Should we use King Sigurd to bring peace to Illy? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
Brandmeister 
Postmaster General 
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 08 Feb 2014 at 01:29 |
Cities take forever to build (without prestige), so it's unsurprising that wars should take a long time in this game. I think accelerating the "logical end" of conflict would encourage people to be more destructive, not less. Personally I don't really have a problem with alliances fighting, especially since it seems that individuals are allowed to leave prior to wars or even surrender personally to limit damage. I only really object to the verbal drama in GC, since it tends to drown out all other civilized interaction (largely due to a small handful of players who are completely unable to exercise even the slightest hint of decorum). |
|
 |
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster 
Joined: 08 Jan 2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 23:30 |
So your playing style doesn't affect anothers playing style? The only games which allow you to play a game how you wish without impacting on others is a single player game. The devs also set rules and codes of conduct which impede certain play styles. This premise is a myth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caconafyx
Greenhorn 
Joined: 04 Jul 2012 Location: Stamford, UK Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 22:55 |
|
Oh it's not that I have a problem with war per se. I have a problem with us not being able to bring it to a logical conclusion and timely end.
|
|
|
|
|
The Electrocutioner
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 Location: Arran Status: Offline Points: 234 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 22:22 |
This is a pipe dream, my friend. The devs are simply not going to do this, or anything like it. They have set up the world as they have, and it's up to us to live together in peace, or not, as we see fit. If you look at the history of changes they've made to the game, they have deliberately done things to increase conflict, not decrease it. And in BL (if it ever becomes a reality), they have made a safe zone for players like yourself who want to be free of the possibility of war. So they are looking out for players who like either style of play. Your proposition comes from the point of view that peace is better than war. But that's just your opinion, not an objective fact. The devs allow for all styles of play here, and that's one of the things I love about this game!
|
|
|
|
|
BBC
Greenhorn
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 Location: the UK Status: Offline Points: 41 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 22:14 |
|
Why do we need the king?
Cant something like this be worked out by us, the real foundation of the game? Im sure if we try hard enough at least a bit of progress could be made. Im not saying 90 days, but 5 or even pushing it to, 10 days at least. That's not impossible or too much to ask is it? We have to make the difference, not some cardboard cut-out of a king Just give it some thought |
|
|
BlackBloodedChampion
"Will Work for War" |
|
|
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 21:49 |
|
trade/arms embargo's, international sanctions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwrwd
Greenhorn
Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 69 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 21:05 |
|
Increasing upkeep and building cost of attacking units (especially siege engines and T2 diplomats) is an easy and effective way to discourage a war, imho.
Edited by Dwrwd - 09 Feb 2014 at 21:47 |
|
|
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 20:42 |
|
I think this is really interesting, actually. If Sigurd is even going to maintain a facade of legitimacy, it would stand to reason that the Council's faction behavior should involve attempting to keep the peace, at least in many areas. I do think you should be able to "fight though" him, but it would be a very interesting mechanic if his units would at some point get off their bottoms and try to maintain order.
|
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 20:39 |
|
King Sigurd is no king! He is a pretender and a front for the Council of Illyria.
Hail the Undying Flame! I'm all for factions (including even Siggie) doing stuff, but I don't think the system should intervene to change the way players interact with each other, unless they are violating the Code of Conduct or Terms of Service. Probably when factions go live that will have some effect on pvp just by the very nature of it. (People might be more cautious about losing their last army sieging someone when they know that the Melders are lurking, just waiting for an opportunity.) But I'm not sure that it should occur in a way that is INTENDED to influence player behavior one way or the other. There would be a lot of unintended consequences to a de facto 90-day limit on wars. A lot more undeclared wars, and perhaps a lot more vicious fighting early on. Plus people would sign peace just to start up again even sooner than they already do. I DO wish that we as players could come up with better options to winning gracefully and losing gracefully. In other words, how does one conduct and win or lose a war in a way that encourages people to stay in the game rather than leaving it. But that's really up to the people involved. I'd be most interested in creative ideas in that direction. One idea I've had is for people to agree on limited war aims at the beginning of a conflict. The fact that wars tend to break out because people can't agree in the first place would make this difficult. But it would be great to see the folks who enjoy war to put on a war with agreed-upon goals like "first person to raze 10 cities wins." I'm sure there would be argument from people who think that all-out mass destruction is more fun, but I think it could be an interesting exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
Caconafyx
Greenhorn
Joined: 04 Jul 2012 Location: Stamford, UK Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 20:30 |
|
Just a germ of an idea rattling through the emptiness that is my head...
The current war has gone on for long enough, the Consone War went on for 6 months. We have gone from being a peaceful, benign group of players to a war game with brief interludes of peace. So I was wondering what the support for using the mythical King Sigurd (ruler of Elgea) would be to stop wars. My suggestion would be that King Sigurd personally intervenes in a war 90 days after one alliance declares war on another and simply prevents conflict. Armies blockading or sieging a town would be sent home, armies that meet on the battlefield would not be allowed to engage followed by an enforced 90 day period of peace, when hopefully heads can cool down a bit. (The enforced period of peace would not preclude NPC hunting or involvement in tournaments.) You only have to look at GC at the moment to see that there is a lot of emotion, too many people that would rather see the world burn around them than put out the fires. More importantly, there are too many people leaving the game. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or alternative ideas
Edited by Caconafyx - 07 Feb 2014 at 20:31 |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Caconafyx wrote: