Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Update 14OCT10 - Faction Info
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedUpdate 14OCT10 - Faction Info

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
Author
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Oct 2010 at 23:00
@waylander: What if a more hostile alliance moves to the same place as the non-aligned person?  Probably safer to wait a bit for the more aggro folk to take their piece of land in that case.  Lotta options out there anyways.
Back to Top
waylander69 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Location: spain
Status: Offline
Points: 316
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Oct 2010 at 23:06
Originally posted by Zangi Zangi wrote:

@waylander: What if a more hostile alliance moves to the same place as the non-aligned person?  Probably safer to wait a bit for the more aggro folk to take their piece of land in that case.  Lotta options out there anyways.

Why should someone wait for the 'leftovers' as there is a 4 week waiting point from the start of the spell, when should they move after all the alliances have picked the choice ground ?
Im only trying to find out a time so people can get ready for it, if you look at the numbers of people playing there are not that many who ask question but just lurk just as they do in chat.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Oct 2010 at 23:12
Eh, I suppose.  Fight for what you want, even if you are doing it alone.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


Even if you manage to make them not hate you so much (through quests, making friends with their friends etc) so you can get that one trade in or that couple of visits into their areas when they don't stake you to an anthill, they will still - over time - gravitate towards hating you.

SC


Ok, seeing as their default is -80 relation, you are strongly implying that their relation drops faster then a faction default that is -40?
Back to Top
Noryasha Grunk View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Location: Armokumid
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 00:13
Stormcrow, please DO NOT make these areas unsettleable!

LET the players dash themselves against them! Let huge alliances build up that want to try to reduce the dragons to a manageable level. Let them try! Warn, yes, sure, but if you make it so we can't even try your taking a lot of the fun out of the game. :(

"Does it matter if these "I will kill you" factions rely on purely military strength, or whether they have special powers?  No."
YES. It matters. In the first case, they can believe that if they try hard enough, get enough friends and get strong enough, they may not be able to beat them but they can hold even with them. And that can be incredibly fun.

If you make them practically impossible to beat, but still allow people to try, you give them some ultimate challenge. Something to which they can aspire. Believe it or not, there are people who would actually enjoy struggling to fight off the neverending attacks of a powerful hostile faction until they are ground into the dust. There can be victory even in saying "Ha! Look how long I held out against these guys!" or "I befriended these impossible to befriend guys and even though I need to dedicate all my resources to maintaining that relationship or they will utterly destroy me, I AM DOING IT! WOOH!"

If nothing else, there's joys to be had by exploring, testing just how powerful these groups are and trying to mentally find a way to beat them even if you can't.

So, please please please don't make these areas unsettleable. Please don't introduce artifical constraints on your players "for their own good".  This means your forcing them to play the game YOU want them to play instead of the game THEY want to play, and I don't think thats a good thing.


Edited by Noryasha Grunk - 16 Oct 2010 at 00:23
Back to Top
Torn Sky View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 00:31
you can still settle just outside the region and fight them if you want to that bad 
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 00:34
Or at least open them up for settlement... after the AI and Trade V2 goes live. 

Monster Hunters can establish a new settlement as a 'beachhead', sending armies and gold to that settlement straight from the start.

Then the fight for Normandy begins!  Once the beachhead is secure... after countless casualties....  push in! 

For glory and loot!


Edited by Zangi - 16 Oct 2010 at 00:35
Back to Top
Noryasha Grunk View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Location: Armokumid
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 00:43
I'd be fine with the above.
Back to Top
Jerec Cross View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 01:52
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


Also, I would assume that any alliance really serious about taking a piece of territory would already have settled some placeholders in that particular part of the world to stop anyone else teleporting in.

If not, well... it would make sense... Just a thought.

SC


In regards to this, can we completely demolish our towns, so we can settle them elsewhere?  In case it happens that two people send placeholders close enough to prevent their other town from teleporting.  This would probably only have a chance of happening close to the hubs, but it would be terrible if you settled a city then could not teleport next to it!
Back to Top
TGE View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 14:09
Will enemy size be based on player size? For example, will I, having a pop of 3000, be attacked by the same number of troops as someone with 50000 pop? I am going to try to stay away from the haters, but if the occasional attack slips in, can i take it?

Comic Sans started global warming
Back to Top
GM Stormcrow View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 14:21
Originally posted by Jerec Cross Jerec Cross wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


Also, I would assume that any alliance really serious about taking a piece of territory would already have settled some placeholders in that particular part of the world to stop anyone else teleporting in.

If not, well... it would make sense... Just a thought.

SC


In regards to this, can we completely demolish our towns, so we can settle them elsewhere?  In case it happens that two people send placeholders close enough to prevent their other town from teleporting.  This would probably only have a chance of happening close to the hubs, but it would be terrible if you settled a city then could not teleport next to it!


Yes indeed. There's a built-in game mechanism called "Siege" that allows you to demolish towns in order to clear them out of "your" territory Wink

I fully expect some players to try to "spoil" other players' settlement plans by careful use of the mechanisms.  This is why the teleportation spell has a 4-week lifespan in which it can be used.

Best,

SC
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.