| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
dunnoob 
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
 Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 03:47 |
 Subatoi wrote:
Hm? |
NAPs are fine as they are, as I found out when I really wanted to grab an abandonded legendary city while keeping the NAP: Either siege or NAP, you can't have it both ways. Ofc you can temporarily leave your alliance or temporarily cancel the NAP, but at least folks without the permissions to do something rush and unilateral can't attack cities protected by a NAP with armies. And collecting abandoned saddles before some 3rd party gets them is also fun.
If you want to make NAPs expensive a system fee, e.g., 2*100K gold, would work for me. But it could be annoying to pay this fee again and again if temporary suspensions of a NAP for player tournaments or arranged sieges require it.
Off topic, yes, your font size sucks, as you will understand in about 30 years.
|
 |
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 04:03 |
dunnoob wrote:
Subatoi wrote:
Hm? |
NAPs are fine as they are, as I found out when I really wanted to grab an abandonded legendary city while keeping the NAP: Either siege or NAP, you can't have it both ways. Ofc you can temporarily leave your alliance or temporarily cancel the NAP, but at least folks without the permissions to do something rush and unilateral can't attack cities protected by a NAP with armies. And collecting abandoned saddles before some 3rd party gets them is also fun.
If you want to make NAPs expensive a system fee, e.g., 2*100K gold, would work for me. But it could be annoying to pay this fee again and again if temporary suspensions of a NAP for player tournaments or arranged sieges require it.
Off topic, yes, your font size sucks, as you will understand in about 30 years.
|
Look I didn't realize at first what the problem was but when I did realize it I set about finding my posts and increasing the size to 3. I hope that helps.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 04:16 |
geofrey wrote:
The Authority can continue ruling so long as 1 thing stays true. They can never change leadership. The moment whoever is incharge, decides to step down/promote someone else, all hell breaks loose. That is when the Authority will have a minor civil war, most likely between 2 players. One of those 2 players will drop out of their Alliance to wage war. And when he drops out, his loyal comrades will drop out to help him. Now it is at the exact moment, when Authority and EX Authority members go to war with each other, that all of those "other alliances" do what they do best: chaos.
With no central leadership of the Authority, each alliance is left to decide what to do. With individual decisions being made there is bound to be conflict between alliances, resulting in global war.
And that was just a Tuesday.
|
Interesting. Most Crow alliances do not have a single leader, but a leadership team, usually 3 Rooks. Your analysis would suggest that Crow would not be subject to this sort of scenario because it is rare for the leadership team to change all at once; rather, people tend to move in and out of leadership according to the needs of the alliance and of the players.
Personally, I don't see any reason that your predictions should be true, but if they are, perhaps Crow are unintentionally brilliant.
Luck is good. Almost makes up for us not being as smart as the other guys.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 09:57 |
Granlik wrote:
Subatoi wrote:
Bonaparta wrote:
Subatoi change your font or increase font size. Your text is unreadable... |
It's very readable
|
no its not.
|
funniest thing I've read in....days. Thanks.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 12:09 |
|
in my opinion there should be cost involved in anything that occurs in the game, this will cause more live player activity in the game, i suggest prestige cost since we now have an alliance prestige pool, prestige is rewarded each day for log in, the actual account holder is the only one that is able to collect and contribute, maybe with cost associated with these activities they would be used more sparely than the current blanket approach....and please...no personal attacks on the writer....respond to the idea
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 13:27 |
|
gameplayer, making people pay for anything that occurs in illy will reduce the player base and reduce player activity imo. Lots of players are attracted to this game because it is free. Also player A has never bought prestige, but recruits player B and player C, player B buys prestige and player C buys a nice T-shirt and mug form the Illy Merc. shop, so is player A a valuable commodity too illy? I think so.
|
|
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 13:31 |
Rill wrote:
geofrey wrote:
The Authority can continue ruling so long as 1 thing stays true. They can never change leadership. The moment whoever is incharge, decides to step down/promote someone else, all hell breaks loose. That is when the Authority will have a minor civil war, most likely between 2 players. One of those 2 players will drop out of their Alliance to wage war. And when he drops out, his loyal comrades will drop out to help him. Now it is at the exact moment, when Authority and EX Authority members go to war with each other, that all of those "other alliances" do what they do best: chaos.
With no central leadership of the Authority, each alliance is left to decide what to do. With individual decisions being made there is bound to be conflict between alliances, resulting in global war.
And that was just a Tuesday.
|
Interesting. Most Crow alliances do not have a single leader, but a leadership team, usually 3 Rooks. Your analysis would suggest that Crow would not be subject to this sort of scenario because it is rare for the leadership team to change all at once; rather, people tend to move in and out of leadership according to the needs of the alliance and of the players.
Personally, I don't see any reason that your predictions should be true, but if they are, perhaps Crow are unintentionally brilliant.
Luck is good. Almost makes up for us not being as smart as the other guys.
|
Each alliance maintaining it's own leadership is always good, and it's even better when there are multiple leaders in an alliance.
I actually based all of this analysis off of a song of ice and fire.
|
|
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 13:48 |
|
prestige is given freely each day for log in, the suggestion of prestige cost would encourage daily log in plus it would give a value to maintain confederations and naps, it also would require more strategy to confederation and nap setups....the current requirement for establishing and maintaining these relationships involves nothing, but maybe a daily gold payment or maybe a daily prestige payment?a large enough payment to make confederations and naps something that would put more consideration in establishing and maintaining them?
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 14:17 |
gameplayer wrote:
in my opinion there should be cost involved in anything that occurs in the game, this will cause more live player activity in the game, i suggest prestige cost since we now have an alliance prestige pool, prestige is rewarded each day for log in, the actual account holder is the only one that is able to collect and contribute, maybe with cost associated with these activities they would be used more sparely than the current blanket approach....and please...no personal attacks on the writer....respond to the idea |
Charging prestige for routine game activities is a really bad idea. One of the things I love about Illy is that it can be played without any use of prestige -- it truly is free to play. As for the daily prestige -- there are (I hear) people who actually go for more than a day without playing Illy. People who only play a couple of times a week, even! Granted, this completely baffles me (how could you not want to play Illy every day), but if that is the way they like to play, there is no reason they should be penalized by game mechanics for doing so or "forced" to log in every day to collect the "free" prestige that is now required to perform basic game functions.
That doesn't mean I think that people shouldn't buy prestige or that prestige should not have any applications in game. (Buy prestige and support Illy!) But I love that Illy really IS free-to-play instead of just claiming to be.
|
|
Avion
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 May 2012
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 111 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 15:27 |
Rill wrote:
But I love that Illy really IS free-to-play instead of just claiming to be. |
So do I. Illy is rare in this regard. Many MMOs are "F2P" but their Prestige systems unbalance the game in favour of the buyers.
|
|
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
|
|
Tweet
Limiting Confederations/naps
