CFalcon
03-04-2008, 09:19 PM
Now firstly, before anyone replies, read this next sentence. I do not expect this to be either immediately or possibly ever implemented. This suggestions thread is a thread to bounce ideas around, explore the merits and faults of the suggestion and the various effects it would have on the game. Replies of the nature "never gonna happen, stfu" are not welcome. I'm not interested in whether it's ever going to happen. I'm interested in how people think it might turn out. Thank you.
It's quite simple really. We stop anyone having more than 10k (or somewhere around there) land. You see limits in the number of buildings and units you can have in many games to stop one player or team becoming unstoppable. Those limits are there to keep the game open and to make it possible for someone to come back from nothing and have a fighting chance. So why not apply it to bush.
The effects would be obvious:
The top would not be able to run away on land, so the round would stay open alot longer, possibly til the very end.
The game would become more troop and battle based. The round would be won by having the most troops and by using them to the best advantage. It would no longer be won by who could flak the most people in their 40% range. The effectiveness ranking would also actually start to mean something, rather than being the "well that's quite interesting" rank.
Perhaps some system could be put in place where, once at 10k, rather than stealing someones acres, you receive a bounty for the acres you steal from an opponent. That should satisfy those missing bounty. It would also limit the old arguement against bounty that it only involved rushing stealth or fast troops at someone who is weak against you.
Those are only three changes, but they are all massive changes, that I think pin down the reasons most people are disatisfied with the game at the moment, namely that its all about land, that bounty has gone, and that the top always runs away (this hasn't been such a hot topic lately, but still).
I'm struggling to think of any negative effects to be honest.
The top might get bored once at 10k?
But then they won't be growing so much out of range so they'll still be having battles.
What reason would there be to attack once at 10k?
The bounty for stealing would mean there would still be an incentive to launch landing attacks. Also, killing troops rather than stealing would become crucial in alliance wars.
It will stop the top growing out of range so the mid ranks will receive more punishment?
Maybe, but they'll also have to contend with each other more, so I don't think so.
Someone please add some more *constructive* critiscisms before I start thinking this is the most awesome idea ever.
It's quite simple really. We stop anyone having more than 10k (or somewhere around there) land. You see limits in the number of buildings and units you can have in many games to stop one player or team becoming unstoppable. Those limits are there to keep the game open and to make it possible for someone to come back from nothing and have a fighting chance. So why not apply it to bush.
The effects would be obvious:
The top would not be able to run away on land, so the round would stay open alot longer, possibly til the very end.
The game would become more troop and battle based. The round would be won by having the most troops and by using them to the best advantage. It would no longer be won by who could flak the most people in their 40% range. The effectiveness ranking would also actually start to mean something, rather than being the "well that's quite interesting" rank.
Perhaps some system could be put in place where, once at 10k, rather than stealing someones acres, you receive a bounty for the acres you steal from an opponent. That should satisfy those missing bounty. It would also limit the old arguement against bounty that it only involved rushing stealth or fast troops at someone who is weak against you.
Those are only three changes, but they are all massive changes, that I think pin down the reasons most people are disatisfied with the game at the moment, namely that its all about land, that bounty has gone, and that the top always runs away (this hasn't been such a hot topic lately, but still).
I'm struggling to think of any negative effects to be honest.
The top might get bored once at 10k?
But then they won't be growing so much out of range so they'll still be having battles.
What reason would there be to attack once at 10k?
The bounty for stealing would mean there would still be an incentive to launch landing attacks. Also, killing troops rather than stealing would become crucial in alliance wars.
It will stop the top growing out of range so the mid ranks will receive more punishment?
Maybe, but they'll also have to contend with each other more, so I don't think so.
Someone please add some more *constructive* critiscisms before I start thinking this is the most awesome idea ever.