| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Aurordan 
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
 Topic: The Ally of my Ally is my Ally
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 04:20 |
 SunStorm wrote:
Do we really choose loyalties for factions over loyalties to real life players/friends? If that is the case, I want no part of it... |
You can choose your loyalties however you want. And since faction reputation will be tied to alliances, this won't be an issue for most people.
|
 |
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 04:13 |
|
Do we really choose loyalties for factions over loyalties to real life players/friends? If that is the case, I want no part of it...
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 03:43 |
|
Loyalties will be split once the factions go live, we know this much, some factions will hate each other and will want their player base to help them out.
The point is, what will happen between now and then? lives lost perhaps?
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 03:35 |
Lavender coming up!
Yes - I can see the ups and downs to all this - but it will come down to players forming some unspoken naps and confederations which could be even worse. If someone is limited to only 5 confederates, but they are popular, they may appear to have 5 to the opposing alliance (which maybe has 4 and so this looks like a fair challenge) but in reality they have about 10-15 total that nobody even knew about. Talk about a slap in the face for the person doing the attacking but thought they only had 5...
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 02:21 |
I'm not usually excited about making things happen through game mechanics that players can do themselves. Right now NAPs and Confeds mean different things to different people. Lots of ambiguity, lots of shades of grey. I like grey!
Although lavendar is prettier. Why isn't there more lavendar in Illy?
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 22:57 |
|
+1 the Donkey
|
|
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 21:54 |
|
The ally of my ally is not my ally. My ally is whomever I directly say is my ally (however many or few that be).
NAPs and Confeds are just labels. We should be able to declare them as we please, and frankly, they shouldn't have any impact on what we can actually do or not do whatsoever. We should even be able to choose "reinforce" orders on enemy and neutral cities, and specify allegiance when launching on an enemy occupation. Peace of the camp should apply when existing troops have a party falling within the parameters of launch friendliness sub-orders (such as "be friendly with Confeds" or "be friendly with neutral players").
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 21:53 |
I think some of this post deals with some of these plans.
Regards,
SC
|
|
Corwin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Location: Farshards
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 21:44 |
I would like to see that NAP can't reinforce eachother, just unable to send any army. That way NAP wouldn't mean as much as it can now. And I would also like to see both NAP and confederation to be unable to send hostile diplomats. 
Edited by Corwin - 27 Oct 2011 at 21:52
|
|
Zork2012
Wordsmith
Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 21:03 |
I've been reading different post throughout the formum in regards to war and the lack there of. The most common complaint is the amount of Allies some alliances have. There are those alliances that have darn near every other alliance listed as a Confed or NAP. What if there was a limit to the number of Confeds and NAPs an alliance could have. Like maybe 5 Confeds and 5 NAPs. I just picked those numbers because I like multiples of 5. I honestly think the number of Confeds should be fairly small, and the number of NAPs higher. I also think there should be more of a distinction between the two. I've played this game for a long time and I really dont see any difference between the two in regards to functionality. I would think that if somebody declared "war" on a confederate of your alliance, that alliance should appear red on the map. I also beieve there should be a benefit to declaring "war". I can't do anything with a war declaration that I couldn't do without it, so why declare at all?
|
|
Tweet
The Ally of my Ally is my Ally