Melni you need to put some extra tought when suggesting that, it's more than attacker vs target 1:1.
What if the target gets massive defence ? How is that influencing cap and insurance? What if one huge attacker is breast feeding a small member, he won't take damage and the small member should get a full grab or a small grab ? What if the big player recalls last tick ? What if a big player just sends mobs on small players to affect the injuries and landcaps on legit attacks ? Or what if a big player doesn't care about the land gains and just wants to zero an allied player 10% because it's funny to kill somebody without taking damage back. Sure the guy gets insurance but he is useless for many ticks and if a "honorable" attack follows the alliance won't have his troops there to help defend. What about waves etc ..
Ahh good old l/f
All this is in tandem with the fairness calc i'll try to address them one at a time
What if the target gets massive defence ? i see no difference from now tbh? if im attacking at 30% or 10% remember DS i started playing this game and got addicted to it when the limit was 10% if your attacking someone 30% your size and the target gets massive defense you land is still capped as is bounty etc this is merely an extension of it
What if one huge attacker is breast feeding a small member, he won't take damage and the small member should get a full grab or a small grab ? Multiple attackers constitutes an unfair attack if one or both is bigger so the cap is based on total incoming not individual mobs
What if the big player recalls last tick ? what happens now? again its just an extension of the present system but tbh if this is the case then he player has 83% injuries under my proposed system just now he has 33% so id say being opened up to more potential attackers is more than compensated for by the increased protection
What if a big player just sends mobs on small players to affect the injuries and landcaps on legit attacks ? depends if its mutual or not if its mutual its against the rules if its just someone being a tard what can you do lol it happens just now on solos etc again its not a problem created by my idea this exists already if you have ideas how to address it i and the rest of the playerbase would gladly welcome them
Or what if a big player doesn't care about the land gains and just wants to zero an allied player 10% because it's funny to kill somebody without taking damage back. Sure the guy gets insurance but he is useless for many ticks and if a "honorable" attack follows the alliance won't have his troops there to help defend. What about waves etc .. Again not a problem created by this idea instead one that already exists especially at the 30% range yes theres people that will do it for 'giggles' but id rather someone 10 times my score did it and i lost 4% land and got 83% insurance than someone 3 1/3 times my size that i lost 10% land to and only gained 33% insurance
I understand all your concerns but i dont honestly see how this idea causes any of these issues in fact i think it'll have the opposite effect it provides more security from bashes in the form of stricter land caps and better insurance while opening up more targets for EVERYONE, more targets means more battles, more battles equals more fun, more fun hopefully equals more players something i know you personally have campaigned long and hard for...
seriously if your a vamp for example in the top 100 you may only have 20-30 possible s/o targets if you open up the range to 10% with added protection you'll increase this to at least 70+ targets this i believe will help alliances/solos to stay involved defeats wont be as crushing as they are at present so less chance of people quitting after a REAL bash as they'll have more troops and land to bounce back all in all i know im biased as its my idea but ask yourself this question will this suggestion affect the 'GAME' in a positive or negative fashion? i believe for the reasons listed it will be a positive thing ofc i respect your opinion but i feel your being harshly negative.
