| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
twilights 
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
 Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 19:37 |
how would this work with a nonactive player? right now it takes over 90 days for some of them to disappear.....if there was an active clause of 3 days i see no problem with this at all....oh my goodness....gosh this could be used to prevent others to go after resources of nonactives....just allow certain groups to loot by protecting these yummy spots...good idea, just needs more thought, it can be abused too easy  but then again i like that....i already planning traps to kill thieves
|
 |
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 20:00 |
 scottfitz wrote:
I really don't understand what needs explanation Prometheuz. I had a situation in which a relatively new player needed help defending against a siege from an agressive neighbor. I was happy to crush the siege, but if the issue had been diplo attacks instead, I would have no means of assisting. My proposal would allow me to send a force of diplos to protect the player until he could bring up his own diplo defenses. As it is my only option is to bring the player into my alliance, but I do not want to do that, nor in this case does the victim. My proposal only applies to unaligned players, those in no alliance at all. Players in alliances with which we have no diplomatic agreements would be unaffected. |
Again, if someone chooses to not join an alliance they should understand the risk. This seems to be asking for abuse, and I believe the abuse will be rampant and widespread.
The better alternative would have been to smack down the 'aggressor' IMHO.
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 20:58 |
gameplayer wrote:
how would this work with a nonactive player? right now it takes over 90 days for some of them to disappear.....if there was an active clause of 3 days i see no problem with this at all....oh my goodness....gosh this could be used to prevent others to go after resources of nonactives....just allow certain groups to loot by protecting these yummy spots...good idea, just needs more thought, it can be abused too easy but then again i like that....i already planning traps to kill thieves
|
An inactive player won't be on to ask for help, and if someone does want to reinforce a inactive to set up a trap players should scout first and not just assume its safe.
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 21:00 |
Sisren wrote:
scottfitz wrote:
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="text-align: left; : rgb255, 248, 229; ">I really don't understand what needs explanation </span>Prometheuz. I had a situation in which a relatively new player needed help defending against a siege from an agressive neighbor. I was happy to crush the siege, but if the issue had been diplo attacks instead, I would have no means of assisting. My proposal would allow me to send a force of diplos to protect the player until he could bring up his own diplo defenses. As it is my only option is to bring the player into my alliance, but I do not want to do that, nor in this case does the victim. <div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">My proposal only applies to unaligned players, those in no alliance at all. Players in alliances with which we have no diplomatic agreements would be unaffected. |
Again, if someone chooses to not join an alliance they should understand the risk. This seems to be asking for abuse, and I believe the abuse will be rampant and widespread.
The better alternative would have been to smack down the 'aggressor' IMHO. |
This just forces players to join an alliance, I'd rather have players that want to be a part of an alliance than just to hide behind a tag. How can reinforcing a free standing city cause so much abuse.
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 22:07 |
It would be yet another means of having a war through proxy.
As I have said before, not joining an alliance carries risks. If this type of ability is allowed - why have alliances? Why have NAP and Confederations?
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 22:59 |
|
It's just not worth the effort. How much hardship is it to fly a flag of convenience to respond to attacks and just drop it after the danger has passed?
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 17:30 |
|
Allow scouts to see reinforcing diplo units and allow reinforcement of non affiliated players that shouldn't be difficult, it would help newbie players and players who haven't decided which alliance to join. Why should a player be forced to join an alliance to get help from a friend or a "white knight" in the community. Illy has a wide play style that is still growing this is a limiting factor that I feel goes against illys non standardized gaming.
A large player that gets into it with an alliance can find an alliance to back him/her if the cause is a just. Small new players sometimes need help and may not be able to join an alliance or create one and confed with another alliance.
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 18:15 |
Torn Sky wrote:
Allow scouts to see reinforcing diplo units and allow reinforcement of non affiliated players that shouldn't be difficult, it would help newbie players and players who haven't decided which alliance to join. Why should a player be forced to join an alliance to get help from a friend or a "white knight" in the community. Illy has a wide play style that is still growing this is a limiting factor that I feel goes against illys non standardized gaming.
A large player that gets into it with an alliance can find an alliance to back him/her if the cause is a just. Small new players sometimes need help and may not be able to join an alliance or create one and confed with another alliance. |
A few counter-points to consider.
- Why would a ruler, an alliance, or federation help out for free, someone? There is nothing to be gained - there are no 'white knights', only incentives. Helping someone who is not part of your 'group' because of beneficence? Makes little sense - there is always a motive. And what of the other extreme that you are not considering - what if someone sends reinforcements when then intended to siege, raid or attack? Surely there is a reason why we cannot do this, no?
- No player is forced into anything as near as I can tell. Joining an alliance has benefits sure, a semblance of defense among them. Having the freedom of not being in an alliance also has benefits. But both also have risks - whether it is having to join in a war, or not having adequate defenses.
- About getting help from a friend... that would be part of the strategy of this RTS. :) I put it under 'how can I survive'.
- Can you let me know where the standardized gaming is listed? I am not familiar with the term as used.
- 'just causes' are usually determined by the winners...
- New players can easily join an alliance if desired, last I checked there are a plethora of alliances, with more each day.
It is good to be passionate about things. Too much passion however, is a vice.
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 15:08 |
Sisren wrote:
A few counter-points to consider.
- Why would a ruler, an alliance, or federation help out for free, someone? There is nothing to be gained - there are no 'white knights', only incentives. Helping someone who is not part of your 'group' because of beneficence? Makes little sense - there is always a motive.
|
There are plenty of players that do help others.
Sisren wrote:
And what of the other extreme that you are not considering - what if someone sends reinforcements when then intended to siege, raid or attack? Surely there is a reason why we cannot do this, no? |
Pay attention to what your doing on the launch screen, adding one more option shouldn't be that confusing.
Sisren wrote:
No player is forced into anything as near as I can tell. Joining an alliance has benefits sure, a semblance of defense among them. Having the freedom of not being in an alliance also has benefits. But both also have risks - whether it is having to join in a war, or not having adequate defenses. |
You are forcing a player to join an alliance to recieve aid, even if it is a "false flag" and they leave after they've been helped.
Sisren wrote:
About getting help from a friend... that would be part of the strategy of this RTS. :) I put it under 'how can I survive'. |
You have a strange way of looking at it. Many people do help just to help and better the community.
Sisren wrote:
Can you let me know where the standardized gaming is listed? I am not familiar with the term as used.'just causes' are usually determined by the winners... |
There are not a standardized way to play that a strong point to illy, but this does force players to have to join an alliance for reinforcements.
Sisren wrote:
New players can easily join an alliance if desired, last I checked there are a plethora of alliances, with more each day.It is good to be passionate about things. Too much passion however, is a vice. |
There are alliances new players can join but there may not be any in the area and if a player is under attack they can't move closer.
|
|
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 30 Jul 2012 at 02:41 |
|
If a large rich player near me goes inactive and I send an army of troops and diplos to guard the resources until I have time to pick the corpse clean, I do not consider that abuse, I consider it smart
|
|
Tweet
Reinforcing unaligned players