Should The Cost Of Alliances Increase? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
eowan the short
Postmaster General Joined: 03 Jan 2016 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 1255 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 05 Apr 2018 at 13:04 |
What are your thoughts on this to try to make the creation and maintaining of an alliance a more serious thing rather than something almost anyone can do?
#BlameGrom Edited by eowan the short - 05 Apr 2018 at 13:06 |
|
Ten Kulch
Postmaster Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Location: Fellandire Status: Offline Points: 678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I voted other. In different games I have played, players could invest in-game currency (gold and prestige types) to increase the benefits of an alliance. I like that system.
|
|
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
|
|
Bill Cipher
Wordsmith Joined: 28 Mar 2016 Location: The Universe Status: Offline Points: 180 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A few million or something. I feel like if there was this and it used the prestiged it could become a p2w for alliances depending on when benefits there were. - I wouldn't mind an increase cost just to create an alliance but having an up-keep could possibly lead to fewer new alliances and taxes becoming necessary if the price is high
Edited by Bill Cipher - 05 Apr 2018 at 14:48 |
|
d-a-r-o-r-w-o pb wlph kdv frph wr exuq. l lqyrnh wkh dqflhqw srzhu wkdw l pdb uhwxuq
|
|
Ten Kulch
Postmaster Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Location: Fellandire Status: Offline Points: 678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There is nothing wrong with paying for minor advantages.
You can already get a 10% bonus for a week for 4 prestige, and everybody accepts that. I think alliances should be allowed to build small, specific advantages. For example, maybe a trade alliance would invest in a boost to caravan speed or harvesting rate. An example system from an older MMORTS worked like this: alliance skills had 10 levels. Each level provided the same increase as the last level, but cost more. One skill provided a -2% cost reduction to alliance skill investment. Another increased the harvest yield from alliance farms and mines by 5% per level. Investment was purely voluntary (although it did give you alliance ranking points). When the team reached the target amount, the alliance skill leveled up and the next level was unlocked. Investment was in silver, their equivalent of Illyriad gold pieces. Spending team prestige in that game allowed you to purchase cosmetic alliance items like a cooler banner in battle. |
|
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
|
|
General Lacesso
Wordsmith Joined: 08 Mar 2018 Status: Offline Points: 139 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I do like the idea of being able to invest game currency into your alliance for benefits. I don't think that the benefits should be a permanent feature, but a temporary boost that could be activated by the founder or alliance leader. There could also be tiers to the benefits that can increase in cost, but the benefits increase as well
Example: Temporally increase the speed of caravans for alliance member for 8 hours. T1 is 3% increase, T2 is 5%, and so on. This is just a suggestion and my opinions.
|
|
rajput
Forum Warrior Joined: 19 Jan 2017 Location: Punjab Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I choose 'Other'.
I am all for Alliance wide temporary bonus/boast ... Really good idea Ten Kulch and General Lacesso. This may be outside the scope of this thread, but there need to be something like alliance Campaign option, which is funded by alliance coffer and provide ability to setup something like FBO (Forward Base of Operations) a very important military aspect which is missing from this game. Alliance members can opt-in (participate) or opt-out (run away) from the campaign (for some intra-alliance drama). Member participation can be military (personnel) or support (resources). Instead of a square, FBO can even be any of alliance member city which can fit certain resource profile. I can go on and on let me shut up here! BTW if the issue is 'Too many alliances', another solution can be to provide option to eliminate alliance... May be by besieging the alliance capital or something is that vein... ok zipping it...
|
|
Warning! Author of this post has weird sense of humor... |
|
AdmiralRage
New Poster Joined: 21 Sep 2017 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think a 10 leveled alliance would be helpful. Even like a 1% gold boost per level. Then, to add on to Rajput, I think it should be possible to destroy an alliance. Each level in the alliance gives an objective city. So a large 10 level alliance would have 10 cities to destroy before the alliance was disbanded. The alliance leader could decide an change object cities but put like a 14 day cooldown on it.
|
|
eowan the short
Postmaster General Joined: 03 Jan 2016 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 1255 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll make another poll for levelled alliances
|
|
eowan the short
Postmaster General Joined: 03 Jan 2016 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 1255 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
rajput
Forum Warrior Joined: 19 Jan 2017 Location: Punjab Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Nawice!
|
|
Warning! Author of this post has weird sense of humor... |
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |