These are indeed valid opinions, but there are lots of ways to play Illy; why should the devs take action to funnel everyone into playing in specific ways?

More choices, not fewer.  If lots of people want people to have fewer confeds or NAPs, then there will be pressure from alliances on other alliances that have lots of confeds or NAPs.  If lots of people think alliance taxes are a good idea, people will be more likely to have alliance taxes.

If people don't want to do that, why create game limitations that make them?

not to talk about the common trend of running to GC to cry over the smallest thing like a crybaby.. 

the worst would be the common idea that this is good and right, that this kind of attitude is good for the game and that you belong 6 feet under if your ideas are different from the mainstream. 

The player base is making the choices preferred by many players.  Other players who don't like it should do things their way.  If their way is not as effective as other ways ... that doesn't mean game mechanics should be changed to give any particular set of players a perceived advantage.

Personally I think this change would not do much to alter Illy game dynamics, I just think that altering game mechanics in the hope of altering the way people play Illy, particularly altering mechanics to encourage people to play in a specified style, goes against what Illy is about.

To me, Illy is about there being a broad range of options available and people making use of them in different ways.  Proposing something like this is like saying "thieves should be eliminated" or "people should only be able to attack people who are at least 75% of their size" or other similar suggestions that limit the choices we can make.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of thieves.  But a lot of people have fun with them, and who am I to say that's a bad thing?  I may of course ruthlessly deal with any thief I catch, but that doesn't mean I think that thieves should not be an option.

From what I've seen, this change had little effect on the ability of players to start new alliances; many newbs are able to start alliances in their first week or so with gold they receive as gifts.

A change made to do something like make the server run more efficiently that has limited effect on how the game is actually played seems pretty unintrusive; I think the devs carefully weigh all such changes.

If the change had been made solely because people didn't like one-person alliances or having lots of different alliances, then it does seem a little intrusive and I would tend to oppose it, even though the effects as I said seem quite limited -- and in spite of the fact that I groan when I see an extremely new player creating yet another likely short-lived alliance.  The game mechanics should not be altered to encourage people to play in one way or another -- not even MY way.

  

When rational response fails, hit below the belt.

Classy.

You bring up a good point. 

What happens when everyone agrees to peace with everyone? 

Well to break it down simply that will never happen. More likely all of the seasoned players will join a series of alliances that form a confederation that encompases the majority of the player base (harmless +crow +Consone + Dark Star Dominion type of thing). Lets call this mega confederation, the Authority. 

The Authority now gets to do whatever they want, because there are other confederations out there, but non that are even half their size.They watch each other's back. If one of their players gets in a dispute, they ensure nothing happens to them.  They are all over the map so you can't distance yourself from the Authority. All that is left is either join them, or give them whatever they want (all the good squares) and stay out of their way. 

Now the Authority isn't a bully. They are just practical. They respect each other, and they make sure that the most respected players get the best benefit out of the game. It just so happens that all of the respected players are in their Confederation. In their mind they are making Illyriad a better place. 

The Authority can continue ruling so long as 1 thing stays true. They can never change leadership. The moment whoever is incharge, decides to step down/promote someone else, all hell breaks loose. That is when the Authority will have a minor civil war, most likely between 2 players. One of those 2 players will drop out of their Alliance to wage war. And when he drops out, his loyal comrades will drop out to help him. Now it is at the exact moment, when Authority and EX Authority members go to war with each other, that all of those "other alliances" do what they do best: chaos. 

With no central leadership of the Authority, each alliance is left to decide what to do. With individual decisions being made there is bound to be conflict between alliances, resulting in global war. 

And that was just a Tuesday. 

If you want to make NAPs expensive a system fee, e.g., 2*100K gold, would work for me.  But it could be annoying to pay this fee again and again if temporary suspensions of a NAP for player tournaments or arranged sieges require it.

Off topic, yes, your font size sucks, as you will understand in about 30 years.

Interesting.  Most Crow alliances do not have a single leader, but a leadership team, usually 3 Rooks.  Your analysis would suggest that Crow would not be subject to this sort of scenario because it is rare for the leadership team to change all at once; rather, people tend to move in and out of leadership according to the needs of the alliance and of the players.

Personally, I don't see any reason that your predictions should be true, but if they are, perhaps Crow are unintentionally brilliant.

Luck is good.  Almost makes up for us not being as smart as the other guys.

Each alliance maintaining it's own leadership is always good, and it's even better when there are multiple leaders in an alliance. 

I actually based all of this analysis off of a song of ice and fire. 

Charging prestige for routine game activities is a really bad idea.  One of the things I love about Illy is that it can be played without any use of prestige -- it truly is free to play.  As for the daily prestige -- there are (I hear) people who actually go for more than a day without playing Illy.  People who only play a couple of times a week, even!  Granted, this completely baffles me (how could you not want to play Illy every day), but if that is the way they like to play, there is no reason they should be penalized by game mechanics for doing so or "forced" to log in every day to collect the "free" prestige that is now required to perform basic game functions.

That doesn't mean I think that people shouldn't buy prestige or that prestige should not have any applications in game.  (Buy prestige and support Illy!)  But I love that Illy really IS free-to-play instead of just claiming to be.

Your argument has the advantage of relying on a contention that is utterly unverifiable.  Therefore no one can refute it.

Well done.

 

I wish there was more to fight for in Illyriad. Currently, you are fighting for either Pride/Respect/Fun, a Tournament, or less frequently land. I wish there were more ways, especially with crafting coming up, to engage in combat without putting your city at risk. Perhaps "archaeology" squares that you can dig at to discover valuables, but which you must protect with an army or risk being pushed off it. Or make the resource harvesting sites last longer, with the caravan moving back and forth, creating an intermittant flow of res until the site runs dry. Again, protected by an army.

 

If anything, it would make for some interesting diplomatic decisions. An archaeological site appears between players of two large alliances, and they must work out (via politics or force) who gets the spot, or how to share it. Perhaps this would at least stir the pot between alliances and confederations (I'm not looking to cause outbreaks).

Unless you actually do like the fighting aspect and want to fight people, in which case it might get you what you want.

Personally, I enjoy fighting in tournaments and player-run events but don't enjoy the animus of war.

 

Subatoi, while I do appreciate the advice and believe what you say, I refuse to be afraid of speaking my mind when I believe I am presenting myself in a calm, rational manner and focusing on the subject rather than the people I'm posting with. If someone has a problem with what I've said, let them speak, be with with words or warriors.