Just thinking out loud, we all know that the big ally LB have massive amounts of gold on hand, and can BC easy the next time there are new lands. And its kind of a silly repetitive cycle of build allies, drop allies for lands, and build up allies again. What if the devs made it so you could only own lets say 20, or even 50 allies max. But the kicker is that they come out with new lands that are like 500t per upg. (Maybe 5Q to finish the new lands) Pros: Puts a bigger focus on your actual buildings instead of just towers. Still allows 50 allies and if u own all BC ps1 players, thats still 552m raw stats from allies. Cons: People will complain they want to only do allies. The super rich will finish their new lands a bit earlier than others. And complain. I can understand both sides but this is just me thinking outloud. Post comments here its just a discussion. Thanks bye
No. The last thing we need is more lands destroying the war aspect of kaw even more. Why not just play smurf farm if all people want to do is grow. Build complete and war. Or why play a war game at all ? The reduced ally part yes. Makes more available and people would have to fight over the top allies.
Anytime ppl bring up a nerf to make a game better, I really expect to be convinced it would improve the game or I dismiss it. Simply making a game "harder" is not good game design imo. What would stop players from banking in silver bars? Obviously an innovative gold sink would be preferable to a lazy nerf. Here's a few quick and not thought out ideas so as not to merely say no support, but to add to your discussion. "Talents" that act like spells with a much longer duration (say a month) that add as much stats as a building. Meaning to stay "bc" you'd constantly be sinking gold. "Raids" similar to an eb but much more BA. A hefty buy in fee (hence the gold sink) once complete degrading armor is awarded. Offensive pieces e.g. Sword, off hand have an attack limit before breaking. Defensive pieces have a defense limit before breaking.