| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sheogorath
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Shivering Isles
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07 |
|
^ ?
Edited by Sheogorath - 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07
|
|
=Colonialism At Its Finest=
|
 |
Lord Harvey
New Poster
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 5
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 09:20 |
This is a HUGE debate.
I feel for both sides of the argument so therefore I can't really decide LH
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 08:40 |
The same two things that Rill said - I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses.
Building up your own city has its own advantages. I was happy to have captured one city, but did not go for any more captures even though a list of inactive towns was available. Sieging and capturing cities is a part of the game and it is fun. City building is another part of the game and it is even more fun. And too many rules spoil the fun.
Edited by Ander - 28 Aug 2011 at 08:52
|
 |
Dhenna
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 156
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 04:19 |
I'm with Torden on this.
Also, the current practice makes the rankings skewed (sp).
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:56 |
Rill wrote:
Let's try to be civil about this. We are playing a game.
That said, I think if players are upset about alliances "keeping" inactive cities for themselves, they should probably attempt to seize the cities for themselves ... of course that does raise the risk that the alliance will retaliate. However, if enough players are upset at this method of "reserving" cities for alliance members, eventually the alliance that does it will face public pressure and/or attacks that will make them stop.
I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses.
I can see the point about questioning the wisdom of an alliance making it too easy for its members to grow without "paying their dues." Personally I think that's an internal matter, and I intend to keep my nose out of other alliances' internal affairs. |
for the sake of the newbies! the cities are for those that are little
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:30 |
Let's try to be civil about this. We are playing a game.
That said, I think if players are upset about alliances "keeping" inactive cities for themselves, they should probably attempt to seize the cities for themselves ... of course that does raise the risk that the alliance will retaliate. However, if enough players are upset at this method of "reserving" cities for alliance members, eventually the alliance that does it will face public pressure and/or attacks that will make them stop.
I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses.
I can see the point about questioning the wisdom of an alliance making it too easy for its members to grow without "paying their dues." Personally I think that's an internal matter, and I intend to keep my nose out of other alliances' internal affairs.
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 21:02 |
|
i see an upset dude that is stomping on the ground screaming " BUILD YOUR TOWNS ALONE LIKE I DID...ALOOOONEEEE!!!!!I HATE you silly little buggers that capture towns ..IT'S an ABUSEEE BWAAA"
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:38 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
Who captures which cities is completely irrelevant to me - and the problem of the individual aliance. If they dont want others to capture it they have the option of doing it themselves[that is why they keep it] or razing the city, I just dont want alliances to be able to shield their inactives for more than two months [people could be genuinely away for two months. Booting should be at the alliance's discretion]. Illyriad is a dynamic sandbox game and kicking inactives will show players what squares are in reality occupied by a "dead player" and reveal what alliances auto-inflate their numbers and strength and who do not. [You can have only 100 members in an alliance and many newly started alliances hit that number very fast. I don't see how having an inactive member in place of an active one is useful to inflate anything, not to mention strength!]
It will in general terms decrease exploitation by having players skip the hard initial work in Illyriad when joining, which is very disrespectful to the general player base who start on their own and build their own account. [Getting a barrack to level 20 is a work hard enough. And this is a game, not a corporate project or assignment]
Unbelievable youre clinging to this exploit so tightly - are your alliances masses of "living dead"? Time to clean up this mess! [Not everyone expresses their opinion based on vested interests. My alliance is quite small and there is no mess in it.]
|
Edited by Ander - 27 Aug 2011 at 21:12
|
 |
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:22 |
|
Who captures which cities is completely irrelevant to me - and the problem of the individual aliance. If they dont want others to capture it they have the option of doing it themselves or razing the city, I just dont want alliances to be able to shield their inactives for more than two months. Illyriad is a dynamic sandbox game and kicking inactives will show players what squares are in reality occupied by a "dead player" and reveal what alliances auto-inflate their numbers and strength and who do not.
It will in general terms decrease exploitation by having players skip the hard initial work in Illyriad when joining, which is very disrespectful to the general player base who start on their own and build their own account.
Unbelievable youre clinging to this exploit so tightly - are your alliances masses of "living dead"? Time to clean up this mess!
Edited by Tordenkaffen - 27 Aug 2011 at 20:23
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:13 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
I suggest that all inactive accounts are automatically kicked from their respective alliance after 2 months of player-absense.
The reason is that it has become a far too common practice for new inexperienced players to take over dormant large cities within an alliance.
|
Are you against capturing of cities just by the 'new inexperienced players'? What about big players like you capturing cities? Should that still be allowed? I don't see how that makes the game fair to anybody.
|
 |