| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ES2 
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
|
 Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 14:01 |
 gameplayer wrote:
alot of the problem would be resolved if the devs would have a quicker rule to get rid of inactive accounts, 30 days and they should be gone, this would free up so much of the map, gosh at least 30 percent of the accounts must be inactive and each probably has 3 or more castles, prob open up lots of castles slots of prime 7 food plot land, doing this would allow alliances to cluster build areas and there would be less of these conflicts and more interesting game play...ask urself this question.....how many active players are turned off by the amount of inactive accounts on t he map and choose to play a game elsewhere
|
I have a feeling that you would enjoy that Twi, until you were gone thirty days and had your account deleted. I also have a feeling if a stricter inactive policy came into effect, having sitters on the account regularly check in would negate the system delete.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 13:43 |
|
alot of the problem would be resolved if the devs would have a quicker rule to get rid of inactive accounts, 30 days and they should be gone, this would free up so much of the map, gosh at least 30 percent of the accounts must be inactive and each probably has 3 or more castles, prob open up lots of castles slots of prime 7 food plot land, doing this would allow alliances to cluster build areas and there would be less of these conflicts and more interesting game play...ask urself this question.....how many active players are turned off by the amount of inactive accounts on t he map and choose to play a game elsewhere
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 01:55 |
Rill wrote:
I share my wood freely... |
Things people cant say at work? for 1,000 question...
|
|
jazzo
New Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15
|
Posted: 12 Nov 2012 at 04:09 |
TomBombadil wrote:
jazzo wrote:
Uno so wiki says....Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does? Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away. |
First, you might like to add that after the wiki's definition of 'Sovereignty' it continues to great lengths elaborating on the abstractness, function, validity and ever-changing nature of sovereignty claims. Basically boiling down to the following: Your sovereignty claim is only as valid as others (especially the ones with the capability to challenge or destroy your claim) consider it to be.
Second, having a game mechanic called 'Sovereignty' does not necessarily impose any meaning of what we think 'Sovereignty' may mean onto that said game mechanic. The game mechanic doesn't give you "supreme, independent authority over a geographic area", regardless of what it is called; The name only serves as a label to use when referring to the game mechanic, it does not add/change anything to how it works. Similarly if I start calling my city a boat that won't necessarily mean it will be able to float. |
I think the general concensus will be claiming sovereignty over land makes that YOUR vessal state. so to speak. To the people who mean to steal off my sov land. please do... my cav is getting ancy 
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 18:54 |
Uno wrote:
Sovereignty square can't be a discriminant for me in this matter. A sovereignty on a square gives you the right to exploit its bonus with sovereignty buildings but it doesn't make all the rest yours. As a matter of fact a resource is yours when it is in your warehouse and I find it hard to question this.
|
sovereignty is military control of a square. one can argue that control thus established is only as good as one's ability to hold it, but the same argument can be made for one's towns or the resources within them. most alliances will regard a military presence on a sovereign square as an attempted invasion, and well they should. in the same way, harvesters on a sovereign square are thieves, and are likely to be treated as such.
while i mourn with others the death of sharing, it died because many large, well-established players from several alliances blanketed the board with harvesters in the early days of t2 trade, before squares were generally garrisoned. while that may have given them a head start on t2 resources, it also taught many of us how quickly a rare herb could be picked into oblivion by a careless player hundreds of squares away. as long as the game mechanics remain unchanged, holding ungarrisoned resources in common between neighbours will continue to be a risk most will not take.
Edited by Angrim - 11 Nov 2012 at 19:00
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 17:31 |
|
actually it does give you supreme authority, but if you cant back it up then you lose any respect you might have, but if you try to set a army on my sov you can except to lose those troops shortly afterwards ^^ and if you do it again expect to lose alot more things
Edited by Rorgash - 11 Nov 2012 at 17:31
|
|
TomBombadil
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 16:41 |
jazzo wrote:
Uno so wiki says....Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does? Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away. |
First, you might like to add that after the wiki's definition of 'Sovereignty' it continues to great lengths elaborating on the abstractness, function, validity and ever-changing nature of sovereignty claims. Basically boiling down to the following: Your sovereignty claim is only as valid as others (especially the ones with the capability to challenge or destroy your claim) consider it to be.
Second, having a game mechanic called 'Sovereignty' does not necessarily impose any meaning of what we think 'Sovereignty' may mean onto that said game mechanic. The game mechanic doesn't give you "supreme, independent authority over a geographic area", regardless of what it is called; The name only serves as a label to use when referring to the game mechanic, it does not add/change anything to how it works. Similarly if I start calling my city a boat that won't necessarily mean it will be able to float.
|
|
jazzo
New Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15
|
Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 14:35 |
Uno so wiki says.... Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does? Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away.
|
|
Uno
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 22:05 |
While I agree, in general, with the subject, I don't with the terms. Sovereignty square can't be a discriminant for me in this matter. A sovereignty on a square gives you the right to exploit its bonus with sovereignty buildings but it doesn't make all the rest yours. As a matter of fact a resource is yours when it is in your warehouse and I find it hard to question this. I have seen players with 900 pop claiming sov at 20 distance because they thought this makes the resources on them theirs and that they don't even need to successfully defend them with their 300 sized army (not the spartans, no :P). This is just ridiculous. My take is that if a resource is within few squares from my cities it will be hard for someone coming from far away to not get consistently bumped and coming back with empty hands and if they find the right "window" of time to succeed then all the better for everyone.
|
|
Eréc of Caer Uisc
King of Dyfneint
Indomiti Alliance
|
|
Loud Whispers
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 23:21 |
The_Dude wrote:
Silverlake wrote:
*** There is a justice that cannot be swayed with sweet talk and flowers |
In Illy, Justice is delivered from the business-end of T2 Siege Machines.  |
Or copious amounts of ICM's (inter-continental messages).
|
|
Tweet
Larger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones