Jul 23rd 2014, 15:39:08
bottomfeeding is usually when you farm a country that cannot possibly retal you (also, if they are in a clan, that clan cannot retal you either).
topfeeding is usually when you landgrab someone that has so much land, that when they retal you 1:1, they cannot get back anywhere near as much land as you took from them.
Anything in between is dangerous and usually not worth the grab.
Those are your three choices for landgrabbing and they all suck.
bottomfeeding can result in suiciders, makes people hate the game and quit, makes people hate your clan, usually costs more than it's worth to perform.
topfeeding has been reduced by the stupid Land:Land retal pacts that most clans use now, which means lower countries almost cannot ever catch up to the higher countries.
I think, to stimulate landgrabbing, ghost acres exist. But this is dumb too. How on earth do you magically make acres appear when an attack is made? Now you have people agreeing to mutual terms to landgrab each other, as it ends up benefiting both countries. However, "great minds" have decided that if you do this with people inside your clan, then it's a bad thing (I personally don't see the difference, because, if you do it, you do it, and if you don't, than you don't.) maybe we should create two clans, pact as friends, and landtrade with each other, so the "great minds" will find it acceptable.
The game should be designed so that all landgrabbing hurts the victim, but (to keep the game interesting), encourages the attacker to grab from those closest in size to themself for the most gains.
Maybe make it so that you cannot do a PS or SS without sending tanks and/or troops, as jets simply cannot lay claim to land. The jets could destroy the enemy on the land allowing the troops and tanks to move in and capture the land easier, thereby allowing the attacker to claim more land, but jets alone should not be able to capture land. Also, determine the amount of land captured by the amount of troops and tanks sent. surely a single troop could not capture 100 acres of land. This could make it harder for topfeeding to occur.
I know, this gets a bit complicated, but it makes sense. If I have 1mil jets, 250k troops, and 20k tanks and I attack you. you have 1mil turrets, 100k troops and 10k tanks. I have the gov, allies, tech, etc to break you. I have 7k acres and you have 20k acres.
currently, I send all jets on a PS and I capture some amount of land from you (i dunno the exact amount, but say 3k acres).
let's change this to my idea above. Let's say that it takes 1 tank, or 5 troops to capture 1 acre of land (these may need to be adjusted). If I sent 0 troops and 0 tanks, i capture 0 land. If I sent 10k tanks, i won't capture 10k acres. i would get the max amount for that specific grab, which I supposed would be the 3k that i would have gotten under the current rules.
Another reason why jets shouldn't be able to capture land...jets have no defense in this game. If an army attacks the land that the jets just took, the jets cannot prevent them from taking it. The jets must patrol the skies and wait until the troops, tanks, and turrets arrive to defend the land. Sending troops and tanks with the jets allows a realistic view of how warfare should work.
Anyway, i know this idea won't be implemented. My point here is more on the idea that too many people cry about being topfed or bottomfed. Really, stop the crying and play the game. If you get hit, take your retal, learn from your mistake and don't allow your country to be hit again.
