| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Hadus 
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
 Topic: Limiting Confederations/naps
Posted: 14 Jul 2012 at 04:26 |
 Subatoi wrote:
Hadus wrote:
I remember seeing this suggested before in a thread, but it's worth mentioning again: I wish there was more to fight for in Illyriad. Currently, you are fighting for either Pride/Respect/Fun, a Tournament, or less frequently land. I wish there were more ways, especially with crafting coming up, to engage in combat without putting your city at risk. Perhaps "archaeology" squares that you can dig at to discover valuables, but which you must protect with an army or risk being pushed off it. Or make the resource harvesting sites last longer, with the caravan moving back and forth, creating an intermittant flow of res until the site runs dry. Again, protected by an army. If anything, it would make for some interesting diplomatic decisions. An archaeological site appears between players of two large alliances, and they must work out (via politics or force) who gets the spot, or how to share it. Perhaps this would at least stir the pot between alliances and confederations (I'm not looking to cause outbreaks).
|
Hadus don't ever say you wish to see more fighting, or more pvp because it gets impossible to defend yourself in a verbal argument. I for example woke up to a horde of orc units when i logged into my Subatoi account I want to say 1-2(maybe three) months ago and that player who sent the units at me more or less said he was paid to send the units since i *liked pvp*. So basically someone paid him to attack me but since I've announced before i like the warfare aspect theres no defense on my part, all i did was evacuate my soldiers and wait for the units to land/leave then continue on with my day.
So that is my advise, don't ever say you like the fighting aspect. |
Subatoi, while I do appreciate the advice and believe what you say, I refuse to be afraid of speaking my mind when I believe I am presenting myself in a calm, rational manner and focusing on the subject rather than the people I'm posting with. If someone has a problem with what I've said, let them speak, be with with words or warriors.
|
|
|
 |
Avion
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 May 2012
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 111
|
Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 14:56 |
Subatoi wrote:
I like it.. |
Ditto.
|
|
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 05:05 |
|
I like it..
|
|
Silent/Steadfast
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Pacific County
Status: Offline
Points: 553
|
Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 02:02 |
|
There is a MUCH simpler way to do this than to tax. An alliance should need to purchase spots for NAPs and Confeds before they can commit to them (Both sides need to have a free slot), and the cost should increase for each one purchased, say 3000 gold for the first NAP, 6000 for the second, 12000 for the third, 24000 for the fourth, 48000 for the fifth, ect. Getting a 20th slot would cost a whopping 1,572,864,000 gold to buy, and that's just for NAPs. Confeds could start at 7 or 8k.
|
|
"Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM)
"SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM)
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 20:20 |
Subatoi wrote:
So that is my advise, don't ever say you like the fighting aspect.
|
Unless you actually do like the fighting aspect and want to fight people, in which case it might get you what you want.
Personally, I enjoy fighting in tournaments and player-run events but don't enjoy the animus of war.
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 19:23 |
Hadus wrote:
I remember seeing this suggested before in a thread, but it's worth mentioning again: I wish there was more to fight for in Illyriad. Currently, you are fighting for either Pride/Respect/Fun, a Tournament, or less frequently land. I wish there were more ways, especially with crafting coming up, to engage in combat without putting your city at risk. Perhaps "archaeology" squares that you can dig at to discover valuables, but which you must protect with an army or risk being pushed off it. Or make the resource harvesting sites last longer, with the caravan moving back and forth, creating an intermittant flow of res until the site runs dry. Again, protected by an army. If anything, it would make for some interesting diplomatic decisions. An archaeological site appears between players of two large alliances, and they must work out (via politics or force) who gets the spot, or how to share it. Perhaps this would at least stir the pot between alliances and confederations (I'm not looking to cause outbreaks).
|
Hadus don't ever say you wish to see more fighting, or more pvp because it gets impossible to defend yourself in a verbal argument. I for example woke up to a horde of orc units when i logged into my Subatoi account I want to say 1-2(maybe three) months ago and that player who sent the units at me more or less said he was paid to send the units since i *liked pvp*. So basically someone paid him to attack me but since I've announced before i like the warfare aspect theres no defense on my part, all i did was evacuate my soldiers and wait for the units to land/leave then continue on with my day.
So that is my advise, don't ever say you like the fighting aspect.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 19:04 |
I remember seeing this suggested before in a thread, but it's worth mentioning again: I wish there was more to fight for in Illyriad. Currently, you are fighting for either Pride/Respect/Fun, a Tournament, or less frequently land. I wish there were more ways, especially with crafting coming up, to engage in combat without putting your city at risk. Perhaps "archaeology" squares that you can dig at to discover valuables, but which you must protect with an army or risk being pushed off it. Or make the resource harvesting sites last longer, with the caravan moving back and forth, creating an intermittant flow of res until the site runs dry. Again, protected by an army. If anything, it would make for some interesting diplomatic decisions. An archaeological site appears between players of two large alliances, and they must work out (via politics or force) who gets the spot, or how to share it. Perhaps this would at least stir the pot between alliances and confederations (I'm not looking to cause outbreaks).
Edited by Hadus - 12 Jul 2012 at 19:04
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 18:45 |
Subatoi wrote:
i feel that players will leave and have been leaving at some percentage because there are power block alliances in place that can keep extending power, and power with no end.
|
Your argument has the advantage of relying on a contention that is utterly unverifiable. Therefore no one can refute it.
Well done.
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 17:52 |
Any pathway that you take has the risk of losing players, in my opinion keeping it so NAP's can reinforce other NAP's and allowing 10+ confederations/NAP's hurts the game and may encourage players to leave.
What is a common thing to say is that you max out on your population, i find this half and half. You can keep growing your alliance population through continued confederations and extensions of that alliance. , you can just max your personal account population. So while it may be encouraging for a few new players to stay when told that your personal account population has a max, as it stands i feel that players will leave and have been leaving at some percentage because there are power block alliances in place that can keep extending power, and power with no end. It makes as much sense as letting the personal account reach as much population as it wants, in the end.
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 17:33 |
Darkwords wrote:
I beleive this would maintain a more realistic relation, with larger alliances being able to afford wider relations more easily.
|
That's the point... big alliances won't even care about throwing out some 10-20 Mio on gold, it just hinders flexibility, for example for temporary confeds allowing a breaking of the 10 square rule (when agreed by both sides, of course...). Medium sized allies would have to fight much harder to be able to take part in such networks. So all you would achieve is a change from a net-like structure, with several independent alliances, to a centralistic system, where only 1 or 2 alliances can afford having several bilateral confeds, with those gathering around not being able to help each other... So just keep it as it is... Those who like peace always find ways to gather, and those who like fights usually tend to be on the individualistic side (at least in Illy). No rules can change that. A game, where I have to say "Hey, we have same ideas, hate the same kind of people, etc... and I want to help you defend against anyone... but, oh I can't, my list of friends is already full..." would be bound to loose some players due to that...
|
|
Tweet
Limiting Confederations/naps
