Everyone, you don't need to defend me from Hatejacket. I've taken much worse, and lived. In fact, it usually makes my games better.
Hatejacket, you seem to think that games need to be original. I, however, see game creation/design as an Art as much as a science. And all art is derivative: it comes from somewhere. As far as I am concerned, the best way to learn about creating games short of trying is to play as many games as you can, and look at what you like, what you don't like, and everything in between. And you'd be surprised how few new ideas really come into gaming. I don't think I can count more than a dozen truly new ideas were introduced to gaming in my lifetime as a gamer (Since MtG).
1) This is just an idea, having been pulled from another game. I'm well aware it's going to need a lot of work.
I stopped reading the rest after "having been pulled from another game". Suggestions =/= Copying others work.
It's not about Copying. Well, unless you thing every strategy game ever made is a copy of chess; that every CCG is a copy of MtG; that every RPG is a copy of D&D; etc. They aren't (though some wish they were). But they do copy certain mechanics. C&C certainly isn't Warcraft.
It even happens in this game: take APs for example: a great balancing feature, but hardly original. Every Broswer-based game I've played either uses timers, AP, or resources to limit your actions. Good idea, but hardly new.
So no, suggestions =/= copying someone else. But I'm not suggesting copying either: I'm suggesting taking a mechanic from another game, and modifying it to fit into this game.
Specifically, that there be a kind of software that instead of simply slowing down or stopping a cracking attempt, it strikes back, making it more dangerous to randomly hack servers.
And you still haven't addressed that core request, and only the specific means of implementation I suggested. Do you want me to throw out all the trappings, and just suggest that? Because it doesn't matter to me, it's the core idea I'm suggesting.
