| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rorgash 
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
 Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 20:42 |
on my intentional rage attack again the dual system as it was intentionally written in cap for the effect of orc rage :P
on the issue of sight range of cities which right now are infinite, maybe a compromise on this, longer sight and if someone in your alliance sees the army you get the report and "hidden" scouts following it.
I just think the infinite range to see armies are too much and leaves Scouts less useful then they could be, (still very useful during sieges)
Also on new players seeing them far away or not, dont see how that matters, as a new player it takes even longer to raise troops, but on the other hand getting 100 scouts is quite easy.
lvl 1 Consulate building super cheap tech 1 gold per hour upkeep
and for just having a look around i would think you dont need more then 10 per location to be useful
But i can see how with the current map and the way armies can move that a compromise would be needed.
But as in your situation you brought forth.. well maybe you should have thought about that? :P
Your choice of alliance and if you want a sitter or not is up to the person but as with anything you will have to accept the consequences, same if you join a alliance that goes to war with H? or Crows  that is your choice and so you die  |
 |
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 20:29 |
|
Yes, (to the previous posts) covert raids are an interesting possibility - this could be a feature added in for those who wish to sneak up on their opponent. Good thinking.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 20:24 |
Calico Jack, I cant help but feel (especially after your jab about others not listening to you, and you having to repeat yourself) that you are not listening as well. I know that we all hear what we want to hear (I am not above this), but I am trying to make this as clear as I can.
 Calico_Jack wrote:
did you forget about GC and the existence of Alliances, which helps new players? |
In my hypothetical situation, any player (especially the ones with larger population...because the bigger they are, the quicker they fall to siege) who: - (1) is away for four days
- (2) has a siege sneak up on them
- (3) has no sitter
- (4) is not in an alliance
- (5) and Global is not informed about siege activity (as you proposed)
- (btw, this described me two months ago - no sitter, not in an alliance)
would have one less city when they got back...after being away for only four days - THIS IS STUPIDITY. I have been away for more than four days in the past - this game doesn't control my life. Furthermore, what if a siege was launched to each one of their cities while away - they could come back after only four days to have NO cities left. This is not the spirit of Illyriad. I am not saying this to discourage someone from attacking another - I am simply pointing out that what is being proposed is a recipe for the complete and utter downfall of the very game we have all come to know and love.
Calico_Jack wrote:
why do people worry about new players? hell if i attack a player with 30k pop and he/she goes running to GC i will be in trouble because im 20k bigger... |
This is not always the case. The players who get in trouble are the ones that are going out of their way to be a jerk to another. If you are simply attacking someone to get a rise out of them or get a little action, that is great as long as they are willing to fight with you. But the ones that go running to Global are the ones that are: - (1) not wanting to fight
- (2) not set up to handle fighting (perhaps they are playing for the trade aspect of the game)
- (3) or completely too small to fight for themselves
When the player continues aggressions against another who falls into one of the three (and there could very well be more reasons why they are not willing or unable to agree to any dueling initiated by the instigator), then others who can and will meet the challenge step in. Then all of a sudden, the hunter becomes the hunted and accuses others of being a big bully. (>.<) History repeats itself.
Calico_Jack wrote:
oh AND NO FREAKING FUSSING DUAL SYSTEM, open world PvP is why we are here, anyone who tries to undermine this gets my spears in painful places...
|
Open world PvP is part of the game, yes - but not the only part of the game. You speak for yourself, but you project your own reasons for playing upon others. Some are here to develop and become masters of trade . . . others are more inclined to secrets, misinformation, and deception . . . others lean towards the diplomatic aspect . . . some like the strategy . . . some wish to become masters of a territory, but have no interest in total domination . . . while still others are happy and content with "medieval farmville." War and PvP is one of many ways to play. Now, with that being said - If two consensual players wish to engage in a PvP battle / duel without anyone from the outside interfering, then I 100% support this and wish them luck. Likewise, if two alliances wish the same, I applaud them and will happily stand on the sidelines cheering them both on... I only hope their playing isn't to completely remove the other from the game...
Calico_Jack wrote:
i said in a previous post that they
should in this case add a occupy ability to scouts, so that you can plan
them around your borders and by so they will keep an eye on that area
for as long as you say before sending them out |
I couldn't agree more with being able to set scouts to occupy a space! I would love to see a whole thread on this! Imagine occupying 50k thieves into one city to ensure it could NEVER be thieved! Imagine sending scouts to occupy a spot with troops and the opponent not being able to scout unless they have a greater number. There are so many possibilities! (please start a thread about this if you feel it's worth discussing further) However, I would not want to have to ship out 50+ every few weeks just to know if I am about to be sieged. Whats more, new players who are not in an alliance have no way to set up any detection for an incoming attack - and this is unfair to those who are just starting out in the game.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 19:22 |
Hmm
Sieges would have more equipment with them then Raids, so i can see covert raids working..
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 19:13 |
I think covert raids would be a cool feature, but maybe not full scale attacks. Certainly a siege shouldn't be able to sneak up on you.
Open world Pvp, by the way, is basically all the Pvp in Illyriad, and the only kind that could reasonably work in a sandbox game like this.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 19:02 |
|
I'm not sure I know what open world PvP is, so it probably is not why I'm here.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 17:34 |
did you forget about GC and the existence of Alliances, which helps new players? if someone doesnt say hey im being attacked please help, then no one helps them, even now. why do people worry about new players? hell if i attack a player with 30k pop and he/she goes running to GC i will be in trouble because im 20k bigger...
and Jimjams, yes i think you did, i said in a previous post that they should in this case add a occupy ability to scouts, so that you can plan them around your borders and by so they will keep an eye on that area for as long as you say before sending them out
oh AND NO FREAKING FUSSING DUAL SYSTEM, open world PvP is why we are here, anyone who tries to undermine this gets my spears in painful places...
Edited by Calico_Jack - 22 Mar 2012 at 17:35
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 16:38 |
|
Once again, this could work - but for new players who have not set up a strong structured defense, this would not work. And if we have large players clearing out new players without anyone knowing about it - the game is another travian/evony.
If that is your gaming style, I am not trying to discourage you, but this may not be the right game for you...however, I don't believe you have any intention on removing players before they even have a chance to build and develop. I have read the posts and I understand that you have an experienced player in mind (one with whom you can duel). Perhaps the Dev's can create some PvP (consensual dueling) conditions where, for only those consensual players, there is a Fog of War and scouts work as you propose. I truly think this would be an amazing feature - to be able to apply such conditions to a personal PvP duel!
But with the current FoW proposal - along with removing siege reports - and setting scouts around the map to be your eyes and ears...others will abuse this and begin clearing out whoever they wish. Perhaps this would be good for the war aspect... perhaps the community would rise up out of personal conscience and then you would have another "mob crucifixion" against a poor misunderstood "victim" player who doesn't see their actions as all that bad.
I am trying to be as realistic as I can and explain why the current proposal is not compatible with the community as a whole. I do like some aspects of it, but I (again, this is only my opinion - I speak for none but myself) must dismiss this proposal in its entirety.
If there is some aspect or element that has been misunderstood, please elaborate on it for those reading the forum.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 15:18 |
Calico_Jack wrote:
Calico_Jack wrote:
and sending out 10-50 scouts to a location for 2 weeks is such a small thing to do...
|
do i ever need to say anything since you never care to read? |
Nah I read, but eventually I don't understand what you mean. I guessed you wanted to track incoming armies in the same way we actually try to track diplo units, sending multiple waves of diplo, like rangers. If you ever did it, you know how much effort is needed, and there is no way to use this method to scout for incoming hostile armies on a regularly basis.
But probably I misunderstood your proposal...
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 10:09 |
Jimjams, personal wars are nothing new, maybe you have just never been around anyone who likes to do something other then farmville..
I have been in a dual war with another player, the set up is easy, you two agree that alliances wont join in and you start fighting once both sides has agreed upon this.
|
|
Tweet
Real Covert Ops