suggestions

When reading through the updates to boost clan competition.

What if: the clan that wins the previous month gets 90% less energy per fight or a smaller EPH.

Or, if you are in top 2-5, you receive a 10% boost in energy.

Just random idea

I don't love the idea of the fight again link being worth a different amount of energy depending on something other than what happened in the fight. You're being punished for doing well, essentially - you wouldn't see a football team get 2.7 points for a win instead of 3 because they won the league last season.

Unrelated, but I think making changing clans less punishing would help spice up the race. At the minute people are understandably concerned with losing their rank in the all-time HoF for energy to move clans often. It might be a bit weird now after years of not doing it, but if the energy HoF was based on energy gained on a bot (independent of clan) it might be easier to poach from rivals, or a have a few people gang together to try to win for a month, knowing they can still go back to their old clan if they don't succeed.

That's a fair point on the sports game.

Like in bots2, you lost half your cs in a merge. Maybe you could get a 50% or lower loss of your energy when moving clans.

I think when you reset, you should still have a "running total" for energy, maybe even if you leave a clan it keeps that energy.

They definitely have penalized players and teams for being dominant by changing the rules in sports though.

Salary caps and revenue sharing to support smaller market teams. Drafts that punish best teams. Many actual rule changes to stifle best players.

College basketball banned dunking for a decade when Kareem was a member of an unstoppable UCLA team... that's when he developed the sky hook.

The NHL briefly instituted "the Gretzky rule" and that... didn't go over very well or last very long. It was very much only instituted because Gretzky's team was too proficient in 4v4 and 3v3 situations. It was a terrible rule, really... but the imbalance of competitiveness was real enough that the motive wasn't completely wrong.

George Mikan inspired the rules against "goaltending," as well as other rule changes in basketball.

Baseball has 1968 as the "Year of the Pitcher" and... quickly lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches...

Candy Cummings developed the curveball. No one could hit it and no one on any other team had developed the pitch and knew how to throw one... so baseball outlawed the pitch, of course. That wouldn't last... but it lasted long enough that no one talks about that guy as the greatest pitcher ever. Sorry, Candy... but game woulda sucked if there was one random dude with an "unhittable" pitch in his arsenal (and basically nothing else, mind you).

Tiger Woods was so good at Augusta National... that the entire course was changed and "Tiger-proofed" to try and make competition there more competitive...

The NBA got rid of its "illegal defense" call and allowed zones because Shaq...

I could go on and on...

But what did Shaw's coach Phil Jackson say about the rule change? "I'm totally O.K. with the zone. It's going to hurt Shaq, but it's still part of what the game has to be." I love that.

Having said that... rules should be consistent.

I don't like idea of people or clans playing under completely different rules

I very much support rule changes that benefit the average player and often hurt (even deliberately) the best ones.

Competition is great.

And if you're a great player? Then... freaking adapt. Develop a sky hook and shut up about how rules benefitting others and creating more competition are "unfair," imo.

The top players in games tend to be the loudest voices... but, honestly, they tend to be completely out-of-touch with normal player's experiences in the same game... and they tend to value their own experience FAR, FAR too highly and completely discount everyone else's.