Adding Depth to Controlling Areas |
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author | |
Aurordan 
Postmaster 
Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 02 Sep 2014 at 20:22 |
|
If we incentive having the highest population or make people take ten times as much land, the players of Elgea will have burned down half of each others towns by the end of a year. Maybe that's what you're going for, but a lot of people would be upset if Illy took that turn.
|
|
 |
|
|
Grego
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010 Location: Klek Status: Offline Points: 729 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2014 at 07:44 |
|
Sov should be cheaper with less bonus. For instance ten squares for todays one. It would naturaly create all regional centers and forts. Landscape around cities would have more dimension, as now we only look 1, rarely up to 5 squares.
|
|
|
|
|
Rancor
New Poster 
Joined: 31 Aug 2014 Location: US Status: Offline Points: 22 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2014 at 05:57 |
|
Hey there, okay so as a new player we all heard from the King and if we did the tutorial we got goods sent from the King as well.
Here is my idea for controlling the regions. Have a capital city that the King controls, with royal troops guarding it. Have control of the region belong to whatever alliance has the highest total population for the ??? week / month. Then the capital city would grant bonuses from the King to the alliance, maybe increased trade or taxes or extra weapons, something. I do not want to see any players control these capitals because there are games out there that do that IE stronghold kingdoms and it is easily abused. Then all that an alliance needs to do is have the most population in a region to actually control it. |
|
|
|
|
Corwin
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 21 Jun 2011 Location: Farshards Status: Offline Points: 310 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Aug 2014 at 08:25 |
|
It sounds like something that could be fun. The only thing I don't like about it is that players wouldn't suffer much from losing a region. I like it that people who fight suffer consequences like having their towns reduced (or even entirely destroyed) so newer players/alliances can catch up.
And factions should also try to get control over the regions. Or maybe just support an alliance that's extremely friendly to them and fight alliances with really negative alliance standings.
|
|
|
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General 
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Aug 2014 at 06:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glin
Wordsmith
Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Location: US Status: Offline Points: 127 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Aug 2014 at 05:58 |
|
Not a good idea
|
|
|
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Aug 2014 at 05:19 |
|
This is a good idea and clearly not a new one but I do believe, should it be implemented, it must be in a way that would not give any alliance power because of it. Naming a region or being given the ability to choose between regional bonuses would not give the controlling alliance any sort of true power however, requiring the control of regional capitals or a fort system would give alliances an outlet other than NPC hunting, which is more of an individual "sport", or tournament play, historically few and far between. This sort of regional control system could easily be ongoing and would go a long way towards eliminating boredom and encouraging teamwork among alliance mates or even among alliances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arctic55
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Status: Offline Points: 379 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 May 2014 at 21:33 |
|
Not sure... considering some people have 250% troop sov.
|
|
|
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 May 2014 at 21:33 |
|
[QUOTE=Arctic55]@Geofrey, I did put in a prize at the bottom of my last post, granted, it may not be much of an incentive, but like you said, you don't want to break the game. That is what influenced the prizes I stated.
Also, a 1% troop building speed is almost useless, just saying.[/Q] Maybe 1% is too small. Would 50% be to big?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Arctic55
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Status: Offline Points: 379 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 May 2014 at 01:34 |
|
@Geofrey, I did put in a prize at the bottom of my last post, granted, it may not be much of an incentive, but like you said, you don't want to break the game. That is what influenced the prizes I stated.
Also, a 1% troop building speed is almost useless, just saying. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
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 |
Topic Options
Glin wrote: