CFALCON'S AWESOME CAP IDEA

[Garrett]

CFalcon had a really good post in a gripe thread. Why keep worrying about reducing land grabs... you want to discourage lower bashing... well why not incent to bash upwards?

CFalcon:
I've been stealing in the 50-60% range and been getting reasonable steals. That said I have seen some ridiculous caps on some allys' attacks, so some tweaking and bug checking wouldn't go amiss, but in general it's alright. I think a better incentive not not bash would be a carrot rather than a stick though. Maybe an increase in possible steal for hitting above 100%?

so, why not? instead of every change discouraging this and that, lets encourage some this and some that.

one proposal which is just quick and off the cuff is increase it ever so slightly... if you are attacking 100.01% of your score up to (but not including) -1 eta mod due to adrenal rush, -1 up to but not including -2 eta, and then -2 eta and beyond.... like so

100.01% up to -1 adrenal = 1% increase
(or if 1% isn't enough like 1.5 or 1.75, but make it a 115% attack range up to -1 adrenal)
(115% up to -1 adrenal = 1.75%
-1 to -2 = 2.25% (or 2.85%) increase
-2 and beyond = 3.75% (or up to 5%) increase

This would rally larger resistances - go for crazy go nuts suicides for the glory of it further into the round, etc etc. pulled % increases out of my ass, but also i don't think they should be overly high... at most anyone should lose is 20% of their land and that is saying quite a bit especially if they are high enough for a player to have a -2 adrenal boost against em making defense harder to do.

I think the landcap should probably not be as harsh and slightly more dynamic, but I honestly have no complaints about the land cap merely cuz i'm not measuring, nor am I caring about it since I shouldn't be playing this round anyway.

[CFalcon]

My name's on the thread, so I have to agree.

But seriously, incentives are better than punishments. Back when hounour and fame were introduced we briefly had units for getting lots of honour. That made me try to play honourably, to get those units, even though they were crap, they were something to play for. As soon as those went, I gave up on honour/law/whatever. I'll grin and bare a punishment, but I'll only change my style for a tangible reward, something to achieve. Merely avoiding a punishment is not an achievement.

That said, I'm not against the land cap for hitting people much smaller than you, but from what I've seen it isn't perfect yet.

To the details; adrenaline rush would be a good guideline to go by, although perhaps a sliding scale rather than grade boundaries would be better. Also perhaps a further bonus if you're attacking someone you could rush, but you don't rush?

Edit: it would also have to be different to the current land cap, in that it would have to apply equally to and take into account all attackers, otherwise you have a big guy hitting another big guy, and a tiny guy piggying and stealing huge amounts of land.

[Reub]

I'm all for this idea. Especially after what Garrett said about larger resitances etc. I believe it would make the game more fun for all.. Yes ofc the top alliance at the time wouldnt really use this, but the rest of the game would, i think 100% it would increase the limit in which people attack at. As Cfalcon said, people would be much more willing to do somethong for a reward rather than not to something to avoid a punishment.

[Saints]

i like this idea so its like bashing upwards u get a reward :D me like, becuz it is a lot harder

[DarkSider]

I'm all up for incentives to attack and indirect "punishments" for unlawfull play. I really dislike when the game forces you to attack at one level in certain circumstances else <insert big punishment here>. I also sugested to leave the normal caps for attacking low but in alliance wars, as long as your oponent is over let's say 90% of your score you can get increased land caps on them.
Bring back l/f and bounty :(

[antisback]

I like this idea

Curently all thats happening is people are going back to the same target 3 or 4 times to get their lands worth as they put it, surely thats not what the game wants.

Punish someone for something and they do it even more, encourage someone to do something else and they'll change their minds!

[Melnibone]

Punish someone for something and they do it even more, encourage someone to do something else and they'll change their minds!

Hehe wrong if someone says to me you can hit 3 targets at 30% of your score gaining 15% of each of their land or take 15+5% of someone bigger than you im going to say hell no and take the more abundant 3x15% land from my 3 30% targets instead of one lesser grab from a larger player. Also every attack no matter how well planned has a chance to fail why put all your eggs in one basket so to speak when you can spread the risk over 3 smaller targets???

Again another knee jerk reaction, what of the larger players why should they have more of their land stolen for being better players and therefore more highly ranked? complete and utter tosh all of this

Attack at 80%, why is that so hard sure sometimes someone sends close to you and you get a lesser grab, so what?? its bad luck and whether you like it or not bush like 99% of things in life recquires luck as well as skill. Good players can steal at 30% or 80% simple as.....

I am soooooo getting pissed off with people in this game simply because they cannot decide what they want

Now after all that ranting i love this idea to reward those who attack higher BUT and its a big but it needs to be put in with the current land caps as it will give so much more variety to the game

Attack at 30-79% you get poor land
Attack at 80-110% you get normal land
Attack at 110%+ you get great land

Will bring so much skill and tactical choice to the game, will give people options at the same time as giving bash protection to the lower players but not to the top, the top can get there but can not pull ahead too far easily as they will have lower targets will allow rounds to flow and change more

Once the landcap is tweaked and like any new system it needs to be maybe dropped to 70% it will be great but i think this suggestion is a good addition to it

[f0xx]

The problem is that its not the same for every route. For example there are some routes like poms which can stay at gurus for the whole round avoiding the cap gaining quite a huge advantage, others who can attack with pure flak only are in quite an extreme disadvantage, also the cap system still needs quite a lot of work on it...

For me this is just another not well considered and not tested change...

[Azzer]

In response to f0xx, I think one of the changes that's needed is to perhaps make the land cap based on the global development multiplier, rather than each individulas own developments... which would basically and purely mean - at round start the land cap isn't there, and past the early wars it is there. It would depend on future tweaks to the development multiplier, but for example this round if it had "kicked in" on a global scale when the dev multiplier hit 2, it probably would have made sense?

[DarkSider]

Tbh i really don't understand why land cap can't be set in stone at same level full round. Just make wheelies have same raport between full grab and lowest grab as geos (used to be 5-15% for geos so keep same efficiency for wheelies and make it 4-12%). It might be even more fun if higher alliances instead rushing to use their first day advantage to send lots of flak at ppl low ranked with no defence, they'll see a good oportunity to take on someody worthy of a challange. It adds a bit more strategy to the game if there is something else than keeping your flak count over target's max amount of basics. And with the acres gained you can keep the ratio of flak to their defence superior .. it's a circle. Only first day when valuation doubles every few hours/ticks might look weird, but over ~500 acres where it's worth to start attaking, valuation won't have so big fluctuations.

[Augustus]

I agree that some incentive is needed to attack 'lawfully' rather than just punishing 'unlawful' attacks. Im not sure the incentive of land will be enough as it is effectively just an extension of the current land cap. What this incentive could be Im unsure of, with the removal of bounty and effectiveness there isnt much that can be offered. maybe a cash bonus only given when you land on a lawful attack. This would avoid the old LET rushes and shut up all the old Bounty fans simultaneously.