Originally Posted by Malorn
Fulfilling one intent at the expense of the others isn't success.
|
There is nothing inherent about a soft cap that would hurt the ability to have an economy based on territory control. No expense would have to be paid for a soft cap if balanced appropriately.
Originally Posted by Malorn
Having a cap on resources doesn't make the reward worthless. Players adapt and change spending habits so that the cap isn't an issue.
|
Having a cap on reward doesn't make the reward worthless until you hit the hard cap. Then the resource is providing you with no return. The same thing would happen with a soft cap, but the cut off would be a gentler curve instead of a hard wall.
You still haven't made a case for the virtues of why a hard cap is superior to a soft cap. A hard cap could have all of the same problems as a soft cap if it were balanced poorly, so I think it goes without saying that either a hard or a soft cap would have to be well balanced.
We're just about at the point of derailing the thread. I think we can both safely say we are on the side of having some kind of cap on resources. Will the game be hurt terribly if that is a hard cap? No, not at all. I think it would be better with a soft cap, but it would really still be fine either way. I get the impression you feel like it would either be a complete waste of time, or that it would be less balanced than a hard cap. Maybe both. The way I see it, a soft cap would be very easy to implement, and would be barely any more difficult to balance, while adding the (marginal) benefits I have expressed previously.
So I ask again. What makes a balanced hard cap so awesome in comparison to a balanced soft cap? What does a hard cap add to the game that couldn't be achieved with a much nicer, gentler, soft cap?
I feel you may drive me to start extolling the virtues of having no cap at all just to be contrary to you at the current rate
