It is currently Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:08 am


The forum is READ ONLY. Please direct any future discussions to our Facebook page


 Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Treaties
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:23 pm 
AA Warrior
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.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:54 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
As you know I don't like naps. The whole point of having team limits is to limit the team sizes and make it hard for a single large team to control a game. What your proposing will basically enable huge teams. I don't expect we will add this, at least not for a very long time.

With something official it takes the spontaneity out of the game and I dont like it.

Why not put together a team and go after everyone? isn't that how the game was designed?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:49 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Well you could do that! What you have to understand is that whether or not you put this into the game, players are still going to use NAPs. That's clearly not going to go away. This would just make it so that you wouldn't have any back stabbing going on, thereby taking away the biggest downside to it. It'd be a nice formal way to end wars between players and all. Yes, this would encourage peace between players, but I think it would be interesting to see a game like that, where players could build up bigger than before. It's not eliminating attacking or anything like that, nor is it even making attacking harder for those that choose to do it.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:38 pm 
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 48
I think Tarnus has a point about the huge teams i dont think anyone would enjoy getting attacked by a team of 12 it would no point the team would jus dominait the game.

But also i think Valience has a point i the game spilt in to two teams and they attacke each other it would be a massive war the FNN would be overloaded with news this would be so fun but also if they didnt attack each other it would jus be a building game at the end the frist people on there would win the round.

Red.



_________________
Sorry if there are spelling mistakes in this post it not my fault. . . . . . . .
RΣDSKüLL
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:15 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
This is why we have a team limit. Course seems people think because they are friends they shouldn't attack each other. Sometimes you are a better player if you can be friends and enemies at the same time.

Some have a tendency to take things a little too personally.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:11 pm 
AA Warrior
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.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:07 pm 
Gamer
Gamer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:21 pm
Posts: 175
Treaties are made right before you attack them : ) How about everyone belongs to 3 different factions: Good, Evil, Neutral... You dont get to choose your team mates: Good can enter good territory, evil can enter evil terrtory, and nuetral took care of there own until they Turned good or Evil......

You could have wolves in Sheeps clothing sneaking around your stuff..... but I am not looking for any downside to my idea... The Folks who stayed Nuetral would have an advantage over the Teams (maybe?) or you still have teams but there is the built in Good/Evil Team and if a team mate turned good/evil other Good/Evil could enter sectors with the Good/evil teamates sector defenses... (how Cool?)



_________________
Why make sense, when you can make pizza! -Zippy the Pinhead.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:29 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Eww... no no no. The way I want it, teams and alliances should be voluntary. I would hate a game with two big teams that I didn't even get the chance to choose between.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:34 pm 
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 48
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.



_________________
Sorry if there are spelling mistakes in this post it not my fault. . . . . . . .
RΣDSKüLL
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:11 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:33 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Yeah.

Anyway, I maintain an all buidling game would be impossible on main, with 100 people. Such alliances may be between two teams of five, or example. That hardly covers everyone.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:26 am 
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 48
the it sound like that the game could spilt in too anyway as i sed i think it will be kinda cool haveing a spilt game of two teams an all out war. :D



_________________
Sorry if there are spelling mistakes in this post it not my fault. . . . . . . .
RΣDSKüLL
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:58 am 
Forum Roamer
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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:13 am 
AA Trader
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treaties
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:05 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Betrayal is cowardly, and it is not something that deserves sympathy. By not enforcing treaties, you destroy an entire section of the game: people who don't want to be betrayed can't trust anyone and can't make alliances.

I do have an idea though. If leaders of countries are dishonorable and betray others, the citizens of the country are likely to rise up in revolt. This should happen in the game. A large percentage of the player's planets should either go indy or have a revolt whenever the person breaks a formal alliance. And the feds should give them a bounty equivalent to what they'd normally get by attacking another player that was too small. Finally, for the rest of the game, whenever they enter an alliance, it should not be enforced on their end. Once they have betrayed someone, betraying them should not carry a penalty.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron