Originally
posted by
TAN:
You make some good points, but aren't you worried that it would lead to a decline in non-landtrading landgrabbing, thus ending in a Fukuyama-like "end of landgrabbing" scenario? I mean if you have an infinite source of land just within your own alliance, what's the point of landgrabbing outside of it? And then the game will reach a point of complete isolationism - why even have relations with other alliances when you'll never give any alliance a real impetus to attack/war you since interactivity will be minimized, or even gone altogether?
That is an issue that could come up and while I am in favor of land-trading I'm not in favor of intra-alliance land trading. There is a slight but distinctive difference between the two. The sort of land-trading I'm in favor of, at least at this current moment in the game, is the cross alliance friendly trading but not so mapped out trading.
I'd like to also point out there is never an "infinite source of land" because of C:C DR that never expires for a set. While there may be a huge potential for land generation between two countries it is limited and isn't infinite in nature.
I'd also like to point out that anyone who grabs someone and knows they can retal is land trading whether or not they admit it. Why would you attack someone if you knew they could retal you back? Well to gain ghost acres: that's land trading in its most basic concept. So the art of "forced land trading" is a skill many still suck at, but its there you just got to look for it.
So what does that leave us with?
1. explore
2. bottom feed
3. mid/top feed
4. land trading
There are pro's and con's of each, but one thing is for sure as long as there is ghost acres in the game there will be land trading of some sort in this game.