More races in this game!!!!

Illyria is the sandbox.  I am the strategist.  Both of me.

What is obvious is that the good players who know how to work any system are on top and successful, and the players who lack insight and strategic wisdom want to blame the system for their failures.

You can change the system, but you can't make the players stupid.  That playing field will never be level.

HonoredMule wrote: LH, race variety isn't going to fix the problems you perceive.  It's a fact of life (and a rather intelligent one at that) that when people have to work this hard at building their account, they are heavily invested into the game.  And because of that investment, people are going to play smart and cautiously.  That means no one is going to start/fight a war they don't strongly believe they'll win and do so profitably.  From that perspective, outnumbering your opponent is a very good thing.  What would address this perceived stalemate is increasing the ability to fight over wealth in a way that doesn't make warfare personal and burn so many bridges.  Pathfinding will be the true savior in that regard.As for pirates, they wouldn't be sieged.  Pirates would simply be vulnerable to fleet reduction or even wholesale destruction from attacks by regular naval units.  Pirates that let themselves get caught would be as vulnerable to total obliteration as any other fleet at sea.  But on the flip side, they can get back on their feet by capturing new ships--either in battles where they heavily outnumber the enemy, or with "diplo missions" to other players' naval ports.  There's no building, only plundering, capturing, and stealing ships at port.  Running out of diplos and ships would be like losing your last city, so you'd get a reset with a fresh small fleet and your technology retained.  Technology research would be the one form of traditional account development you'd still have to do, albeit with a radically different tech tree.Also to keep the "fun" and high-seas adventure down to a reasonable level, pirate accounts would only ever be allowed to have/be one fleet.  I expect a lot of players would choose pirate for their second account.  In theory, this coupled the vulnerability of having no place to call home should keep the seas from becoming overrun with pirates.

Race variety will give players more options and less boredom. That alone will make the game more interesting. So, it will help fix the boredom factor I perceive in the game. Stop assuming.

The whole facts of life argument is a stupid way of stating to just deal with the flawed part of the game. However, you may be fine with the lack of strategy in the game and are fine with the most powerful controlling the game. This is the only reason alone that you would want to keep the status quo right now. The strategy in the game currently benefits the most powerful and since you sit in that position, everything is fine in your boredom world of domination.

You will have to expand on the increase chance to fight over wealth idea. Pretty broad statement that makes it hard for me to understand the concept you are trying to make a point of.

I understand your fear of any strategy or new concept in the game that will level the playing field.

However, I do not always agree with your ideas, but you do once in awhile come up with something good. Keeping the current stalemate strategy in the game is a bad idea. It is very flawed and needs a face lift.

I do not expect every person to agree with me on an idea. In fact I do not need anyone to. It is pretty obvious what is lacking in the game and this fact alone is reason enough it does not take a genius to figure out what is lacking in the game.



Edited by Lionz Heartz - 10 Mar 2011 at 17:38

GM ThunderCat wrote: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral wrote: I want chicken people. How do you think these might work? Would they take their flavour from their surroundings and be able to fight on for three days after being killed; unless you had butchers, assassins or vampires in your army? Hot oil would do double damage and battering rams would make them more tasty, increasing the food they drop?

HonoredMule wrote: I would like to see some new races with fundamental differences from other races.  For example, a dragonkin race that is much more powerful than others but can't join an alliance or use normal equipment.  Lone rangers would have an overpowered account but be unable to compete against players who can work together on military campaigns and economic support.Or how about a purely nomadic tent-dwelling race of Nords that has decent offensive firepower and is excellent at dodging attacks but extremely weak on defense?  Such mobility would make the game world more dynamic.Or when naval stuff and pathfinding comes out, a pirate race whose cities are actually their ships?  And all the obvious details apply.

I love these ideas so much. To be honest I was thinking of the same things kinda, but was holding off on details of it till I had those hammered down.

I agree that each race should be defined more than just the numbers they are now. Maybe have each race be able to make something no other race can make... Perhaps a unique siege weapon or a new unique troop or an all-in-one diplomat unit...

The pirate idea is so great... How would a player be able to siege that player if they are moving all over the place?

I also agree that solo players need more power granted to them in this game. That is very much needed indeed. I also hope this game gives the underdog player that is outnumbered a better chance to defend against overwhelming odds. Something like 300 Spartans able to fight off a much bigger force due to strategy. This game needs more strategy options. I think this game should force players to pick a certain strategy when they attack. The same for the player defending. More or less a que of 5 strategies to use. This dynamic will make the game more exciting and less predictable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies
http://www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm#grand

Those links above are great resources to come up with sound strategy options for offensive and defensive military operations.

Just taking concepts from other sources that these strategies once selected can very well make the outcome of a game better. Intelligent minds like myself needs more stimulation than the current boring strategy in the game. Which is having more troops than your enemy, very boring. For every offensive strategy selected, their will be a defensive strategy to counter it. I mean that is one of the things I liked so much about Age of Empires, I was able to pick a strategy to attack or defend. I miss this so much, that is why I feel this game needs it.

I do understand that the devs do not like the rock, paper, scissors model... However I want the strategy to be more dynamic than that. There will be luck involved sure, but more or less the outcome would based on who is the smarter opponent. I will be coming up with a very sound and detailed way of doing this in this game very soon. As a player that has played this game for a year, I know what needs improvements and what does not.

For those that do not think the strategy in this game needs improvement than look at the current battles in game currently... Everyone is partaking in ZERG warfare (outnumbering your opponent to a point that there will be no losses building wise from their end). To win in this game you only need to have more troops than the other opponent. So the only strategy in this game is too have more troops than your opponent. Basically that battle is already decided before the battle starts because each party knows what the outcome will be. This is why this game needs a face lift on strategy.

Edited by Lionz Heartz - 10 Mar 2011 at 14:50