Best idea yet

Thanks Kilotov, where can i read about this factions?
And what is it about?

Hi!
Im utterly new to this game but i have a huge experience with other games of this kind.
It seems to posses a great potential, but my input on these ideas you guys have, is;

I would like to see the huge map with that beautiful colours develop to become "player-owned" in one way or another.
If i was to create a game like this i would make the world something like this;
Each country should have a King, and be subdivided (?) into dukedoms, wich each will hold a Duke, that will take a step on the heirarchy stair and become King IF he somewhats forces the other Dukes in the kingdom to sign a "truce" and be come a vasall, each dukedom should then be subdivided into countys, ruled by a Count, wich has the same opportunities as the duke to climb the stair and become a duke IF hes "voted"/truced/vassaled" by the other Counts.
Each county could then be subdivided into baronies, ruled by a Baron, wich the player himself could run for if he is "vouched" for by the other players in his barony.

With this system, you add this conflict type of gaming experience, but only if you feel the need to compete with others and climb this long stair of the hierarchy.
But still, there is no need to totally ruin others citites, since all you want/need is the player to become your vassal, ie; radiobutton you or something.
OR, you could stand up and go to war and lose troops and try to prevent another player from rising.
Now with this system, the game will become alot more like old midevil politics, like the game of thrones if you read it or watched the new HBO series.

But also, to add this conflict over who should be the ruler of you, maybe the "governor" of each subdivision should be able to collect a little tax from "his" people.
This % of tax should be fairly limited to not overpower the "governor", but still be of an amount where players would start a rebellion and choose another "governor" if the one sitting on the throne starts collect way to much taxes.
Maybe this would make the market a bit funnier aswell, because in times when a player decides to take the next level up the chain, he might have to go to war and loose troops, and if alot of people wants to compete, guess how much increase of turbulence each segment (barony-county-dukedom-country) will have.
This means that there might be an constant conflict between players that wants to compete with eachother, aswell as a massive demand on the market for spears, swords, horses etc.
This could make the market swing and suddently make weapons and armours alot more valuable.

A "governor" should be able to be "elected/vouched/vassaled" just for beeing a good "governor".
Players that basically play the game like merchants, sim-city builder, politicians or are just plainly to new to the game or doesnt want to "compete" should be able to benefit from a good "governor".
With the taxes the governor collect, maybe he could invest them back into his region or something, like building better traderoads, setting up harbours, sending troops to take down hostile NPCs that ravage the country side disturbing players of his region or something.
Maybe a governor could even sign trade deals with other regions wich somewhat made the price better or something, IF there is peace in the country or region above or something.

Another cool dimension to this system, would be if you add a ranking between countries, so that one country can start a war against another country, maybe just to become "number 1 country" or something, this could also use the vassal system, if the ranking between countries each made out of a agreement between eachother,  if one side feels that they want to stop the war and stop lose armies they just agree that this or that country is number 1 or 2 or 6 w/e number that country is claiming.

With this system, it also makes player-to-player relationship improved, since when a country goes to war with another, the King, Duke, Count and Baron will have to try rally and unite the ones below him to fight and send armies to defend their realm, OR, the people, that doesnt want a war, can just simple unite and dethrone the governor and climb the whole way up the chain to become a King and then just surrender.
--- Politic gaming experience, anyone?


Sorry if i misspelled and did alot of grammatical errors, im from sweden and i rarely write in english.

Aneirin wrote: This particular game has been developed over period of two years during thart time it has , shall we say evolved, through different stages and WILL continue to evelve. The  Dev's always pose themselves as being "community responsive".  Having played this game for more than  year I can see and I am sure others can see how it has changed. I have seen a series of technical and thematic changes brought in that appear to respond to the needs of the players and the player community   I think the  community has moved slightly away from conflict and war and towards actual diplomacy and politics and propaganda. Players and and especially alliance leaders  have become more stratgecally aware.  (Even Lorre is trying it out XD)  . Thats not to say that war is not still integral path of the game .  It still remains one of the pathways.    However if WAR in itself were to become the major preoccupation of this game, in the way posed by Lionz Heartz and supported by others it would sadly devalue all other paths that make this game so deeply involving.    I mentioned above that Illyriad has been developed and will continue to evolve. Illyriad is not a "finite" world. It will go on changing War or No War.  Apart from the recent technical changes and impending faction activation the Dev's have now introduced, in piecemeal form, a game "Lore"  and released certain global tests, quests and possbliy tournament type  scenarios linked to it.  The community has responded to this just as they have to other  iniatives and several players have started developing creative skills which will add to the games "Lore".   The bottom line is this if all you want to do in this game is terat evrything like a "shoot 'em up"and run around raizing towns; trying to destroy other players and their alliances you are going to miss out on a lot and if you insist that War become the prime pathway for the game then you are going to start spoiling a rich experience for everyone else.

You missed my point i dont want the game to turn into an all out war game but when large conflicts are going it makes the game more interesting for the player base as a whole. When H? and White were fighting it made and interesting event for everyone but in the end this game lost an entire alliance of large active players. Since most large fights will end up in seige battles battles now there are not many players willing to risk all their hard work for a fight, so everyone just plays sim city and attacks NPCs, for the most part, which doesnt give the community something to talk about.

Like i said in my earlier post the military side of the game is lacking the rewards are not worth the risks and im not saying siege should be removed maybe nerfed but its to easy an option and its a game changer for the intended target. Adding something like LH suggested may help give players some tile with Alliance or personal bonuses to fight over

I thought you were leaving?

Torn Sky wrote: I know armies arnt the only strategy ive played mostly as a trader, but attacking other players does have its bit of fun every once in a while 1, im just under 80k pop as smaller i meant the 20-50k pop range i dont attack new players its all n all bad for the game since its runs off the new blood and leaves a smaller player base 2 i understand that its a risk but with the current game mechanics most ppl have their cities clustered to gather and have their allies close i have nothing against this but since attacking armies cannot be combined my 1 city army may end up attacking 5-9 armies from the player alone plus any allies nearby and they will have the other advantage of the wall 3. lvl 20 mines do produce alot of res but i can burn through it easily also, and the commander lvls of smahing a large army are also a bonus since NPCs dont give near enough back 4 i agree somewhat with it because it easy to just farm the inactives, but maybe if the cities produced resources on a very ruduced scale it would help Im not an over lord and this is a mixxed game with many ways to play it but the military carries to stiff a penalty with siege to mess around with it, a city that took months to build can be destroyed in a day so only the very new or the very bored(looking to quit like gigi) start anything that can help the boredom of setting up trades, attacking npcs, city tasks etc

well i agree whit everything you said...
as far as i am concerned,  i have somewhat faith in the dev team.. i am sure they will give proper responses at those issues of gameplay...
i kinda see why "complete" accounts just dont see any challenge anymore. this is obviously a great issue that has to be somewhat resolved...
yet a drastic change in the gamplay is not really what i want...
i kinda enjoy the slow pace and i think it has room for improvement, but i dont want to see it completely revolutionized..

i am sorry if  my rude attitude somehow offended you or such, it was not my plan.
about the overlord stuff.. i was talking hypothetically ...