| Author |
Topic Search
Topic Options
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1483 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 15:20 |
|
I always wanted cows to be a race. Each unit would take a certain number of actual cows, rather than cow related products. Though, that's mostly because I always feel bad when I have to turn my cows into said products...
|
 |
Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Location: U.S.A. Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 16:50 |
GM ThunderCat wrote:
Mr. Ubiquitous Feral wrote:
I want chicken people. |
How do you think these might work? Would they take their flavour from their surroundings and be able to fight on for three days after being killed; unless you had butchers, assassins or vampires in your army?
Hot oil would do double damage and battering rams would make them more tasty, increasing the food they drop?
|
The Chicken People would just stand around and look at each other. They would be used as diversion as the real armies snuck up and began sapping the wall. Their presence would also decrease the gold cost of the army, since they would be supplying food as part of their war effort. And yes, after having their heads cut off, they would still run around in circles causing much confusion. Chicken people are a necessity to any serious armed endeavor.
|
|
I am a Machine.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 17:17 |
|
LH, race variety isn't going to fix the problems you perceive. It's a fact of life (and a rather intelligent one at that) that when people have to work this hard at building their account, they are heavily invested into the game. And because of that investment, people are going to play smart and cautiously. That means no one is going to start/fight a war they don't strongly believe they'll
win and do so
profitably. From that perspective, outnumbering your opponent is a very good thing. What would address this perceived stalemate is increasing the ability to fight over wealth in a way that doesn't make warfare personal and burn so many bridges. Pathfinding will be the true savior in that regard.
As for pirates, they wouldn't be sieged. Pirates would simply be vulnerable to fleet reduction or even wholesale destruction from attacks by regular naval units. Pirates that let themselves get caught would be as vulnerable to total obliteration as any other fleet at sea. But on the flip side, they can get back on their feet by capturing new ships--either in battles where they heavily outnumber the enemy, or with "diplo missions" to other players' naval ports. There's no building, only plundering, capturing, and stealing ships at port. Running out of diplos
and ships would be like losing your last city, so you'd get a reset with a fresh small fleet and your technology retained. Technology research would be the one form of traditional account development you'd still have to do, albeit with a radically different tech tree.
Also to keep the "fun" and high-seas adventure down to a reasonable level, pirate accounts would only ever be allowed to have/be one fleet. I expect a lot of players would choose pirate for their second account. In theory, this coupled with the vulnerability of having no place to call home should keep the seas from becoming overrun with pirates.
Also also, pirates would have limited carrying capacity, but be able to bury treasure on uninhabited squares for a rainy day. They would also be able to use trade hubs, so the quest for plunder wouldn't be completely pointless.
Edited by HonoredMule - 10 Mar 2011 at 17:25
|
 |
Lionz Heartz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 Location: Megan Fox Status: Offline Points: 292 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 17:32 |
HonoredMule wrote:
LH, race variety isn't going to fix the problems you perceive. It's a fact of life (and a rather intelligent one at that) that when people have to work this hard at building their account, they are heavily invested into the game. And because of that investment, people are going to play smart and cautiously. That means no one is going to start/fight a war they don't strongly believe they'll win and do so profitably. From that perspective, outnumbering your opponent is a very good thing. What would address this perceived stalemate is increasing the ability to fight over wealth in a way that doesn't make warfare personal and burn so many bridges. Pathfinding will be the true savior in that regard.As for pirates, they wouldn't be sieged. Pirates would simply be vulnerable to fleet reduction or even wholesale destruction from attacks by regular naval units. Pirates that let themselves get caught would be as vulnerable to total obliteration as any other fleet at sea. But on the flip side, they can get back on their feet by capturing new ships--either in battles where they heavily outnumber the enemy, or with "diplo missions" to other players' naval ports. There's no building, only plundering, capturing, and stealing ships at port. Running out of diplos and ships would be like losing your last city, so you'd get a reset with a fresh small fleet and your technology retained. Technology research would be the one form of traditional account development you'd still have to do, albeit with a radically different tech tree.Also to keep the "fun" and high-seas adventure down to a reasonable level, pirate accounts would only ever be allowed to have/be one fleet. I expect a lot of players would choose pirate for their second account. In theory, this coupled the vulnerability of having no place to call home should keep the seas from becoming overrun with pirates.
|
Race variety will give players more options and less boredom. That alone will make the game more interesting. So, it will help fix the boredom factor I perceive in the game. Stop assuming.
