longer steal thier acers. so they have no real threats except for bounty.

meaning they can just be contactable and run thier men and score queen the round. and guru/pom kill if possible any seed thiefs. or just grow them as once you reach your cap there is no need to try and stay in range of targets. so in affect it would force score queening and stagnate a round. as each next alliance could reach the cap and not worry about thieves on incomings. until it just becomes a case of who can rewach the cap first and not die during the round. and maybe even score some bounty.

with people having no threat from any incoming if they are contactable the game will become boring and make alliance play essential nearly forcing out the solo play option for inactives.

the only way i could see this being possible is if stealing land still allowed the player being attacked to lose the land even if the attacker was at the cap but simply redistributed it to something like you alliance hq or something.

also a problem may be people hiding at hq. as the attackers will then get no bounty. as if he whole alliance (apart from a few poms on rotation) are at hq even if killed they will not get any bounty for the kill. and take posibly just as many losses as they are about the same size and attacking 15 odd people camped at hq......anyway i should really read the rest of your post so thats all i have to say for now

All good objections that I delt with after the first paragraph, someone mentioned this flaw in another thread. I introduce a new unit land burners, read the rest of the post to see what they do.

 

[Tapeyy]

no because when people reach the land cap its more to do with gaining money/score via bounty hunting. but seeing as bounty hunting is more efficient the closer the target is to your score it will encourage fairer battles as opposed to the bashing that happens nowadays.

I think a problem with the land burners is what if you come up against a route that decimates yours? if you run you lose half your income for the day but if you stay you'll definitely lose all your troops? seems like a lose lose situation :/

This is a fair point for solo play, but for alliance play it should be irrelevant. Its not just you that can defend yourself. The point of the land burner is to promote staying and fighting and it does that, if it doesn't the penalty need to be worse. But therer has been alot of criticism that people don't care about protecting there land and troops are all that is important, I think this is valid this is the only way I can see to promote defending your land at all costs. As I said with alliance play I don't think your objection holds water as bashing is dealt with (i hope) and you have others who can fight for you. Solos I wil have to think about more but really im all for encouraging alliance play. Maybe solos land burning is not as long as an alliances? but really the point is to stop people runing or atleast make running a hard choice.

 

[Tapeyy]

I generally like the idea but aside from a lot of work needing to be done to make it work Im afraid it might chang the flavor of the game too greatly.

personally i agree, but with the fast shrinking player base maybe a big change is needed.?

Figured Id try to make a list of routes which would need major workovers to function. Please note though that every single route would need reworking as land would no longer be the most important thing around.

1)PoMs - Along with the next two these wont be able to bountyhunt which seems to be a major handycap.
2)Extremists
3)Bunkers
4)Puppets - This one may sound odd, but really with everyone massing LETs and attacks vs much weaker being unprofitable, it seems the route will suddenly be majorly underpowered.

I disagree land is very very important, losing 50% productivity for a day is far worse than losing a little land. But yes I agree there would need to be changes to units, poms really would need some kind of bounty hunting, call it ransomind distracted/disabled units at a slightly lower rate.

 

[alwaysnumb]

sounds too complicated

 

[Alvestein]

sounds too complicated

have you played bushtarion?

 

[alwaysnumb]

sounds too complicated

have you played bushtarion?

What I mean is to implement this change requires many other changes to way the game works so wont ever happen. Probly an absolute ton of coding for something that may not even work

Theres must be plenty of simpler ways to reduce the top allie lead that are far simpler and dont change overall game play.

 

[Elevnos]

I generally like the idea but aside from a lot of work needing to be done to make it work Im afraid it might chang the flavor of the game too greatly.

Figured Id try to make a list of routes which would need major workovers to function. Please note though that every single route would need reworking as land would no longer be the most important thing around.

1)PoMs - Along with the next two these wont be able to bountyhunt which seems to be a major handycap.
2)Extremists
3)Bunkers
4)Puppets - This one may sound odd, but really with everyone massing LETs and attacks vs much weaker being unprofitable, it seems the route will suddenly be majorly underpowered.

You can't give PoMs the ability to bounty hunt because they're so strong, that is the sacrifice when deciding to go the route as hardly anything in the game can kill them properly.

 

[Walking_Death]

I generally like the idea but aside from a lot of work needing to be done to make it work Im afraid it might chang the flavor of the game too greatly.

Figured Id try to make a list of routes which would need major workovers to function. Please note though that every single route would need reworking as land would no longer be the most important thing around.

1)PoMs - Along with the next two these wont be able to bountyhunt which seems to be a major handycap.
2)Extremists
3)Bunkers
4)Puppets - This one may sound odd, but really with everyone massing LETs and attacks vs much weaker being unprofitable, it seems the route will suddenly be majorly underpowered.

You can't give PoMs the ability to bounty hunt because they're so strong, that is the sacrifice when deciding to go the route as hardly anything in the game can kill them properly.

uhh the whole point of this topic is that you would. That's why they'd REWORK them.

 

[Tapeyy]

sounds too complicated

have you played bushtarion?

What I mean is to implement this change requires many other changes to way the game works so wont ever happen. Probly an absolute ton of coding for something that may not even work

Theres must be plenty of simpler ways to reduce the top allie lead that are far simpler and dont change overall game play.

Well feel free to show us the way that doesn't punish the top people for been successful and doesn't ruin the game for everyone. If it was that simple it would of been done already. But as I see it the problem is there are 20 people who are more dedicated than the rest for that round and because the game allows it they win after a few days. So we have 2 options, say thats cool they deserve to win which they do or change the game so it doesn't punish them but just makes it harder to increase your score quickly. The only other way I can see of doing that is to make the minimum range you can attack at 70%, I don't like that hitler style of doing things my suggestion just removes the need to attack at the lower ranges.

I agree it is very possibly to big a change to implement, but I don't know to much about coding so all I can do is make the suggestion and leave that for others to decided.

 

[nopjes]

Remove land score,
Remove getting score from cash again,
Increase minimum attack range,
Make it so that if you die to a much bigger target without firing, you still get a shitload of honour.
Make bounty % score dependant, not just max for 70% but build it up till 200% makes 40% bounty or so
Increase Adrenaline rush eta boost, or lower % lof your score requirements for it


I personally like the last one best

 

[Davs]

Remove land score,

No.

Remove getting score from cash again,

You've always got score from cash, it just used to be a lot lower. It led to score queening. No.

Increase minimum attack range,

No real issues with this except that you'll only increase the boredom of those at the top.

Make it so that if you die to a much bigger target without firing, you still get a shitload of honour.

Again, I have no problems with this. Although you could argue that it isn't really honourable being absolutely devastated, just unfortunate/stupid for those who are online. I can see this being easily abused by people whoring l/f (suiciding on the top etc).

Make bounty % score dependant, not just max for 70% but build it up till 200% makes 40% bounty or so

Hmm... no.

Increase Adrenaline rush eta boost, or lower % lof your score requirements for it

If the eta boost was increased, the top would get some horrific rushes (moreso than they already get). People could send SAs so that they'd appear at atf3 - theoretically not the end of the world, but could do a lot of damage to the right routes. Not to mention the fact that people are already pissed off by RPG rushes doing the same thing. If the % was lowered, then bigger people could get the stupid bonus bounty, and would be capable of doing more damage. You'd think I'd be all for this as I always play lower in the ranks, but all it'll do is make the top ***** and moan more and get fed up of playing competitively, making the current "lack of competition" problem worse.

I personally like the last one best

You shouldn't.

 

[nopjes]

Remove land score,

No.

Remove getting score from cash again,

You've always got score from cash, it just used to be a lot lower. It led to score queening. No.

Increase minimum attack range,

No real issues with this except that you'll only increase the boredom of those at the top.

Make it so that if you die to a much bigger target without firing, you still get a shitload of honour.

