| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Subatoi 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
 Topic: Limiting Confederations/naps
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 18:34 |
*i accidentally closed this tab out first draft wise so this is a tad summarized*
I propose a tax on alliance finances for alliances who add in Confederations or Nap's. The tax rate could be 2% to a confed and 1% to a NAP. This would enable an actual purpose for the alliance finances as well as making it somewhat costly for having multiple confederations or Non Aggression Pacts, it would also encourage alliances to use the tax system that so few actually use.
Or perhaps limit the amount of confederations and NAP's one alliance can have, as well as removed abilities granted by the NAP such as the reinforce ability.
Hm?
Edited by Subatoi - 12 Jul 2012 at 04:06
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 18:54 |
Seems like this is an attempt to get people to play the game in particular ways. "People should have less confeds." "People should have alliance taxes."
These are indeed valid opinions, but there are lots of ways to play Illy; why should the devs take action to funnel everyone into playing in specific ways?
More choices, not fewer. If lots of people want people to have fewer confeds or NAPs, then there will be pressure from alliances on other alliances that have lots of confeds or NAPs. If lots of people think alliance taxes are a good idea, people will be more likely to have alliance taxes.
If people don't want to do that, why create game limitations that make them?
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 18:58 |
 Rill wrote:
Seems like this is an attempt to get people to play the game in particular ways. "People should have less confeds." "People should have alliance taxes."
These are indeed valid opinions, but there are lots of ways to play Illy; why should the devs take action to funnel everyone into playing in specific ways?
More choices, not fewer. If lots of people want people to have fewer confeds or NAPs, then there will be pressure from alliances on other alliances that have lots of confeds or NAPs. If lots of people think alliance taxes are a good idea, people will be more likely to have alliance taxes.
If people don't want to do that, why create game limitations that make them?
|
The player base with its confed/nap system is already limiting the game, this would decrease said limitations.
Edited by Subatoi - 12 Jul 2012 at 04:07
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 19:07 |
i agree there. this super mega coalitions are a true nuisance to the plans of my domination of illy: you see, this way we have to deal with huge clusters of "safe zones" and even trying to dent the borders or trying to take over minor parts of those alliances is regarded as a valid reason to kill off the expansion happy side with disproportional violence. an other problem with those huge coalitions is that they all develop a sort of culture, which is hurtful for the efforts of a expansion based empire, for the culture shock is often to great for the conquered folks, that can not keep up with the new policies and are really reticent to send their army for the cause.
not to talk about the common trend of running to GC to cry over the smallest thing like a crybaby..
the worst would be the common idea that this is good and right, that this kind of attitude is good for the game and that you belong 6 feet under if your ideas are different from the mainstream.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 19:58 |
Subatoi wrote:
Rill wrote:
Seems like this is an attempt to get people to play the game in particular ways. "People should have less confeds." "People should have alliance taxes."
These are indeed valid opinions, but there are lots of ways to play Illy; why should the devs take action to funnel everyone into playing in specific ways?
More choices, not fewer. If lots of people want people to have fewer confeds or NAPs, then there will be pressure from alliances on other alliances that have lots of confeds or NAPs. If lots of people think alliance taxes are a good idea, people will be more likely to have alliance taxes.
If people don't want to do that, why create game limitations that make them?
|
The player base with its confed/nap system is already limiting the game, this would decrease said limitations.
|
The player base is making the choices preferred by many players. Other players who don't like it should do things their way. If their way is not as effective as other ways ... that doesn't mean game mechanics should be changed to give any particular set of players a perceived advantage.
Personally I think this change would not do much to alter Illy game dynamics, I just think that altering game mechanics in the hope of altering the way people play Illy, particularly altering mechanics to encourage people to play in a specified style, goes against what Illy is about.
To me, Illy is about there being a broad range of options available and people making use of them in different ways. Proposing something like this is like saying "thieves should be eliminated" or "people should only be able to attack people who are at least 75% of their size" or other similar suggestions that limit the choices we can make.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of thieves. But a lot of people have fun with them, and who am I to say that's a bad thing? I may of course ruthlessly deal with any thief I catch, but that doesn't mean I think that thieves should not be an option.
