Mercenaries |
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: MercenariesPosted: 23 Dec 2015 at 13:36 |
|
|
![]() |
|
Lotharblack
Greenhorn
Joined: 13 Dec 2014 Location: Greece Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Dec 2015 at 10:03 |
|
I thought this game already had mercenaries . Go ahead and pay another military player and you can use his troops. Sandbox , dah. What we really need is unit diversity and new stuff to keep us interested. That's why i believe people got excited by the idea of mercenaries.
|
|
|
Lord Loth
|
|
![]() |
|
Ptolemy
Wordsmith
Joined: 02 Nov 2015 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 133 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2015 at 20:20 |
|
That would be interesting, help the new players, while make it relatively useless for bigger ones.
|
|
![]() |
|
Inferno
New Poster
Joined: 20 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2015 at 20:14 |
|
Well, we could do away with the whole faction troops cost "something" and have the factions pledge a certain number of troops to the player depending on the player's standing with the faction, the troops are basically free and you only pay their upkeep cost, so factions will be somewhat like the player's bannermen.
Like say you can recruit 100 faction units from nearby factions, i.e. you can recruit faction troops either at a city or a faction hub if these two are within certain range of one another, they're still bound by recruitment time, they do NOT recruit instantly, and the higher your standing either the more troops they can pledge or the lower their upkeep cost becomes. That way faction troops wouldn't be limited by how deep a player's pocket is and as these troops would be basically free I think they'll be great help to new players, since getting troops early game isn't exactly an easy thing for a new player especially that you don't exactly know what you're doing and end up losing a lot to experimentation. That and it would be a cool thing, tho not very useful for larger players i'd think, however there is still the current faction system of them roaming the land, bullying ppl, and hopefully they'll be getting more specific as to whom they'll bully in the future :)
|
|
![]() |
|
Canesrule
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Oct 2010 Status: Offline Points: 112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2015 at 13:17 |
|
Being able to hire mercs from Factions will mean that players with deep pockets will be able to buy prestige, sell it and have large gold reserves as a result of these sales. This in turn makes it possible to hire huge merc numbers. It just makes the game Pay to Win.
Edited by Canesrule - 22 Dec 2015 at 13:23 |
|
![]() |
|
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2015 at 19:00 |
|
To expand on my idea, prices would be very expensive per unit when -90, and very cheap when +90. I would say 4000 gold per hour per troop when -90, with a limit of 100 troops at 0 faction standings u can pay 500 gold per hour with a total amount of troops being approximately 5000 troops. With +90 faction standings the gold per hour being 5 gold per hour with a limit of 100k troops. I believe that it should be closer to a bell curve, with the 90's being extremes in limits in gold per hour and the amounts of troops allowed to purchase
|
|
![]() |
|
Shûl-nak
Wordsmith
Warpainter Joined: 23 Dec 2014 Status: Offline Points: 197 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2015 at 18:55 |
|
After reading the other posts and thinking on it a bit more, I thought I'd offer something a bit clearer on the subject.
Mercenaries & Balance Instant troops for gold is a pay-to-win exchange that would damage the game, making prestige items effectively translate into large armies on the fly. I feel that a player focussed on, let's say, gold accumulation via advanced resource production and trade, should never be able to come close to the capabilities of a player whose cities are geared for military production at a moment's notice. But the mercenary system would allow them some recourse, and throw more variables into play when considering conflicts. It would be totally possible to implement this system fairly so long as sufficient restrictions are in place.There have been a number of good suggestions in this thread for tackling those issues: 1. Buying mercenaries is restricted to faction hubs staffed by your traders. Mercenaries must journey from said hub to your faction's city before they can be used, mitigating 'instant army' issues. 2. Player standing with faction: too low and they will not sell to you at all; higher standing might open up larger numbers of mercenaries for trade, or offer a wider selection of troops, as well as better prices. 3. Stock of mercenaries available. This would be a vital variable for controlling the impact of mercenaries on the various scales of warfare in Illyriad. A small scuffle between two players might hinge on the strength of a 'surprise' merc army; an alliance-wide conflict with armies numbering in the tens of thousands would be less impacted by them. 3.1. Certain units might only be available as rewards from faction quests at higher standings, offering a small number of more powerful units that are otherwise unattainable, similar to the orcs' wolf-providing quest. Accumulation of these powerful soldiers would be possible, then, but as a result of time and effort invested in factions, not simply by throwing gold at things. 4. Cost of mercenaries; some might demand a gold lump sum as well as upkeep p/h; others might have more unusual demands, such as rare gathering items or crafted equipment - these non-gold exchanges might be handled exclusively via the Faction Quest system. Warlike factions would no doubt offer troops as rewards more frequently. 5. Unit effectiveness. There are multiple ways of approaching this: a look at puzzleslogic's troop stat charts will show you that. The troops might be on par with your own soldiers, but cost a ludicrous amount to keep. Or maybe they have high attack and cavalry unit-type, but they still move much slower than your own cavalry. So Why Bother?