Again, I have no problems with this. Although you could argue that it isn't really honourable being absolutely devastated, just unfortunate/stupid for those who are online. I can see this being easily abused by people whoring l/f (suiciding on the top etc).

Make bounty % score dependant, not just max for 70% but build it up till 200% makes 40% bounty or so

Hmm... no.

Increase Adrenaline rush eta boost, or lower % lof your score requirements for it

If the eta boost was increased, the top would get some horrific rushes (moreso than they already get). People could send SAs so that they'd appear at atf3 - theoretically not the end of the world, but could do a lot of damage to the right routes. Not to mention the fact that people are already pissed off by RPG rushes doing the same thing. If the % was lowered, then bigger people could get the stupid bonus bounty, and would be capable of doing more damage. You'd think I'd be all for this as I always play lower in the ranks, but all it'll do is make the top ***** and moan more and get fed up of playing competitively, making the current "lack of competition" problem worse.

I personally like the last one best

You shouldn't.

1,

I think this would make things more competative, lower ranks gain land more easyer and the top would have to be actively attacking to keep them small, this makes lower rankings a bit of an advantage without rushing or whatsoever, this can't be done in combination with suggestion 2 ofc.

2,

You got like no score from cash back then. and you could always have a bit of a reserve, so beeing zeroed was less anoying.

3,

= less targets on one side, less bashing on the other, it's hard to find the perfect balance I'd go a bit more towards less bashing atm

4,

true, but it's not reality based. this would compensate things a bit and if you fire just a little, you get a shitload of honour(iirc) and if you don't fire you get nothing atm

5,

well, that's the price you gotta pay for making the top pull away less fast.
and a bit of a "playermade score cap" then

 

[Davs]

1,

I think this would make things more competative, lower ranks gain land more easyer and the top would have to be actively attacking to keep them small, this makes lower rankings a bit of an advantage without rushing or whatsoever, this can't be done in combination with suggestion 2 ofc.

It'll make people care about losing troops even more than they already do, so there will be fewer "decent" BRs and just a lot more bashing.

2,

You got like no score from cash back then. and you could always have a bit of a reserve, so beeing zeroed was less anoying.

Yeh, and people could save money for the entire round, stay nice and small, and then spend it all on gardeners on the last tick of the round and finish with a portal spot...

3,

= less targets on one side, less bashing on the other, it's hard to find the perfect balance I'd go a bit more towards less bashing atm

As I said, I have no real issues with that change, but I'm more indifferent to it than in favour of it.

4,

true, but it's not reality based. this would compensate things a bit and if you fire just a little, you get a shitload of honour(iirc) and if you don't fire you get nothing atm

Again, I'm just indifferent to this, not sure whether it'll be a good or bad thing (for the reasoning I've already said)

5,

well, that's the price you gotta pay for making the top pull away less fast.
and a bit of a "playermade score cap" then

Given how people have already complained about how people can current suicide all of their troops on someone a lot larger than them due to bonuses from adren rushes and still make a profit - this will only make that problem worse.

 

[Dax]

<General points that resemble correctness>

Stop being so damn right. I wanted to have a go
But in all seriousness, I think H/F does need a minor tweak. There's no way you can work off a negative title once you get to the 13/16% margin. Obviously I'll keep that point updated, as that is my little task for the round. It would be slightly unfair if you make it near impossible for people to get their green titles after having a red one originally.

 

[Zaheen]

There's no way you can work off a negative title once you get to the 13/16% margin...

It's like a thief in real life, it'll take much longer than 1 year to clear his name, he would have to prove himself year after year (yes I know this is just a game...)

I'm sure them titles were there to prevent somebody bashing, and not redeeming themselves after they've done it. I've never had a red title before (actually, I got one in a prviate world once, but like there was only 5-10 targets so...), and I do bash the same target over and over if they annoy me enough, but the point is you make sure you have enough points you can waste first =]

P.S. Didn't mean to go off-topic.