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 20:06 |
Rill wrote:
Subatoi wrote:
Rill wrote:
Seems like this is an attempt to get people to play the game in particular ways. "People should have less confeds." "People should have alliance taxes."
These are indeed valid opinions, but there are lots of ways to play Illy; why should the devs take action to funnel everyone into playing in specific ways?
More choices, not fewer. If lots of people want people to have fewer confeds or NAPs, then there will be pressure from alliances on other alliances that have lots of confeds or NAPs. If lots of people think alliance taxes are a good idea, people will be more likely to have alliance taxes.
If people don't want to do that, why create game limitations that make them?
|
The player base with its confed/nap system is already limiting the game, this would decrease said limitations.
|
The player base is making the choices preferred by many players.
|
The player base back in the day enjoyed making dozens of alliances at the cost of five thousand gold, which was recognized by the developers and the cost increased 100%, the process of making alliances cheaply which many players enjoyed was eliminated from the game. Are you suggesting that only things you do not care for should be eliminated from the game?
Edited by Subatoi - 12 Jul 2012 at 04:08
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 20:19 |
I have no opinion of the change to increase the cost for starting an alliance; it occurred before I started playing Illy. I am guessing it was done as much to reduce server load from maintaining multiple alliance chats or archives of defunct alliances as for any other reason.
From what I've seen, this change had little effect on the ability of players to start new alliances; many newbs are able to start alliances in their first week or so with gold they receive as gifts.
A change made to do something like make the server run more efficiently that has limited effect on how the game is actually played seems pretty unintrusive; I think the devs carefully weigh all such changes.
If the change had been made solely because people didn't like one-person alliances or having lots of different alliances, then it does seem a little intrusive and I would tend to oppose it, even though the effects as I said seem quite limited -- and in spite of the fact that I groan when I see an extremely new player creating yet another likely short-lived alliance. The game mechanics should not be altered to encourage people to play in one way or another -- not even MY way.
Edited by Rill - 11 Jul 2012 at 20:22
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 20:32 |
Rill wrote:
I have no opinion of the change to increase the cost for starting an alliance; it occurred before I started playing Illy.
|
Ah that interestingly enough was one of my more favored times of illyriad.
Edit: because everyone is so paranoid I have to go back and edit this, I was referncing a time when there was more war game like feel, more alliance wars "both interesting to watch and place wagers on and to fight in (though i'd recommend not purposely starting wars)". As well as the people i liked more back then who are gone from illyriad now.
Edit again: font larger for Granlik.
Rill wrote:
From what I've seen, this change had little effect on the ability of players to start new alliances; many newbs are able to start alliances in their first week or so with gold they receive as gifts.
|
Then the alliances they create do nothing for them as they still for the most part depend on resource shipments *shudder* and defense from other players, more commonly found in GC. Although I suppose that is another topic in the making and can be ignored here.
Rill wrote:
A change made to do something like make the server run more efficiently that has limited effect on how the game is actually played seems pretty unintrusive; I think the devs carefully weigh all such changes.
|
I have complete faith in the developers and with that faith I provide my truest thoughts to their latest idea's as I know they most likely adore honest opinions and I of course appreciate their honest opinions to my ideas. The 100% increase may have been to lessen the strain, I do not know but perhaps a developer can provide some insight?
Rill wrote:
If the change had been made solely because people didn't like one-person alliances or having lots of different alliances, then it does seem a little intrusive and I would tend to oppose it, even though the effects as I said seem quite limited -- and in spite of the fact that I groan when I see an extremely new player creating yet another likely short-lived alliance. The game mechanics should not be altered to encourage people to play in one way or another -- not even MY way.
|
Then technically with your statements I suppose we could say that updating the game with various new mechanics would oppose another players play style and be intrusive to the game, in theory anyway. I suppose for the game not directly influencing game play is good, something to be happy about as it easily could have been otherwise.
Edited by Subatoi - 12 Jul 2012 at 00:18
|
|
Bonaparta
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 20:37 |
|
Subatoi change your font or increase font size. Your text is unreadable...
|
|
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 20:39 |
|
sandbox
|
|
|
|
Tweet
Limiting Confederations/naps
