| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
-hypocritical- 
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
 Posted: 22 Sep 2010 at 22:14 |
 Larry wrote:
-hypocritical- wrote:
Larry wrote:
Actually the primary interesting question is: Are there better or worse spots broadly speaking? I mean sure, a given square 5 squares over may be more useful to you than where you are at the moment, but is any one REGION better than another region? |
for a short answer, yes some spaces are better |
I'm afraid a short answer won't do. What precisely about some regions make them categorically more useful vs simply "more useful for particular things". |
different biomes, meaning different resource amounts and war benefits to players, for like dwarf only factions
also river positions, lake and sea positions, distance from maps, defensive power, can you easily spread out distance from centre of map etc... there is alot of things to concider, you could also break up an alliance that opposes you, making the land the are settling on more valuble
obviously most area's wont have all these, but there are deffo more favouritable places than others
|
 |
KarL Aegis
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 287
|
Posted: 22 Sep 2010 at 22:28 |
|
trying to decide where you want to be without proper information is just zzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
I am not amused.
|
|
some random guy
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: saturn
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 01:45 |
|
how are we going to deal with inactive alliance members?
|
|
Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo....
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 01:57 |
|
Kick them.
|
|
some random guy
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: saturn
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 02:00 |
|
what if the entire alliance is inactive?
|
|
Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo....
|
|
Larry
Wordsmith
Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 04:02 |
< ="utf-8">
KillerPoodle wrote:
Larry wrote:
*grabs popcorn* |
/me brings a six-pack and a couple of chairs...
|
Its a regular party!
some random guy wrote:
what if the entire alliance is inactive? |
Burn them to the ground for the lulz.
|
|
Laccy
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 56
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 10:00 |
|
I intend to use the area next to mountain ranges because I like the way gnomes bounce between the peaks when they are tossed at them.
|
|
Shrapnel
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 14:17 |
I've gotten exactly 0 support on this idea both here and in the forums mostly from what I see as a lot of faulty logic. I'll touch upon what I think are the 3 top ones:
1. "I don't want to give my enemies an advantage. If I announce where I want to go, they'll take my spot from me." I think this is faulty because it assumes your spot is the only good spot, but mostly because once you actually put your town in the spot you've chosen, they'll find it anyway and if they are willing to go to war for it, they'll just take it from you. Declaring your spot ahead of time is actually beneficial because you'll find out who else wants your spot and then the two opposing sides can work together and find another spot equally as appealing so you both get a good spot (or at least you'll know who your enemy is). Finally, I'm not so much proposing we give the exact square but rather a region like the range you want your alliance to settle in.
2. "We can't work together. " We already do this all the time to keep the peace or punish aggressors. How can you say we can't do something we do all the time? This will only be true if we actually make the choice not to work together. It won't be because we can't, it will be because we choose not to.
3. "Not enough information." I wasn't proposing we start making decisions right now. Of course we would make the decisions once the biomes and factions are placed. I'm just bringing it up now so we could start discussing things. Good idea considering all the opposition.
Whether this idea can work or not, I'd appreciate a little more open mindedness and constructive thought thant I've seen so far. Instead of being the "party of no", how about some constructive counter ideas? One such counter idea I had was instead of planning ahead of time which spots we take, we just go about business as usaual until after eveyone has moved their towns and the time for using the spell has passed. We then wait for the town move feature the GMs have planned and we can then barter for land. We can trade spots (or not if you're 100% happy where your alliance is situated). This could be done on a much smaller scale and just between the two (or more) interested parties.
|
|
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 17:02 |
1. If I announce where I see a good spot, and an evil darve finds it is better than the spot he had found, he will take it. Most likely he won't warn me before-hand, he will just rush to it and I will have to either get over it or war with him (which is out of the question unless he is much much smaller than me, as the town wall will give him the advantage). I realy doupt he would try to bargain with me so we can each be satisfied... He will just take all the good spot he needs if he feels he is stronger than me, and leave me only the left overs. And even if there are multple good spot, evil guys might just not want to bother wasting time looking for one when some have allready been found and regrouped in a nice little topic.
The only way I would accept to tell my good spot would be if the top 3 alliances accepted to seek and destroy anyone stealing a square mentionned in the forum. the first to mention each spot would obviously be it's owner (you can only own as much as the number of city you have). Even with this methode, I dont think it will stop some from stealing.
2. when you so called "work together", it is usually on the scale of one alliance. Maybe a few alliance can team up, but they only have a couple of mixte operation. the rest of the time they just share a common goal (ex: destroy this player or this alliance) but without much coherency. and most of the time, the alliance doesn't work together, they just follow the orders of the 4 or 5 active players.
So unlike you, i don't think we do "work together" when the scale is bigger than 10 people, let alone bigger than 1 alliance. Keep in mind there are about 22000 towns to move... (lets admit half of them are inactive, this still makes 11000 towns)
3. "not enought info" hey, I'm on your side for this one, You may notice i didn't mention this in my earlier post. And You were rigth to create this topic now. just because we cannot know which are the good spot, doesn't mean we cann't decide how to agree on who should get which spot.
I like your idea to make alliance agree which general area they want, but aren't big alliance going to have it their way? and new players would be sort of forced to join the alliance in their area rather than the one they like... Nevertheless, big alliances should indicate which general area they want to control so than smaller alliances can choose to go elsewhere so as to keep some territorial influence.
I think the dev mentionned that the town move feature is going to be very painfull if your city is big. so it migth not be a solution to wait and trade spot...
Maybe we could create an external forum in which only people who agree to; 1. not to steal , and 2. to destroy anyone who joined then stole. would be accepted. in that forum, all location would be recorded as well as the owner. I think that would be in utopia and most people would not join. (some people might even join the external forum with one account and steal with the other account, claiming they didn't know it was allready wanted.)
Well, most of that was a brainstorming, To sum up; the only thing that seams feasable would be to get alliance to announce where they want to go.
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
Shrapnel
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180
|
Posted: 23 Sep 2010 at 18:07 |
Bartimeus, if that evil dwarf in your example wants your spot, he's going to take it (assuming he's big enough) whether you place your town there or not. I would agree with you if we had fog of war at this point, then we wouldn't know where everyone is or what spots they found, but we'll all be able to find the same spots you found once you settle your city. I did like your idea of having big alliances agree to enforce decisions. That's a possibility. I also like your idea of creating an external forum. Maybe the whole Illyriad community doesn't have to agree, but just a few of the most peaceful alliances can work together. Let those who want to fight fight, and those of us who want to work together can do so as well.
A light bulb just lit up in my head. This may not fly, but it's a cool idea in theory. The GMs said the further away from the center, the more dangerous the factions. What if the most peaceful alliances formed a mass confederation and moved all their towns to the edges of the map. We could then be like peace keepers and tame these unruly factions for the glory of Illyriad as they are enemies of peace. If enough of us moved there, we should be able to protect each other depending on how tough the GMs make them.
|
|
Tweet
Time of Chaos