Hostile Actions Setting
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=3629
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Hostile Actions Setting
Posted By: Zork2012
Subject: Hostile Actions Setting
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 13:48
|
i think we need another diplomatic setting. We have NAP,WAR and confed. but what to do when in a tourney? How about a Hostile Actions setting? With a color coded to that you could easily see who is a legitamte target and who is just poking around in the wrong area Some of these tourney have you sending your units very far away and you cant always scout stuff |
Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 17:35
| I like the uncertainty this creates in wars and tournaments. You can't just "assume" that the incoming on your square is from X alliance. Granted, it's maddening, but it's also sort of fun! |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 22:41
Or rather, somebody in your alliance is supposed to read the http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/HeraldDiplomatic" rel="nofollow - Herald Diplomatic . Hm, as always I forgot to do this today...
 |
Zork2012 wrote:Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 00:51
|
Dunnoob - yes, but a little tick box telling your army to ignore all rules of combat could also provide a quick fix for alliance tournaments without canceling a longstanding confederation or jumping in and out of the alliance. I also wish this were a feature. And there is no need for anyone to claim this could cause problems for the alliance because it could, by default, be turned off. (similar to the "is covert" or "is feint" tick boxes.) Also, this could provide another skill to unlock to achieve this. -------------
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 01:21
In some blockades of the same town the founder had a nearby legendary city and finished me off without help from his alliance, that's a simple case. Near another town I killed an army of player A in alliance A, and defended the resulting blockade of town B in alliance B against player C in alliance C until another player in alliance C killed me, so it can be also rather convoluted. Maybe it's simpler if consenting alliances can disable the peace of camp rules on a known set of squares temporarily. Without pathfinding that could be a small set of towns including all adjacent squares.
|
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 03:30
|
I can guarantee you this. If my alliance asks me to reinforce them or someone else and I go out of my way to take off the safety feature... my alliance will be justified in replacing me with someone far more competent. I rather feel this is idiot proof as it would need to be engaged... -------------
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 03:56
| Seems like this feature could be used to engineer a betrayal of an alliance by a player or group of players. I suppose that could be an interesting game mechanic, but I personally would rather not see it. There is a 6-hour cooldown between dropping an alliance and joining another; I have always assumed it was intended at least in part to prevent that scenario. |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 06:37
|
Agreed on the cool-down. And even more so on the potential of meta-gamers infiltrating an alliance and than attacking them. However, as for betraying an alliance: this can be done regardless of the proposed game mechanic. And if someone is planning on turning on their own alliance, they can pretty much count on being kicked out. So how is this different from infiltrating to learn potential weaknesses and then dropping the alliance to attack them? (0.o) Furthermore, if they are going to the effort to meta-game an alliance, it would be far more practical to have another (alternate) account attack them and not blow their cover. No, the only thing this would do is open up one alliance to the attacks of a member in another alliance that is confederated. e.g. what if someone has set up a siege on your neighbor and your neighbor asks you for help with lifting the siege. (lets add the wrinkle and say the two of you are friends in real life - though not probable, it is possible.) You would like to attack the siege that landed from X alliance, but X alliance is confederated with you and your army would bounce off. The options are to allow this player to be sieged or to drop your alliance long enough to go attack them and then hope your alliance will take you back. This proposed game feature would unlock this by allowing your army to ignore the rules of engagement and then let the alliance leadership decide afterwards if the decision was correct or not. The peace of camp was set up to help defend one another from attacks...not to take away common sense. Common sense says you should defend your friend even if the opposing force is from another confederated alliance. Lets look at the worst case scenario: The leadership in your alliance feels you acted rashly and kicks you - but if you were willing to risk being kicked with this potential game feature, then you would have also dropped the alliance to carry out the attack and then asked for re-entry later. Now contemplate the advantages this will have in the long run. I once sent a siege to the far corners of the map, only to locate a closer town I would rather take. I asked to have that siege destroyed, but the only close player was confederated. Likewise, when I sent settlers to a location I wasn't terribly pleased with, I asked to have the city razed. Again, the closest players were confederated. These confederations provide more red-tape than anything. Thank goodness they are removed for game hosted tournaments, but still problematic for private hosted tournaments... -------------
|
Posted By: lokifeyson
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 07:10
|
go sunstorm +1 yeah we need more options in general...more colors and diplo status's?...or less?...lol idk, custom diplo status's? i say add a friend list, much like the block list, would be cool if it even sent the person a message saying, "such and such loved your joke at the tavern last night, and wants to add you as his friend" idk, i like having friends and don't mind others seeing who my friends are, could even have it be a tab on player profiles -------------  |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 14:57
|
Agreed. I definitely think we should have more options, but we need to be careful about adding too much complexity... Eg. I can see it now: "I set you to Ecru Status, but together we should be able to attack Alliance C who is on Amber status. Or was that Maize Status? Should we move them to Goldenrod?" ;) |
Posted By: lokifeyson
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 10:56
just don't go plaid  http://youtu.be/NP6DXonKITc" rel="nofollow - http://youtu.be/NP6DXoNKITc could have a list of alliance's and have a drop down box for each alliance and have the alliance leader be able to set own "status" as to what there alliance thinks of the other alliances or use a scale like the faction scale and have leader be able to slide the scale could also include a alliance status, like the recruiting or not status or a checklist that the leader could check or uncheck to help filter alliances by type and playstyle
 ------------- |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 13:22
|
I would normally not be in favour of extra game mechanisms, because they restrict the sandbox principles that Illy is built on. However, a PvP stance would open up options, namely the ability to attack a player in exceptional circumstances, and to declare "I'll be a good neighbour" when the alliances have no such provision (or when any of the relevant players have no alliance). The more I think about it, the more I like it :o)
|