- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Keep Playing? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 4 2008, 05:11 PM (258 Views) | |
| Acheron | Apr 5 2008, 06:46 PM Post #11 |
|
I think that the point would be to simplify the game even more and make it go faster. Also, since the new game is going to be a completely new thing, theres not much point in introducing new complications like the ships. Gunz, could I suggest 50GD/500GD a week? 20% still seems high enough that it makes more sense to bank than it does to war. 3 day to respond/ 3 days to post in a battle would keep the pvp things moving and if we went back to 25% losses for retreats (with at least one battalion killed) we wouldnt be able to slow attacks for really cheap. Maybe you don't want to change the rules too much, but I also think that eliminating official alliances or lowering the limit of members to 2 would make the game more interesting (especially since it looks like we'll only have about 8-10 active members) The only reason that I suggest changing these rules is that I have personally taken advantage of all of them in the past (which was legal but probably contrary to the spirit of what the game should be about). |
 |
 
|
| The Gunslinger | Apr 5 2008, 07:17 PM Post #12 |
|
Administrator
|
Sure, 50g sounds perfect. |
|
|
|
| Verathoc | Apr 6 2008, 04:01 AM Post #13 |
Verathoc the Lowly
|
The biggest issue of this season - bank loans and laying claim aside - the reason why it needs to be restarted is because of the overwhelming dominace of the Tempest alliance. Now regardless of the fact that this was because they exploited the iron bank and laying claim flaws the most - the issue I feel, is in fact the alliance numbers. I agree that they should be reduced to 2 |
|
|
|
| Turncloak | Apr 6 2008, 06:13 AM Post #14 |
|
I disagree with that. But then...the map isn't that big, so it could happen. But even so...if you're going to go with that I'd say 3. |
|
|
|
| DireWolf | Apr 6 2008, 11:07 AM Post #15 |
|
I'd say that that would depend on the amount of players. If we are only 10 to 15 people then 2 per alliance would be sufficient in my opinion. If there are more players then the amount of alliance members could be increased. |
|
|
|
| Chugman | Apr 7 2008, 05:21 PM Post #16 |
House of Black
|
I agree with direwolf the alliance numbers should be based on how many are playing. That keep form having over powerful alliances. |
|
|
|
| Verathoc | Apr 8 2008, 01:46 AM Post #17 |
|
Verathoc the Lowly
|
Yea thats more what I was saying, have alliance numbers appropriate to amount of active players that we get. I think the bank should be abolished (at least for deposits) and I (though this just may be a preference thing that other people disagree on) preferred the first seasons way of having areas belongining to fractions, meaning you cant just pick like Casterly Rock and with the Arryn faction. But yea, that just could be me - I enjoy keeping the Westeros world |
|
|
|
| The Gunslinger | Apr 8 2008, 06:15 AM Post #18 |
|
Administrator
|
The rules are up to you; whatever you guys agree upon will be implemented. The bank, unless everyone else strongly disagrees, is going to be removed. |
|
|
|
| Daulden | Apr 8 2008, 04:10 PM Post #19 |
|
To clear up the idea of the alliances why not just have two people per alliance? Simple and you need to trust the person you're with. It'll keep things more simple that way. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Out-of-Game News · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
1:26 PM Dec 7
