| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rorgash 
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
 Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 22:30 |
|
a good idea is to not push your luck Matro, because even the people supporting you might just abandon you because of excessive whining and victim playing... just too many trolls around
|
 |
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 20:42 |
Just to recap a former suggestion which I felt could to with some elaboration.
Suggestion is concerning an added risc attached when sending out diplomatic attacks. This is done in order to further a more strategic use when players apply their diplomatic arsenal against other players. The percentages of the suggestion are up for debate and only serve as an example here:
Player A sends an offensive diplomatic force against Player B. Diplomatic attack vs. Player B is succesfull, but a substantial number of prisoners were taken among Player A's diplomats. Player B interrogates them and is succesful in breaking a prisoner into revealing the identity of Player A. (Added risc factor) Once pr. attack: 10% chance that diplomatic secrets are revealed to the enemy, granting the defending city B1 (Player B) 100% chance of succes in subsequent diplomatic attacks vs. attacking city A1 (player A) for a duration of 3 days. (!) Note that the likelyhood of the added risc coming into play is miniscule, and rather than impair the use of diplomats it is meant to add a point of suspense (provided Player B actually has any diplomatic units to retaliate with).
It opens up to a metalevel of espionage which I think would go well with the mentality of Illyriad.
Cheers
Edited by Tordenkaffen - 09 Jul 2012 at 20:51
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 20:51 |
 Tordenkaffen wrote:
Just to recap a former suggestion which I felt could to with some elaboration.
Suggestion is concerning an added risc attached when sending out diplomatic attacks. This is done in order to further a more strategic use when players apply their diplomatic arsenal against other players. The percentages of the suggestion are up for debate and only serve as an example here:
Player A sends an offensive diplomatic force against Player B. Diplomatic attack vs. Player B is succesfull, but a substantial number of prisoners were taken among Player A's diplomats. Player B interrogates them and is succesful in breaking a prisoner into revealing the identity of Player A. (Added risc factor) Once pr. attack: 10% chance that diplomatic secrets are revealed to the enemy, granting the defending city B1 (Player B) 100% skill in subsequent diplomatic attacks vs. attacking city A1 (player A) for a duration of 3 days. (!) Note that the likelyhood of the added risc coming into play is miniscule, and rather than impair the use of diplomats it is meant to add a point of suspense (provided Player B actually has any diplomatic units to retaliate with).
It opens up to a metalevel of espionage which I think would go well with the mentality of Illyriad.
Cheers
|
It's already hard enough for someone to thieve and get away with it, why should the developers further discourage the use of units?
Edited by Subatoi - 09 Jul 2012 at 20:51
|
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 21:01 |
I find the bonus for retaliation actually furthers the use of diplomatic units, only more evenly among large and small players.
And remember; for any of this actually taking place, you have to First catch the enemy diplomats, then interrogate and break them, then they give away your identity, and only then is there a 10% (or less) chance of loosing espionage secrets to the enemy, and even then the enemy city under attack must have a standing army of diplomats to send out, for the diplomatic bonus to even be applied!
Spice it up I say.
|
|
Granlik
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 280
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 21:29 |
|
Hah... been away for a few days so have only just seen this.
I vote OTHER.
Reason: It depends on what the thief took and why s/he did it.
Explanation: So that the majority can come to a reasonable punishment.
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 21:42 |
This thread is all speculation as are many others, you say that it comes down to the person who was harmed but as a few others brought up that all it takes is for the original thief (in this case) to cry about his punishment on GC, for a few players to mutter their dislike with your planned punishment and involve themselves. I can speak personally with experience when this has happened to me just to arrange a punishment and have people on GC who had no idea what the full story was, hear two sentences and decide that I, the player who caught the aggressor in question was in fact the aggressor O.O
In my opinion in order to ensure that your punishments for those that harm you stay more easily within your jurisdiction, to have global chat eliminated. Though that could be perceived as another topic, anyway my base point was that even if you catch the thief and prepare a punishment, there will always be someone ready to voice his dislike with your way of doing things and it continues downhill from there.
Edited by Subatoi - 09 Jul 2012 at 21:42
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 21:46 |
Edited by Rill - 09 Jul 2012 at 22:02
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 22:15 |
Honestly, with regards to the GC getting involved, I think the "right" course of action depends almost entirely on the relative populations of the offending and victim player. If the offending player is near or below the population of the victim, I see no reason for anyone other than the two player's immediate alliances (not confederates) to get involved. Only when the victim is much weaker relative to the offender do GC players Confederates need to be brought into it. Of course, it isn't always possible to know who attacked who, which is why, if two players are close in population, they should sort it out just the two of them; no GC, no alliance involvement, just PMs and individual actions -- until they start putting alliance ties in danger or one player is at risk of being sieged out of the game.
|
|
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 22:25 |
But they wont because it's public knowledge that there's always someone ready in the global chat room to play Super Man.
The problem lies imo Global Chat and with taking steps to remove it, would enable others to more successfully control thieving by allocating proper punishment without interference.
Edited by Subatoi - 09 Jul 2012 at 22:30
|
|
Tweet
The Proper Punishment for Thieves