0 Members and 1 Guests are viewing this board.
- Excellion
- Enthusiast
- 296 posts
- Reputation 118
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Never back down, never surrender, no fear
Sep 09 2014 5:13 am
You are? Wow, I almost forgot. Perhaps you'll enjoy http://www.rsdb.org/race/canadians
I hunt the sheep of war...
- Kynell
- Enthusiast
- 240 posts
- Reputation 127
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Sep 09 2014 7:36 am
don't like it at all, to much trouble and makes game more complicated.
however increasing alliance on main to 15 would be cool.
- Jbutler
- Irregular
- 18 posts
- Reputation 7
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Sep 09 2014 9:55 am
i agree with this +1 plus it will also make members think about if to join an alliance, and makes the line between alliance and non alliance more distant as both will now have adv/disadvantages
- Cjamieson99
- Respected
- 640 posts
- Reputation 203
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- LET'S GET THOSE TERRORISTS!
Sep 09 2014 1:16 pm
Plenty of room for abuse too. A player could simply drop alliance for the perks and go around wiping out less active players in smaller alliances that probably aren't even aware of the update.
And again, extremely unnecessary and overly complicated.
Kelac! #1 cheater in the game, but you'll never catch me!
- Excellion
- Enthusiast
- 296 posts
- Reputation 118
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Never back down, never surrender, no fear
Sep 09 2014 1:20 pm
That makes no sense.
"Drop alliance for the perks" - What perks are there to dropping ally?
About going to smaller alliances, this change does not impact smaller alliances in any way. Even if it did, the penalty is very minor, not a game changer.
The sole change is to allow alliances to go beyond the 10 limit if the members are willing to accept a minor penalty to adjust for the change.
Complexity is VERY GOOD for the game. When I started there were no race / personality / stance bonuses. All of those changes add layers of complexity which gives the game more depth.
I hunt the sheep of war...
- Hamiler
- Irregular
- 127 posts
- Reputation 77
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Hold Fast
Sep 09 2014 3:24 pm
making ally 12
not making it in 10
ocd here i come
i want my stock market and going to cry till i get it -_^
Leader of the Asgard Fleet
- Locutusbrg
- Irregular
- 9 posts
- Reputation 11
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Sep 09 2014 5:29 pm
What is magic about the number 12?
I like the 10 limit, the 5 although interesting it might as well be 0.
In the pre reset game. there were 20 members to an alliance. that rapidly turned out to be too much. I appears based on the chatter in the forum that shadow went back to that number on the main and it didn't really make the play any better. The War system between alliances in the early game by alliance leaders declaring war needs to be followed out to a useful system. That had strategy potential and prevented the "sister alliance" thing. Lets face it if black and ex joined up they would have something like 80% of all the worlds on chulak.
Perhaps if possible without a big code change there should be an escalating cost to naq packs the bigger the alliance the higher the naq cost. That may be a self adjusting system if you have like 20 members in an alliance Naq packs cost 80, at ten 40, at five 10, for single players 5 for a naq buy. With the delay on joining and leaving alliances now that should blunt jumping around for bargains.
- Chaldean
- Irregular
- 44 posts
- Reputation 24
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Sep 10 2014 7:51 pm
hey look Kelac is being nice on a forum post
Mother of Magic
- Cjamieson99
- Respected
- 640 posts
- Reputation 203
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- LET'S GET THOSE TERRORISTS!
Sep 11 2014 1:29 pm
CHALEDAN! I WANT YOUR HEAD FOR THIS! I AM NOT NICE. I AM NEVER NICE! THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!!!!!!!!
Kelac! #1 cheater in the game, but you'll never catch me!
- Shade3130
- Irregular
- 71 posts
- Reputation 24
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Guess my real identity.
Sep 29 2014 4:18 pm
how about adding an alliance event where the alliance could expand 2 more "slots" in exchange for upgrading an alliance "building" for 200k each for 5 levels max + the server default.
In travian, the building was Embassy and must be upgraded by Leader of alliance to open 2-3 slots in alliance. this is in other games as well.
would add something for alliances to do. more alliance team events.
----------
other suggestions:
NPC AI Systemlords vs everyone's alliance= For example, Ra(AI) is added into game and attacks random players within range of his base. he must be killed to gain TRUE status of Systemlord. All the systemlords would have dominion over certain areas of galaxy and we must fight and defeat them all. We are the Linvris (lesser system lords) trying to overthrow them.
station dominion event=
over a set timelimit (1 wk- 1 month) have an alliance contest to see who can capture the most stations by deadline. none of the stations would be in protection, use pure skill/units to hold 'em as team.
Capture the planet:
make special planets and allow us to capture and hold them for special alliance "bonuses" as long as that planet is held by your alliance.
For example, capture Earth for +25% in population production for your alliance.
Abydos for +25% naq production for your alliance
chulak for -25% fleet cost for your alliance
Dakara for -25% building cost for your alliance
etc., etc.
NOTE: i used 25% as a holder so don't grill me on that
You guys must really hate me....
- Excellion
- Enthusiast
- 296 posts
- Reputation 118
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Never back down, never surrender, no fear
Sep 29 2014 11:53 pm
Shade offers some very nice suggestions. In terms of the game, things Shadowing is working on are:
Mobile interface
Battle system revamp
I would love to see some time spend working on ideas such as the ones Shade offers. The mechanics are in place already. Either minimal or no development is required but rather setting adjustments.
Locutus offered two thoughts as well:
"Lets face it if black and ex joined up they would have something like 80% of all the worlds on chulak."
WTH is this? There are 24 x 24 x 8 planets in the galaxy = 4608. Player max is 300. If two active players teamed up and max'd out on planets, they would have 600 or 13% of the planets in the galaxy. Some people shared you are a good guy in a bad ally. I am not seeing it. I see a guy who bought millions in naq, shot up 400k nw, and who now sandwiches jabs in an otherwise constructive forum thread. What's the point of this?
It's ironic you turn the convo towards buying naq. You grabbed a bunch of gated planets from me last week. In doing so, you took MASSIVE losses of jaffa that no player could come close to affording without being a "wallet lord". While definitions vary, there are some players, such as Black whom you mentioned, who may buy naq but they do it to enhance themselves, not give themselves power over others. To the best of my knowledge, Black is a very passive player and has never threatened or bullied anyone.
You on the other hand, shot up 400k nw in a day, more than anyone in game history, and use that naq to attack others in a way no other player could possibly afford.
Example 1 - You lost 150k naq in a failed attempt to take a regular planet?! While we all make mistakes, you repeatedly make attacks with less than 50% chance of success where most players don't attack with less than 100%. I have repeatedly taken warsats, with all adv buildings, with less than 100k loss. Sure building costs are high on Chulak but you could have your own planet, built exactly as you want it, and where you want it, for much less than you paid to TRY and take that planet.
Example 2 - You lost 250k worth of units taking a regular gated planet. Even if this was a warsat, it would be bad to spend 250k taking a planet because you could have built your own for the same amount exactly where and how you wanted it.
As if that was not bad enough, there are all gated planets, so you are highly vulnerable to losing them in the same way at any time. This game style is simply not sustainable. It can only be achieved by massive "wallet lording". It can be done, for a short term, through great game play in a war situation, but clearly that is not what happened here.
"Perhaps if possible without a big code change there should be an escalating cost to naq packs the bigger the alliance the higher the naq cost. That may be a self adjusting system if you have like 20 members in an alliance Naq packs cost 80, at ten 40, at five 10, for single players 5 for a naq buy."
Fantastic idea and easy to implement! Instead of X naq to all ally members for ally naq buys, a fixed amount can be given. The more members, the less each one receives. There can be "decay" meaning for each member under a full ally, ?5% of naq is removed. Example for Chulak:
5 man ally naq buy = 125k naq per player (625k naq total)
4 man ally naq buy = 150k naq per player (600k naq total)
3 man ally naq buy = 175k naq per player (525k naq total)
2 man ally naq buy = 200k naq per player (400k naq total)
The above system is presented as a concept. Realistically, it does not work because no one would ever buy individual naq (200k for 1 player) because it would be a waste. With that understood, the #s can be adjusted with the above concept in mind.
On Abyddos when the ally limit was raised to 25, it was a MASSIVE ERROR to not lower the ally naq quantity given. The day before the increase, an ally naq buy = 200k x 10 = 2 mill naq given out. The next day it gave out 5 mill. That change had a major negative impact on the server as large allies "naq'd up" and changed the games balance.
I hunt the sheep of war...
26horses Production