War and Peace
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3295
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 13:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: War and Peace
Posted By: SunStorm
Subject: War and Peace
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2012 at 20:11
|
To the game developers who enhance game-play: Please consider the following. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With the current set-up, declarations of war and peace create an atmosphere of absolutes. War / Peace - Black / White - Edward / Jacob <--(bad example). There is little middle ground short of neutrality and non-aggression pacts (NAP). I will attempt to illustrate this below on a scale of 0 to 10. Declared War (neutral) (NAP) Confederation 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - 5 - - - - 6 - - - - 7 - - - - 8 - - - - 9 - - - - 10 Being neutral is almost irrelevant. Neutrality implies an alliance has made no active decision for or against another alliance. NAP is just a step above this by declaring that, although they have not decided to be for or against another alliance, no hostilities will be exchanged. However, when war breaks out, NAP's are the first to go. The only ones that truly matter are the polarized extremes of War and Confederation. War implies that two alliances will engage in hostilities (much like PvP battles in other games) until one side is utterly crushed and offers an unconditional surrender. This also tends to polarize the Illyriad community when one alliance declares outright war on another. A possible solution to this has already been created for the Factions. With slight modifications, it may serve well as an overview / home page for an alliance. e.g. Alliance: "War and Peace"
(Above: this was quickly thrown together and is not, by any means, the exact set-up I am advocating) When looking at someone's alliance page, rather than seeing "war" listed, you would be able to see (across a broad spectrum) where one particular alliance, as well as your own, stands. When hostile actions have transpired, an alliance can set another alliance's standing to something like -15. When they have started blighting, it could be set it to -40 (etc.). The setting for outright war could be reserved for only the most extreme of cases.
There could be potential problems with re-doing the Herald diplomacy page, but with time this can be an easy fix. Rather than announcing "Alliance One has declared war on Alliance Two," it could simply say (for any alliance rating between -1 to -50) that Alliance One has entered into hostilities with Alliance Two. Then for any rating below -50, it can be stated that they have entered into war. The opposite of this can be done for positive rankings. Each player could then go look at the alliance page for further information. The reason for creating an aggression/non-aggression scale is to help curb the gossip and rumors that spread regarding such declarations. Alliances could simply rank one another at higher or lower on a scale, and the community would not wonder to what extent one alliance would go to "remove" the other from the game. Rather, it can be seen that there are only slight hostilities at this time. This set-up attempts to remove the Black and White polarization - nothing more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To the community who offer intelligent and valuable input: Please feel free to comment below. -------------
|
Replies:
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2012 at 21:04
|
This is a great idea. I hope they do this or something similar. I like this idea for all the reasons mentioned above but mainly I think it will give a greater depth of meaning to Confederation. I've been looking forward to a more in depth, more realistic definition of Confed since finding there were no discernable differences between NAP and Confed (other than the 10 square rule, which honestly doesn't come into play much, or at all in my experience, limited as it may be.) I know they are working on expanding diplomatic relationships and I hope this is part of it. ------------- |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 01:42
Ah, but Black and White were the same all along anyway. 
------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rorgash
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 12:40
| +1 nothing wrong with this, cant think of much one could bring against it, except i still hate how GC gets an alert when a siege starts -.- |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 18:27
| SS, when the colour of your own troops and cities were changed from green to blue and your allied troops were made green, one of the GMs mentioned about enabling a gradient of colours from green to red, based on the relation they have with you. I wonder how combat will be though.. |
Posted By: Rohk
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 20:50
|
While the scale may be helpful in some ways, I think it may oversimplify the interactions between alliances (i.e. 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer' or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' situations). Also would the diplomacy page have to have one slider for every single alliance in the game? That would be tedious to update and maintain. And who is to say that the slider wouldn't be held at peaceful until attacks are about to land making it a surprise attack? Granted this is not really different than it is now but it would depend on how much people would be relying on the slider. Lastly, the gossip, rumours, and misinformation around war in Illyriad is realistic. If two groups suddenly start warring, the only ones to really know the reasons are the two groups (if them, look at both medieval and modern wars for examples of this). If allies or other alliances want information, I think that they should have to ask for it from their allies like everyone else. If everyone always knows all the details I think that this diminishes the intrigue and makes it so people can just look and say "Oh A and B are fighting, should we help? Wait look at the slider it looks like both hate each other, we can just let them fight it out, we don't even need to ask." I think that part of the diplomacy and mystery of it makes it even more interesting. I just think with this system, it would create more work for alliance leaders and the developers but also wouldn't really change or add anything. I also think it would lower the value of misinformation in warfare which is an important strategic factor.
|
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 22:33
| I am the only one seeing this as very complicated ? |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 22:57
|
I think it's pretty useless, we all know how the majority of people stand on combat anyway. If an alliance is picking on a newbie even if alliances that are in +74 with that alliance will still take up arms against them. If that makes sense.
|
Posted By: Rorgash
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 08:57
| :P the majority wants to fight and war, they just dont want to go first, if one gets in bad with GC you will see ALL the nice little people coming down with the hammer of Doom and pretend they are doing the good thing, they are hypocrites and thats what gc has turned this world into.. |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 13:14
|
Well yeah. I've seen people tell newbies how "friendly" they are, until some newbie goes "hrbvgjegf" and then it's apparently time for a siege.. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 18:22
| Everyone thinks the majority of people agree with them. It's the human condition. |
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 18:45
I don't, but I bet you disagree with that ;) |
Rill wrote:Posted By: Rorgash
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 20:24
| i guess im spezul :P because i dont either, usely people look at me and walk away :P |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 20:56
|
Is it a human condition to think everyone else is an idiot and your the smartest one present? I get that feeling a lot in real life, but i digress..
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 00:13
Illusory superiority is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias" rel="nofollow - cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
So yes indeed, it is the human condition. Although people of above-average intelligence tend to underestimate their intelligence, while people of below-average intelligence tend to overestimate it.
|
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 00:22
-------------
|