Jump to content

Caladin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,625

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Caladin

  5. Malik Shabazz

    Posted

    Yes - it's against the ToS to force someone to give you an RL possession (access or ownership of alliance forums) in response to in-game situations.

    I think the rule is you cannot force them to give you ownership; access is a different matter (ownership was, I believe, so as to ensure that the viceroy did have access to the entire forum and there wasn't some subsection that the gov was plotting revolution in)

  19. Fox Fire

    Posted

    Gentle Persons

    I tend to agree with much of what Fox Fire has stated. And much as it pains me I actually agree with many of Rush Sykes ideas(well thought out) but not the elimination of tech trading or unlimited wars.

    However the strength of Digiterra is not the mechanics but the community. In the past there were long term grudges and very definite camps. In my view the strength of that community structure has not been added with the other mechanics changes. Team colour should matter more. Changing should hurt more staying together in an alliance on a single team should matter more. Wars on a the same colour alliance should cost -2 happiness for the duration of the war.Senate should be expanded and made more powerful BUT it should require the senate to vote and be limited to one senator per alliance. Treaties should have an actual in game value and cost to break.For example +1 happiness for a month for signing a NAP to the entire alliance BUT -2 happiness for 2 months for a formal break or violation be alliance war.Give the bonus again very 6 months it stays in place.Require a specific request to support when in war already to require an alliance to war or break the treaty. Grade the different treaties up in the same fashion. This would end the moronic practice of signing treaties that are then broken upon the smell of war.The violating alliance suffers double the penalty. Make the community think and benefit from keeping the politics and community active. Give a legitimate reason for people to join alliances and blocs.

    Give people a reason to do things not a penalty for not doing something. Instead of penalizing those who wish to hang out in peace mode give a benefit for staying in war mode that grows over time. Give an incentive for those who post on owf. Yes even the perpetual self indulgent ones they help build the community.

    Down declaring should cost happiness, up declaring gets you a hero bonus to happiness. 3 on 1 attacks should have a happiness penalty defending against multiple attacks a bonus.That lasts three times the war length. There is already the advantage of loot for the attacker. This would encourage newer nations not to roll over and alliances to actually fight. No bonus for turtling. No penalty as it is a choice.

    Eliminate the ability to rogue on any nation not in the top 250. The big nations are able to defend themselves though it will cost. The practice of roguing at the lower end by idiots with a grudge makes zero logical sense in a nation simulation game and allows people to drive others from the game. Even the most insane national leader in RL cannot suicide his nation though some morons have tried. But it is always on a bigger major nation.

    Make decelerations of war mandatory before war and provide a 24 hour window before attacks can begin. Once again for those who wannt reality in warfare no RL nation can build up on another nations boundaries without it being know.THis has the huge advantage of allowing both sides to plan and react in the community to make wars interesting and actually political.

    This community is why we play and we should encourage the strongest part of this Digiterra to actually effect game play.

    Respectfully

    Dame HIme Themis

    This would be abused so much (though, I do like the ideas :/)

×
×
  • Create New...