Having put all these restrictions in place, you might wonder what the point of having these troops is at all. Well: a city who is not packing military production sovereignty and a L20 barracks can still gather up some troops at a faster rate than they could otherwise. I'd argue it's better to inflict losses and lose than simply lose. A city that is packing troop sov could buy a few extra troops for a little extra punch, should they so wish. However, it would likely be the case that their gold would be better spent on continuing to produce their own troops at a more efficient exchange rate of res/gold/time:atk/def rather than fork out extra for a meagre boost. Non-humanoid units, and units with magical powers, could become available for use, giving players reason to consider a broader range of equipment, such as magic defense/bonus vs monstrous and the like. Certain units could also have powerful bonuses on ultra-specific terrain sets or conditions, such as only when attacking animals in jungle forests, or defending arctic mountains from orcs... The abundance of boar spears means I can only mourn for any player who ends up with an army full of animals, though. Last but by no means least, the rule of cool. As an orc player I'd love to have an army of ogres, trolls, goblins, orcs, and all the other greenish nasties at my disposal. To Conclude Factions are distributed all across Illyria,
so players of all types will end up dealing with them in one way or another. So long as we acknowledge and then avoid implementing the obvious imbalances the merc system could promote, such as a limitless pay-to-win army system, what could possibly go wrong..? Edited by Shûl-nak - 21 Dec 2015 at 19:00 |
|
![]() |
|
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2015 at 17:27 |
|
I believe that if factions are involved with mercenaries i believe that faction standings must be involved, if a faction hates u at -90 standings they would not provide u with mercenaries, additionally, the cost per unit should be tied to the standings, ie, if u are 0 standings with the faction it should cost more then if u are +90 with the same faction. Which would make choosing which factions and the setup of your alliance much more important.
|
|
![]() |
|
Inferno
New Poster
Joined: 20 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2015 at 15:36 |
|
I like the idea of mercenaries but instant troops equals instant power, and instant power however small is bad IMO, so no to that part of the idea.
However, being able to "recruit" faction troops at hubs (the good old fashioned way) is a really good idea, they would cost gold and/or other basic resources to produce them, so here is your gold sink. Faction troops having different stats than those of the players and the ability to recruit those for gold and resources directly without resorting to t2 resources I think would offer some more depth to the game. The cost and production time OFC should be somewhat similar to those of regular troops, meaning when you strip down say t2 cavalry to it's actual gold cost, the faction counterpart would be within that range, if not higher, since those are extra troops that you can recruit outside your barracks, same for production time. Just a comment on the "meaning when you strip down say t2 cavalry to it's actual gold cost, the faction counterpart would be within that range" part, maybe have the faction troop costs tied to the market prices of their player counterpart troops t2 res requirements? like whenever the average price of say saddles rise or drop in the market, the faction cavalry unit price would adjust to that, that way their costs will always be somewhat relevant.
|
|
![]() |
|
Gragnog
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Dec 2015 at 14:53 |
|
As much as this sounds like a nice idea it will do nothing but enhance the power of the large inactive alliances with all their perma sat accounts who just generate gold and equipment for them. They already have made so much gold through the taxing of those accounts that bringing in another element that favors them and excludes new and smaller alliances just makes it so that the dwindling active player base will decline even further as new players will never be able to compete in any events.
The only way it would work is for gold reserves to be depleted by the devs and only newly generated gold would become a part of the game. Now that is not going to happen as the players will moan and moan because their cash cows will be eliminated and the smaller upstart alliances and players will become powerful due to their ability to actually play and wars will bloom. As it is now there are a few prestige players who stifle the game and thus actually preventing a much larger base of prestige buyers from entering the game. |
|
|
Kaggen is my human half
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |