| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Topic: creation of a war league Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 13:16 |
So, what expectations do players have about their alliances getting involved in wars?
Would players leave and reform, just because they're itching for a fight? Does that leave a hole where they once were?
Is there an expectation to keep these 'tournament-like' groups of alliances self-contained, or will there be an overspill? How is overspill contained, and at what point would someone peripheral to the arrangement become involved? What happens to players who try to wear two hats at the same time?
This might seem fine, if a little chaotic, for established players who know a little about the state of play, but it could touch a raw nerve if new players are caught up in it. Are training alliances immune to these effects? Should we be keeping sparring isolated, or should it have wider repercussions?
In asking these questions, I think the answer is 'information', and knowing where players stand, and what they're expected to do. There's trouble when players step outside of their expected roles, because it makes us feel insecure about our assumptions of safety.
So, is the answer to make it as obvious as possible, that a player is in a 'war tournament'? e.g. Cut off all ties with their former alliances, join a sparring alliance, and ensure that sparring alliances have "sparring" in title?
What complications could occur if players try to 'wear two hats'?
|
|
|
 |
Ossian
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 456
|
Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 12:41 |
Gemley wrote:
IF someone created this I know eventually one of the alliances will majorly break the rules, won't apologize and then start a war (it would be a no mercy deal) between the alliances and only one or two will be left standing.
It seems to me that the final result will be a lot of players rage quitting or getting seiged out of game. Sure it would be fun for most of the time but at the end of the I think the majority of affected players would not think it was worth it. Just my two cents. |
QFT +1
|
 |
tansiraine
Wordsmith
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Location: pensacola FL
Status: Offline
Points: 172
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 18:03 |
the main thing that makes illy different is that we are not at constant war.. I been there done that and there are a bunch of games already out there that cover that need. If people really wanted that they would be playing those games and not illy.
Personally coming out of a 6 month long war where you were constantly on guard watching waiting responding and attacking it gets old. I been there done that for year long wars you get burned out. The balance here is what makes the game worth playing.. yes there is War there is peace there is the in between..
We are getting more people here that like conflict want war etc.. does it make illy a better place? or will it turn it into like the other games out there instead of making illy stand out as a place that all types of play is welcome and encouraged.
Those who want to war maybe they need to make a forum post.. say let war.. but war with rules is a tournament.. not war think of that before you ask for it
|
 |
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 14:15 |
|
I believe the devs want Illyriad to be a sandbox game. If players want self-created tournaments or even wars, I don't foresee them getting stopped.
|
 |
BaoBao
New Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2013
Location: -455 | -170
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 09:40 |
|
Too bad the DEVS dont want this game to be a wargame. Otherwise they could have simply left the Tournament VII: The Champions Return going on. They could reset the stats at the end of each month and move the winners into the hall of fame. To have the small players involved too, devs could create separate tourney squares for players based on the number of towns they have. E.g. 5 groups: 1-2; 3-4; 5-6; 7-8; 9-10 towns.
|
 |
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 06:31 |
|
A war without catapults is basically a PvP military exercise. If you add more rules and take out diplomats, it's closer to a tournament. It seems that many alliances arrange such events for practice and entertainment.
While an exercise might improve the military experience of your team, I have to agree that it falls considerably short of a real 'war'. Removing the risk might encourage more players to participate, but it also removes their incentive to fight like cornered rats (or to flee like rats). And if tournaments aren't satisfying your hardcore wargamers, then I really doubt that a city-based tournament will make them happy.
|
 |
HATHALDIR
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 05:48 |
|
twi you can have a war alliance, press declare war button and presto, you have a war!Don't over complicate the bleeding obvious, or be shy that if you lose you might lose 3 or 4 towns, sometimes it happens, but plan to win otherwise!
|
|
There's worse blokes than me!!
|
 |
Gemley
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 04:34 |
|
IF someone created this I know eventually one of the alliances will majorly break the rules, won't apologize and then start a war (it would be a no mercy deal) between the alliances and only one or two will be left standing.
It seems to me that the final result will be a lot of players rage quitting or getting seiged out of game. Sure it would be fun for most of the time but at the end of the I think the majority of affected players would not think it was worth it. Just my two cents.
|
|
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien
|
 |
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 03:43 |
twilights wrote:
could have rules such as must have at least 5 castles in play or have to sit out until u rebuild..no nap, no confederation....both main and alt must be in same alliance..no spying and each player signs a contract agreeing to what ever rules the league has...these of course just suggestions...gosh if there is enough peeps into it we could have lots of fun..think of it, six alliance playing strategy to dominant but a safety clause that enables player not to lose everything. it be war of games of thrones, constant rebuilding so players can jump right back in....
|
Its 'war' only there is no diplomacy, sneaking around, spying, has 'rules', can't lose everything, time to rebuild ect.
So its 'war' just take out everything that constitutes war.
Personally I find this idea as being hilarious. If there were 6 big alliances that wanted to make never ending war on the server, they probably could whether the rest of the server wanted to or not.
I find it a bad idea to take all the people who want never ending war and put them in a system that forces them to work together and learn about war.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 02:38 |
Personally, I think it's a possibility that a little name-calling is a positive thing.
Hope that was polite enough.
Edited by Rill - 23 Jun 2013 at 02:38
|
 |