The "Value" of Land

Post by **Devari** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:19 pm

Looking through profiles on BFR and WOA, I've noticed a certain disturbing trend; people don't really care about holding on to land. Profiles advertise weaknesses and people will frequently tell their "enemies" what troops they are weak in so that they can run on the land. Essentially, people are not land-greedy, except for the short window of time in which they make their run. In a wargame, I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

Now, the problem of people not defending themselves properly should be at least partially resolved by going through with the plan of nerfing resource storing, but the lack of any real value to land remains. I'd like to use this topic to brainstorm up some ideas about how to make land worth holding, if anyone would like to help me.

An interesting observation is that, in the current resource-stored/troop-stored/worthless land environment, there really isn't much point to a "clan war". People leave gaping holes in their defenses out of habit, so there really isn't much challenge to break. Besides that, there's no real purpose. Besides being worth nothing, land is easily retrieved. Further, all of a good player's resources and troops are tucked away safely, so you can't actually do much in the way of lasting damage to another player.

Now, nerfing storing for both resources and troops in the future is a good step, but shouldn't territory have a lot more use than it currently does? After all, a good portion of the wars in human history (although fueled mostly by greed or ideology) have been at least partially caused by disputes over territory. Further, it's not very "realistic" when one can be attacked down to 10% of their land and rebound with no tangible problems. And, finally, it would be simply rather more fun to actually try and hold on to land (obviously, you need a reason to do this) rather than gather enough for a run, use your turns, and then pass it off to someone else.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:35 pm

Wild idea but maybe make a warehouse purchasable on a certian amount of land for troops to be stored in somehow. However if you get taken below a certian land amount then the warehouse is destroyed with the troops that are being stored in it or maybe it could be captured and the troops could be captured too...

Wild idea as I said but it will get this thread kick started!

Keke · Post by **Keke** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:52 pm

Slasher. That is crazy idea ... I like it

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:09 pm

Slasher. Thats what the Reserve idea was.

As for Devari's point... Where is the plus in holding land? If there was a bonus, I would.

Post by **Devari** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:35 pm

Freeny, that's the whole point of this thread. We need to find a tangible plus in holding land that isn't game-breaking or favouring to one strategy or another.

Slasher, I actually kinda like the idea of tying reserves to land or a special structure! I'm not sure - what does everyone else think? Would Reserves be best as an "automatic" thing for everyone, or should Reserves be tied to land or how much of it you invest in a particular structure type?

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:42 pm

We had a long talk on reserves already.

Post by **Devari** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:49 pm

Enlighten everyone on the contents of it.

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:59 pm

This is the one in the TODO.
http://frostnflame.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2692&hl=Reserve

Anyway. The idea was to make it 25% of current net, 50% upkeep. What I mean by "Current net" I'm talking about the net you have when your filled your reserves. Not that troops are released as your net falls or anything like this. The point of reserves were to give people a small place to store some troops and to also prevent kills/make them harder.

Post by **Ruddertail** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:00 pm

As I mentioned elsewhere, if you make it easier to hold land, all you do is make varying classes of who grabs off who. What you have to do is make it more costly to gain land by grabbing then to either run with current land or scout more.

Slasher & Devari - if you did that, nobody would use the warehouse. I sure wouldn't. Especially in a sustained net server, like WoA... Besides, that would make it far too easy to hurt your enemy. Just whack him to low land.

An interesting observation is that, in the current resource-stored/troop-stored/worthless land environment, there really isn't much point to a "clan war".

Kills.

I'm not opposed to land holding, but you have to be very careful how you accomplish it. Further, I don't think promi lends itself well to land holding, just by its turn - based nature.

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:04 pm

Rudder wrote:'m not opposed to land holding, but you have to be very careful how you accomplish it. Further, I don't think promi lends itself well to land holding, just by its turn - based nature.

Yeah. Unless you can find some sort of bonus or give it some bonus (none that I can think of atm) then its almost an obsolete thing. Infact land has a low net in the game. Above money I think, but nothing else. Increasing its value isn't helpful, nor is decreasing it.

I'm more inclined to hold land when I don't feel like getting as much of it back.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:07 pm

Slasher & Devari - if you did that, nobody would use the warehouse. I sure wouldn't. Especially in a sustained net server, like WoA... Besides, that would make it far too easy to hurt your enemy. Just whack him to low land.

Well, if you could hold enough land to be able to keep your warehouse you purchased, you could shove your troops in it on your next run, make a run then pull them out again

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:12 pm

Slasher wrote:
Slasher & Devari - if you did that, nobody would use the warehouse. I sure wouldn't. Especially in a sustained net server, like WoA... Besides, that would make it far too easy to hurt your enemy. Just whack him to low land.
Well, if you could hold enough land to be able to keep your warehouse you purchased, you could shove your troops in it on your next run, make a run then pull them out again

Whats the bonus in that?

Post by **Devari** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:15 pm

Re: Reserves - Sheesh, it was just a point of discussion to get things moving.

It certainly is an interesting idea, and input on it is a good thing.

I meant a non-kill war, of course. It would be ideal for there to be "classic" clan wars, wherein kills were not particularly prevalent but there was a considerable amount of back-and-forth and jostling for position. Maybe nerfing storage will serve that well, as the troops and resources you have on hand will generally be what you have overall.

I never said land should be easier to hold; I mean that there should be an incentive, a reason to hold it. Thus, this discussion.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:20 pm

Freenhult wrote:
Slasher wrote:
Slasher & Devari - if you did that, nobody would use the warehouse. I sure wouldn't. Especially in a sustained net server, like WoA... Besides, that would make it far too easy to hurt your enemy. Just whack him to low land.
Well, if you could hold enough land to be able to keep your warehouse you purchased, you could shove your troops in it on your next run, make a run then pull them out again
Whats the bonus in that?

Being able to make a run without losing troops due to cash/food loss etc?

Post by **Ruddertail** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:23 pm

Just sell 'em. Or purchase a smaller warehouse.

In any case, it's not worth trying to do something that's likely a loosing proposition - holding land. Plus, as I said, it's too easy for people to hurt you, just by hitting you low, they make you lose the resources you invested in the warehouse.

Frost And Flame Forums

The "Value" of Land

Members connected in real time