| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
iluvpie3 
Greenhorn
Joined: 02 Jul 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 88
|
 Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 20:22 |
 Larry wrote:
1) "nobody cant disagree" Really? Do you have enough negatives in there? |
+1
And Halfmoon,your statements contradict one another:
-> Some reasons that huge alliances would be almost forced to attack each other
-> Balanced alliances, not just few huge alliances.
We cant have a large number of huge alliances,there's not enough players yet.
Size growth of alliance should be more difficult (or even restricted) not just recruit mania, etc.
Not all alliances just "Recruit Mania".Pretty sure Harmless? only takes active,large players.
And what does "almost forced to attack each other" mean exactly?
Edited by iluvpie3 - 25 Oct 2010 at 20:29
|
 |
halfmooon
New Poster
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 18:19 |
|
Dont take everything so seriously :)
Maybe you still got the point what i tried to suggest.
-> Some reasons that huge alliances would be almost forced to attack each other
-> Balanced alliances, not just few huge alliances. Size growth of alliance should be more difficult (or even restricted) not just recruit mania, etc.
|
|
Larry
Wordsmith
Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 14:50 |
halfmooon wrote:
Im not complaining anything, just suggesting game development towards more war actions and more balanced game (not only size of alliance matters). I think nobody cant disagree that atm game is mostly like farmville.
|
er. The way you construct a logical argument is by asserting some premises, drawing logical connections, and presenting conclusions. You've sort of skipped all of the premise and logic bits and are just throwing around ignorant conclusions like "I think nobody cant disagree that atm game is mostly like farmville. "
1) "nobody cant disagree" Really? Do you have enough negatives in there? 2) You're presenting your own conclusions as a common view with out the slightest bit of information to support it. Judging by the other responses in the thread you don't really have popular support here. 3) "Im not complaining" "atm game is mostly like farmville." So yes, you are complaining.
Oh and this is without really getting to the irony of a comparison to farmville while simultaneously trying to limit the large scale interaction between players, one of the things that precisely separates this game from farmville.
Edited by Larry - 25 Oct 2010 at 14:55
|
|
kitmub
New Poster
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 05:32 |
|
sorry but making alliance race specific is really bad idea
about the big alliance sadly it is common thing with this kind of game
especially farming
you do know that there is no attacking restrictions or penalties so they arent that safe unlike on other games which makes them untouchables
about the alliance to fight for i do hope the factions has some surprises that can be fought for
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 00:59 |
|
i dunno about the others but i dont farm active players why should i res enough to be found around if i wanna train commander i attack npc
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
halfmooon
New Poster
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 7
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 00:28 |
|
Im not complaining anything, just suggesting game development towards more war actions and more balanced game (not only size of alliance matters). I think nobody cant disagree that atm game is mostly like farmville.
-----
OT:
My game style: I first grow fast to level where fighting against same size opponents is intresting enough, after that i just attack nearby opponents. I'll be doing as much fighting i can. Somewhere down the road some über overpower enemy crush me, game over but im satisfied because i have already accomplished my goal :) (destroy just one enemy)
-Mariah The Destroyer :)
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 00:21 |
halfmooon wrote:
It seems like Alliances have ruin whole game again. Alliances should be restricted somehow that game would be more challenging and fun to play. I mean, there is couple huge alliance and no one cant beat them because they have already so big advantage to others and sadly these huge alliance are friends with each other. It would be nice if these huge alliances would be forced to attack against each other.
Ideology of the game should be much more towards hostile actions not just stupid farmville style playing.
-Restrict max population of alliance? It would cause lots of smaller alliance which would be friends = one huge alliance again! It definately is hard to find proper fix to this issue.
I have couple ideas, example: Alliance could only consist of players of same race and there would be always war between human/elf vs dwarf/orcs and there of course would be minor wars between "friendly" races.
-Mariah |
why not try playing the game and have fun instead of setting the goal of being nr1 i dont know if you noticed but wars dont happen that frequently....
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
lep
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 64
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2010 at 00:04 |
|
Indeed, make alliances single race only and all you will have is four clans confederated, one of each race.
There's even one clan out there of all Elves, hard to say how many but at least a dozen I've found, full of single members not in a formal coded alliance but coordinated as a clan using off site forums and IM.
So you can't stop it and trying to stop it would make it a much poorer gaming experience anyway.
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: 24 Oct 2010 at 21:53 |
|
Hah... game mechanics to limit large alliances?
We already have the Crow alliance, which has 3 sister alliances.
Whatever you are complaining about, its still going to happen no matter what you do.
|
|
waylander69
Forum Warrior
Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Location: spain
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
Posted: 24 Oct 2010 at 17:52 |
Mariah, who is the large alliance you speak of ? Wolves of the Plains....89 members Tranquil Vision....87 members Dwarven Lords....80 members Toothless?...99 members ? or H? which with 57 members makes it the 8th largest alliance in terms of players. |
|
Tweet
Alliances