Thecatman skigglez
I really appreciate what you're saying—and I think you're speaking to something a lot of solo or small-group players have felt for a long time. You're right: large groups already enjoy major built-in advantages—resource sharing, backup, TS on demand, coordinated defense—and those things aren’t necessarily unfair in themselves. They're part of team-based play.
But when the game also gives them immunity through mechanics like CLI, it starts to feel like solo players aren’t just underdogs—they're completely shut out. And like you said, it's not even that these smaller players are a real threat—it’s just that they dared to act, and that alone draws overwhelming retaliation.
This brings me back to the question I keep circling around:
What kind of game are we playing here? Is it Monopoly? Chess? Solitaire?
- In Monopoly, alliances shift, resources trade hands, and sometimes kingmaking happens—but everyone’s in it together until the bitter end.
- In Chess, it's head-to-head strategy with equal starting positions, where a single smart move can change the tide.
- In Solitaire, it’s just you, trying to optimize your decisions and survive as long as possible.
Thardferr has always had a mix of these elements. But mechanics like CLI push it closer to Solitaire—for some players—and reinforce a monopoly-style power block for others.
And that’s really the heart of the discussion:
Should Thardferr reward only the strongest groups, or should it also leave space for creative underdogs, strategic plays, and small victories that feel meaningful?
If we don’t have that balance, the game stops being strategic and starts becoming scripted. And that’s when people start leaving—not because they can’t win, but because their choices stop mattering.
