| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Gemley 
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586
|
 Posted: 14 Sep 2011 at 00:13 |
|
I dont see why NAPs and Confederations should be limited, I perfer it the way it is now.
|
|
�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
|
 |
Sheogorath
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Shivering Isles
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 23:50 |
|
True you have a point, but sometimes you have to have a sense of realism to video games
|
|
=Colonialism At Its Finest=
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 23:31 |
 Sheogorath wrote:
2. Consider real life for a moment |
Consider why video games exist... Because real life isn't fun. At least the war and killing everyone and mass murder part of it anyway...
|
|
|
|
Sheogorath
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Shivering Isles
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 22:42 |
1. I think the cost idea is way to much
2. Consider real life for a moment, in the world many countries have many peace agreements with each other, or they are in the U.N. which is like a billion confeds and Naps with each other (of course they don't call them that), why? because mostly every country doesn't want someone else bothering them, much like most in Illy don't. Personally I don't generally like mass Naps and Confeds but,
If you cant beat em, use what you have to your advantage
Just my two cents
|
|
=Colonialism At Its Finest=
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 21:03 |
I agree with those who think less is more in the rules department -- it allows individual players, alliances, groups and the community to create evolving standards, and that keeps the game interesting. If people wanted there to be fewer NAPs and confeds, alliances would start demanding that their confeds NAP'd or confed with fewer people.
This is something that is best handled by player choice rather than hard coding. More options, not fewer.
I don't know the history of requiring a NAP to reinforce -- was this put in place to prevent people from accidentally reinforcing the wrong side? Or is there some other reason dictated by programming logic? Or did it just seem like a good idea at the time?
Interesting discussion.
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 17:26 |
NAPing and CONFEDing everyone is not strategy. Joining a big alliance and not bothering to build troops is not strategy either. Diplomacy page being more 'informative is' not enhanced diplomacy. The sum of your alliance and confed size being your strength is neither strategy, nor diplomacy.
I agree that there should be 'side effects' for having too many confeds. But these should not be unrealistic effects like a 5% tax or restricted options.
Say, if confeds share line of sight when fog of war is introduced, bigger alliances will be reluctant to form confeds with tiny ones. Too much confeds would mean lesser secrecy. A spread out alliance will have the advantage of greater visibility over the map and access of the trade routes at the expense of defense. A militaristic alliance might prefer them for confed just for the sake of line of sight.
To add more depth and meaning, we should provide more options than to restrict.
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 17:06 |
Making it possible to reinforce neutrals would bring diplomacy to player level.
A player should be strong if he has friends in his neighborhood. In the current situation it doesn't matter how good or bad your diplomacy is. What matters is only the strength and contacts of your alliance/ alliance leaders.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 16:04 |
Meagh wrote:
this is a great way to take the sand out of a sandbox game...
imo there is no reason to control the amount of naps / alliances different groups have. diplomacy is part of strategy... and seems on face to be a large part of the game here. - M. |
The key word is "strategy". NAPing and Confeding EVERYONE is not a strategy. Choosing who you ally yourself with carefully and making the diplomacy page actually mean something is a strategy. I think a change like this would actually do the opposite of what you're saying it would. Also, LH, I appreciate your occasional constructive post and I wish you would stick to them. I know a lot of people probably will never really forgive you or see you in a different light but if you continued to make posts like this at the very least you'd be deserving of respect, even if you didn't get it.
|
|
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 15:50 |
Ander wrote:
Thexion wrote:
In my opinion most of these rules would just increase stagnancy of the game. Also it would cause frustration of players since they could not be friends or in war with anyone they wish, because of artificial barriers. |
Could not have agreed more. More rules, less fun.
Thexion wrote:
I even think that they should remove the stopper from people to reinforcing neutral players,
|
I too share the feeling. Alliances are forced to enter confederacies even if there is just one player who wants to reinforce another player in another alliance. It seems this restriction was put there to add more value to confederacies, but in effect this has made it meaningless.
|
I agree that the list of rules is way to long and really little point in enforcing "democracy" in alliances. But limiting the number of confeds and NAPs should loose up the game some.
Making it possible to reinforce neutrals will weaken NAPs and Confeds options and if you restrict the number of those the value needs to be there.
|
|
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2011 at 15:36 |
Thexion wrote:
In my opinion most of these rules would just increase stagnancy of the game. Also it would cause frustration of players since they could not be friends or in war with anyone they wish, because of artificial barriers. |
Could not have agreed more. More rules, less fun.
Thexion wrote:
I even think that they should remove the stopper from people to reinforcing neutral players, |
I too share the feeling. Alliances are forced to enter confederacies even if there is just one player who wants to reinforce another player in another alliance. It seems this restriction was put there to add more value to confederacies, but in effect this has made it meaningless.
|
|
Tweet
NAPs and Confederations
