Base cap range on more than one variable

Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › Base cap range on more than one variable

randombloke Aug 30, 2012

Basing it solely on 1 statistic (mob size) leaves the door too open for exploits (which I'm sure no one will disagree about). In the old system cap range was based on turf count, which gave players a modicum of the control of their cap range. I can understand the fiscal reasons behind changing that factor, but the way it is now is too one dimensional and overly skewed in the 'balance' of the game.

Before, players could directly manage their cap range by deleting turf. This only hurt their income and was possible as a short term measure. The same is not true for the current situation where one has to delete mob (which is not so easy to get back). That's why it is unbalanced now as opposed to before.

I'm not too sure what the factor should be, but there should be one. And preferably one players have control over so that they can affect to some degree their cap range and maybe even have their cap range based on their actions.
randombloke Aug 30, 2012

Simple solutions are the best, we don't want a situation where you need to be a polymath to work out what your cap range is but there needs to be a different basis for the current system.
😎😎 Aug 31, 2012

I think the range should change whether inf or something else changes it but I think smaller players should still be able to snipe although, the radius difference should be smaller, but I think the smaller guy should always have a longer range, otherwise there's no defense against a bigger player.
randombloke Aug 31, 2012

I appreciate what your saying but I don't think it's fair (on all players) not to be able to have some control over their cap radius. Call it strategy if you will.

At the same time someone with 1 mob could buy a huge turf limit and farm the world to hell and not be capped. How is that fair?

The game has moved on, the mechanics should move along with it.
😎😎 Aug 31, 2012

I could be wrong be wrong but I thought when not in a V the cap radius went by influence. As for in a V I think there should be a max on cap range difference, .1-.2 miles so a sniper has to put in more effort instead of just flooding an area and be uncapable cuz he has such a small mob.
Marilyn Aug 31, 2012

randombloke wrote: At the same time someone with 1 mob could buy a huge turf limit and farm the world to hell and not be capped. How is that fair?

It's fair because even if the turf limit is increased, they would not be able to tax unless they level up, but once leveled up they can be capped should they tax someone.
It seems like a fair strategy to me.

It has advantages and disadvantages
yomama1064 Sep 1, 2012

i agree with random. i was actually surprised when i learned that cap radius was based solely on mob count because thats so easily exploited. i think a combination of mob count and influence should determine cap radius. but its easy to see how unfair this is to bigger players, to have a mob u worked for years to grow and have all your turf getting destroyed by some pipsqueek 2k player who has some big friends.

somethings gotta be changed or added to bring more balance. and that doesnt mean having the same cap radius because the bigger mob will always win.

maybe have individual turf cap radii? the higher the inf on the turf, the farther it can cap others, but also farther others can cap it. basically my only idea, but it would drastically change gameplay and i doubt a lot of others would like it.
The"Accountant" Sep 1, 2012

Maybe level could could also be used, generally aside from mules most of the consistent smaller mobs have a fairly high level.

It could be based the actual turf influence (1-138), level, mob and influence.

Generally mob and level will increase(and reduce cap range over time although I think there should be a ceiling around the equivalent of 80% of the biggest mob) and be fixed but inf can be dropped and the nearest turf can be changed to add some strategy.
BAT SMURF Sep 2, 2012

The"Accountant" wrote:
Maybe level could could also be used, generally aside from mules most of the consistent smaller mobs have a fairly high level.

It could be based the actual turf influence (1-138), level, mob and influence.

Generally mob and level will increase(and reduce cap range over time although I think there should be a ceiling around the equivalent of 80% of the biggest mob) and be fixed but inf can be dropped and the nearest turf can be changed to add some strategy.

I do believe a 1 inf turf is much harder to cap than an 138 inf and that is already in place.
Hardcore Sep 2, 2012

I agree with random and yomama1064. Things need to change with regards to range. One factor isn't good enough anymore.
This game is already run by mule accounts. How easy is it for someone to start a mule, knowing that they only have to mob them up to 3k or so. Then knowing the fact that a 3k mob is deadly on range against the big players, who have spent years mobbing up. Where is the fairness?
randombloke Sep 4, 2012

Wow! I never realised that the smaller mobs knew it was such an unbalanced advantage hence why no comments on the thread. No point rocking the boat whilst the tide is in your favour I guess.

Further proof of the need to base capture range on more than one variable.