The whole facts of life argument is a stupid way of stating to just deal with the flawed part of the game. However, you may be fine with the lack of strategy in the game and are fine with the most powerful controlling the game. This is the only reason alone that you would want to keep the status quo right now. The strategy in the game currently benefits the most powerful and since you sit in that position, everything is fine in your boredom world of domination.
You will have to expand on the increase chance to fight over wealth idea. Pretty broad statement that makes it hard for me to understand the concept you are trying to make a point of.
I understand your fear of any strategy or new concept in the game that will level the playing field.
However, I do not always agree with your ideas, but you do once in awhile come up with something good. Keeping the current stalemate strategy in the game is a bad idea. It is very flawed and needs a face lift.
I do not expect every person to agree with me on an idea. In fact I do not need anyone to. It is pretty obvious what is lacking in the game and this fact alone is reason enough it does not take a genius to figure out what is lacking in the game.
Edited by Lionz Heartz - 10 Mar 2011 at 17:38
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 17:32 |
|
I want the sharks with lazor beams that Stormcrow promised me in Global Chat.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 17:54 |
|
What is obvious is that the good players who know how to work
any system are on top and successful, and the players who lack insight and strategic wisdom want to blame the system for their failures.
You can change the system, but you can't make the players stupid.
That playing field will never be level.
|
 |
Lionz Heartz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 Location: Megan Fox Status: Offline Points: 292 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 18:05 |
HonoredMule wrote:
What is obvious is that the good players who know how to work any system are on top and successful, and the players who lack insight and strategic wisdom want to blame the system for their failures.You can change the system, but you can't make the players stupid. That playing field will never be level.
|
So basically what you are saying is; no matter how broken and flawed a system is, it is a good system. Your motto is no matter how broke a system is, blame the player.
So, okay keep on giving yourself a big pat on the back for being on top of the game due to your genius alone.
But at this point I will have to agree to disagree with your views. No point debating much further with you on this matter or any other matter to be honest.
My strategy idea comes down to politics really. My idea will more or less level the playing field and make strategy a true factor in the game. This will appeal to the masses more so than the players in power. Just like real life, the rich people want more control and want to keep the competitive edge over the less rich folk. HM, you only want to keep the current status quo to keep the competitive edge and advantage over the less rich folk.
Either you are for the masses or are for the 1% population to control everything. HM, you are for the 1% option, I am more for the masses leveling out the playing field and not making everything such a ZERG fest. Masses as in giving more players the option to defend and attack in this game with less redundancy of ZERGs in a game like this. Only a simple unintelligent mind would be in favor of only one strategy in a game. I want more than one strategy.
Edited by Lionz Heartz - 10 Mar 2011 at 18:12
|
 |
Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Location: U.S.A. Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 18:36 |
|
Illyria is the sandbox. I am the strategist. Both of me.
|
|
I am a Machine.
|
 |
Mr Andersson
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Oct 2010 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 18:41 |
Lionz Heartz wrote:
So basically what you are saying is; no matter how broken and flawed a system is, it is a good system.
|
Are you kidding? That is not what he is saying. Where in his post does he rate the "state" of the system?
Lionz Heartz wrote:
My idea will more or less level the playing field and make strategy a true factor in the game.
|
Strategy already is a true factory of the game, though I'm guessing you and I don't share the same definition of what strategy is.
|
|
MrA
|
 |
Lord Loss
Wordsmith
Joined: 29 Dec 2010 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 19:30 |
I agree
Great Idea
|
|
Have a nice day :)
|
 |