Alliance changes |
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Author | |
BARQ
Greenhorn
Joined: 06 Oct 2015 Location: in Death Status: Offline Points: 77 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Alliance changesPosted: 03 Sep 2016 at 04:05 |
|
demdigs idea is nice one but numbers need to be revised
|
|
|
I m the most scarring dream of your life
|
|
![]() |
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Sep 2016 at 00:55 |
|
Why not have alliance specific troops. Like a skinner troop that kills and then brings back the parts.
Not sure how we could get it to apply to herbs and minerals though. Maybe you set to occupy for a certain period of time and they have to defend against factions or animals but then your gather units don't have to travel back and forth. Perhaps instead of T1 cav they have some time of delivery cav. Of course the downside of getting to far into specialization is that you would be locking them out of half the game. |
|
![]() |
|
eowan the short
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 937 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 22:53 |
|
I think the military alliance type should receive some kind of penalty for trading i.e van capacity reduced and taxes are higher I also think that the trading alliance should only get a -80% troop penalty against player troops- they should have no penalty against npc troops to allow people to craft.
|
|
![]() |
|
Dungshoveleux
Postmaster
Joined: 09 Nov 2013 Status: Offline Points: 935 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 22:05 |
|
i can see people bailing in and out of alliances to suit the situation. A leadership of 2 people could maintain 4 alliance types and shift players around. This reduces alliances to pieces of rather powerful equipment. An alliance of 100 players could shift into 4x confed military alliances at the first sniff of trouble...
|
|
![]() |
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 20:18 |
|
Now that I think about it, the bonuses could be built. Think 1-20 with level 20 requiring millions of resources so the whole alliance has to send to the capital building.
|
|
![]() |
|
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 19:40 |
|
And these are just ideas, the devs can take some and leave some, whatever they find feasible, I don't know what they have planned for the future, for all i know some of the updates could make some or all of this obsolete. but I can't read their minds.
|
|
![]() |
|
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 19:37 |
|
you would lose those vans and the extra storage space the moment u jumped alliances, and what i posted was just rough numbers, nothing in stone, if need be there could be an imposed delay between alliances.
|
|
![]() |
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 19:34 |
|
I would say you should tie the benefit to some type of in game stat such as faction standing. Seems a bit crazy that you could have 10x the number of trade units then when war starts everyone just jumps to the military sister alliance.
|
|
![]() |
|
Diva
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 18:55 |
|
Sounds very doable, ... a set of standards for each type of alliance.. and adding a little speed up to the cause of each alliance. We definitely need some speed SOMEWHERE in this game.
|
|
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Sep 2016 at 18:44 |
|
I think the idea in general for alliances to be able to choose specific benefits (and accompanying decrements) is a good one. The exact proposed bonuses and penalties might be a little too extreme, but the general idea could add to the game in an interesting way.
|
|
![]() |
|
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 |