Printable View
Just wondered what views different Worlds have on capping players?
Does anyone have a no capping rule, if so, how does it work?
Just wondered as many lower level players who get capped constantly and cant defend themselves from higher players end of leaving and that's no good for any of us.
I've seen both. Both end up with the same result, people quit the game.
It makes the game stagnant to have a no cap rule simply because once the top alliances have all the 34/38 NPC's then what do you do? You're stuck with what you have and you will never gain anything.
It also isn't possible to police everyone, every time and alot of the smaller alliances go unnoticed when they cap other small players.
What I've seen happen more than not is once an established world has their top alliances, lower alliance level 42's pummel level 20's because they can't compete with the top alliance level 42's. You can call them whatever name you want, but they play the game they want to play it or quit when they can't. Then you're stuck in the same circle of life.
First We have a 5 level rule in our alliance, we are asked by our lower players to hit players that are hitting them they are often far below that rule so we just lend out some units and a commander to give the attacker a shock, which helps our players but keeps to the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by sporky123
I agree a non capping rule is not going to work on a number of levels as above and the empty base problem if you hit 20 outposts in my world only 1 or 2 at best would have units, as most players don't leave units lying around to be hit. And capping is sometimes the only route to draw a player out, forcing them to defend. Most don't destroy on my world they run it down then leave. And players have to expect getting capped as it is a war game.
On a side note a new event for gree could be defend a base.
Gree drops in new bases all over the map or convert npc bases for the event. I suggest one per player (or 10% less ;) ) and a rule only one can be held per player but a player can boot out any player in an outpost but cannot hold or occupy a second base.
If booted a player can capture any other of the special bases, so if booted by a strong player they can find a new base to hold. If a player attacks and wins if he holds a bases already he can chose which base to keep. So if one is under heavy attack you can retreat to a new base.
alliances get points for the number of bases they control earned on a per second held time scale.
Run this in the tiers system. Capping is the only attack and if the defender loses they get booted, I suggest high rebuild rates for both the attacker and defender. It could be fast and fun if done right.
We've had a no cap rule and never had a problem finding bp. Capping puts the defender in the advantage. They have time to arrange a trap.
Capping is only useful to someone who is going after a known weaker target that can't pull in support.
The use of capping defines the character of the player. You'll know what you're dealing with.
I say bring back the 1.5 caps. A player is able to cap a level 10 CC in 1.5 hours.
Most of our world don't cap it's fine there and all top alliances share the 34s and we share the 38s , idc much for capping I'd rather kill every unit then farm there res . Our worlds still strong we had 4 teams in the top 50 last world event
I have played a game that is what I imagine this one will be like when its out of the beta stage and runs properly where this wasnt an issue
What makes this game such a poor game where capping is concerned is the fact you can only have 10 outposts but then doesnt limit how many of each type you can have
This is then amplified further by there being a relatively tiny amount of the more desireable outposts available
I am sure someone somewhere had some kind of reason for this that was lost the next morning once they sobered up but it would be better if there were more of the 38s for a start, alternatively if each player could only have say 2 of them and maybe 5 34s it would make the capping less of an issue.
So too would putting at least SOME effort into stopping people from having more than one account that they use as some people have 2,3,4 or even more accounts on the go on a server at the same time
Or lastly, just increasing the amounts of all types of outposts and then removing the amount of outposts each account can have would be another option
The other game I played before this one didnt have a limit to how many outposts you could have and that worked fine. And despite having fewer limitations or restrictions never glitched in the entire two years I was playing it
Go figure
I have suggested in the past an upgradable outpost system so any base can be upgraded to add extra hexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ubermik
Either route adding extra super bases, limiting max number of super bases, or mine where players can upgrade their bases. Could all have interesting results in the game
Players already controlling 10 super bases will not like to be forced out of a few of them by the game but if they lost one they could be forced to not be able to retake a new one.
And if they introduced an upgrade system the players could then just upgrade a normal outpost or capture one someone else had upgraded
I would suggest all bases can be upgraded but the max size is limited by the npc bases level
Adding upgrades to base sizes add an extra dynamic to the game as not all bases are the same.
Upgrades could not be limited to just size, iron/oil upgrades, cc upgrades, I would suggest scout reports give intel on a bases upgrades.
Cc upgrades could be things like higher rebuild rates, bonuses on defence, increased building health scores
Removing the max 10 bases rule could be interesting on its own, but it does act as a game leveller and removing it could have some bad side effects on new players.
What game is it you speak of ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ubermik
My alliance had a no cap rule for a long time, we control the majority of supers but enough are in the hands of lower ranking alliances to keep the world competitive. We realized that trying to police the entire world was a bad idea and causing people to quit. Some people will stay other wont like it and start over. Things have stabalized now and we still have lots of active players. The key is to have a strong reasonable leadership in the top alliance who acts to stay in power but still leaves enough supers for other players to compete
To my knowledge World 11 does not have a no capping rule.
Personally I capture if I can, although I prefer to simply wipe out everything in their outpost and move on.