|
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:02 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
The forum is READ ONLY. Please direct any future discussions to our Facebook page
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Valience
|
Post subject: Treaties Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:23 pm |
AA Warrior |
|
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm Posts: 532
|
These would replace the non-binding NAPs players use now. They'd have their own "treaty" dropdown menu in the main screen where players could propose, ratify, decline, or leave treaties.
They could include multiple players or teams. Team coordinators could set them up with other team coordinators. Terms could be that neither side attack each other, and the game could force players to obey them. Also, they could have expirations dates. If players/team coordinators wished to leave them, they could choose that options, and it would alert all other players/teams involved in the treaty of this, but they would only be able to break the conditions say 24 to 36 hours after first declaring their intentions to, that way other players would not be blindsided.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Valience
|
Post subject: Re: Treaties Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:11 pm |
AA Warrior |
|
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm Posts: 532
|
Ok, first, an all building game would NEVER happen. That's just impossible. If that started to happen, I GUARRANTEE someone who enjoyed attacking would immediately leave the alliance and start killing.
And you talk about people not wanting to attack teams of 12, but that would be way safer than attacking a team of 5 and just having to hope that they don't have buddies that are gonna come after you. I mean, really, face it, alliances are still being made. The team limit doesn't stop that, it only makes it less convenient, unenforceable, and harder to keep track of for other players. And also, there really is a difference between a couple players formally agreeing not attack each other and monstrous teams.
I just think you're being hard headed about the whole thing. In real life, such alliances are made, and it would add a great new dimension to the game. It at least deserves a chance.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Tarnus
|
Post subject: Re: Treaties Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:11 pm |
Site Admin |
|
|
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm Posts: 2619
|
redskull wrote: u must admit though there is a chance of a total building game a silght chance but i think i would like to see a two team game accult i love to be part of it but u should set a test run. We have done it. Its called a Draft tournament. They are evil vicious games. A lot of fun as you play with alot of people you never did before. Last one wasn't as good we did 3 teams and there was all kins of info sharing etc so my guess is the next one will be a two team.
|
|
|
|
|
LordTonto
|
Post subject: Re: Treaties Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:58 am |
Forum Roamer |
|
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:57 am Posts: 58
|
The problem with forcing people to obey the treaties that they agree to is that there can be no betrayal, there can be no backstabbing. These are STRATEGIES. I like alliances, I think it's a good thing that people use them. It not only allows people to work together towards a common goal, but also allows a weaker but more cunning opponent to get closer to their enemy for when the opportunity to strike shows itself.
If you include treaties enforced by the game then nobody would want to use non-enforced treaties, which eliminates an entire gameplay style from the mix. I think it might be kinda cool if you could create treaties in game that you could break without warning at the cost of a small bounty. Or maybe if one is commited to the treaty for the entire time frame their rating is drastically upped to good, however if they break it early and without warning they are drastically dropped towards evil.
I could think of a few ways to include an official treaty system that might be fun as long as it isn't enforced to a point where betrayal is impossible. What would the world be like with betrayal? Julius Ceaser, The Count of Monte Cristo, even the story of Moses involves him betraying what he thought was his family. Betrayal is a neccesary part of the game.
_________________ By reading this post you've just been made a better person...
...you're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Ash
|
Post subject: Re: Treaties Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:13 am |
AA Trader |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:03 pm Posts: 231
|
Hate to say it, but I agree with Tonto. I can't tell you the number of times I have come back from the brink of destruction by turning someone on another team, or that was part of an alliance. Double crossing is part of the game. A game enforced treaty system would take that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|