|
This suggestion has been dead for a while, so I suppose the idea died? However I will reply in any case...
As far as having to conquer a colony in order to get either a fragment or a relic...BD has made sub farming punishable by permanent ban. Therefore if your sub gets a relic, you cannot win? The game just...runs out into ticks? I don't understand how this is supposed to work. You want to prevent battlehugs and handing of relics, but in order to do so, you've made subs unable to be conquered, and then made the taking of relics reliant upon conquering the colony. Therefore in order to get a relic from your sub, you have to be banned from the game to do it, or else just sit there waiting for ticks to run out. And don't tell me it will create fighting...sometimes it will, sure, but most subs will just roll over and complain, rather than fighting back. They aren't going to attack an alliance with 5 times their power just because they have to be conquered to give a relic. They'll just whine and complain, move their army aside, let you take the relic from them, and then you'll be banned for sub farming? I do not understand how this was supposed to work...
Small alliances will never get enough fragments to make a relic. They wont. Stop pretending that they will. It will be extremely rare for an alliance below rank 5 to ever make a relic out of fragments. They just are not active enough to get that many wreckages from 5 of their members.
Any small alliance that DOES make a relic will instantly die.
In the current game, most noobs and 3 member alliances are conquered instantly, yes, but most 10 many semi-active noob alliances with a few units are not conquered very often. If they own resource outposts, those are stripped from them, but whats the point in losing armor against a colony thats just going to sit there and spam you? A lot of these alliances rank 5-10 are not usually conquered during the era unless they enter a war. This allows the rank 2 or 3 alliance to recruit them and use them as numbers to kill the rank 1. Or at least, it allows for the possibility for that to happen.
Under this "new" system, small alliances will be huge targets and will be crushed immediately. They wont have time to build up units to help in any of the eras wars, they'll be killed for their relic.
I am reminded of a Fantasy era where HORD decided that no alliance in the era was allowed to finish the game with a single crystal. They killed every person on the map. It took Seth 2 eras of rejuvenation to get anyone to want to play there again. Nobody wanted to join the server where all of the middle-ranged alliances were killed instead of being allowed to finish out the game by handing a relic over. I realize you WANT all these alliances to fight instead of handing the relics, but you are doing it the wrong way. Under this new system they'll be systematically killed off and will stop playing. Or, they'll just refuse to launch at wreckages, which will put even more resources and workers into the top alliances.
Instead of huge battles being waged over wreckages, you will have alliance leaders mass messaging their players, ordering them to stop launching on wreckages, because they have 4 and if anyone gets another wreckage they'll all be killed.
Putting a limitation on kicking someone from your alliance is like taking away a persons freedoms because they might hurt themselves. Its a communistic utopian ideal that has no place in this game. You cant prevent backstabbing by making it impossible to backstab. Backstabbing is, and has always been a part of this game and all games like this. It would be like playing Risk, only you tell everyone that the'yre actually bound by the agreements they make, and that nobody is allowed to lie or betray anyone else, or else they lose the game. Why would anyone play?
I realize you are trying to prevent noobs from being recruited into alliances in order to use their fragment and then kick them, but I think you're thinking WAY too much about this possibility. It wont happen as often as you think, if it DOES happen youll gain a reputation for doing it, a first time noob whose managed to log in a second or third time to actually get a fragment in the first place is unlikely to quit the game because of that happening, and youre putting HUGE restrictions on gameplay because of a minor issue. If someone goes inactive in my alliance, Im not allowed to kick them because I made a relic? 250 ticks ago!? Go ahead and just say alliances are permanent and you're stuck with whoever you pick on tick 1. lol. Nobody will play this way. Try making a rule where an alliance can report backstabbing and actually have it be bannable because you lied about the terms of a NAP. Thats basically what youre doing by trying to prevent me from kicking someone who gave me a fragment. If I make a NAP with someone, I can betray them and break it. If I agree to take someone into my alliance, I can betray them, take their stuff, and kick them. Is this awesome? no. Is it allowed? yes. Should it be allowed? yes.
As for not being able to move to a relic while it's moving...??? What?? Does this mean nobody can attack it while its moving either? Or can someone attack it, but Im not allowed to defend it? How can this ever work? Youve said only the leader can move or stop a relic. So if the leader is sleeping, and someone attacks a relic, we all just sit there watching the attack because we're incapable of defending it? This part should be thrown right out. You have to be able to defend your stuff.
Sadly I do not see much merit in any of these ideas.
You're creating a paradox whereby you need to kill your sub in order to get a relic, but killing your sub is bannable.
You're creating a situation where someone can attack my relic, but Im not allowed to defend it because the leader isnt online to stop it from moving?
You're trying to tell me Im not allowed to choose whose in my alliance and when I can kick or betray people. BTW, technically we could all just leave the alliance and make a new one in 24 ticks without the person we wanted to kick. It would suck but still be possible. You're only making the game more aggravating with more pointless rules that cant be enforced.
If you want to make wreckages more valuable to engage people in fighting over them, increase the resources they give you, and decrease the number of res ops on the map. But then all you're really doing is making wreckages into the new res ops, which people are always bickering over.
If you want to make relics more usable, give them an option to upgrade, the same was outposts can. After 24 ticks you can upgrade the relic to...whatever. Have a gate on it. Be a training base. Have a nuke on it. Have its own ion cannon. Have a shield on it. This would make owning multiple kinds of relics a kind of tactic and turn them into better fighting machines that may actually be used in battle.
However the system that was proposed in this thread is highly complicated with many new rules and limitations on gameplay that make it less fun to play. An alliance with 4 very strong active members and 6 relaxed members who guard the hive can never make its own relic? Red boosters who support the game through their money but arent very active to take conquers and wreckages wont be able to help make relics? I can think of a dozen players right now who typically own 30-60 squads when relics come out and are there to attack them, but who typically end the game with 0 wreckages and 5 conquers because they use red tokens to boost squads. You are going to punish the people who support you the most? you will alienate every single player who uses BD in moderation and actually spends time with their family and at work, trying to force them to always be online refreshing to check for wreckages and launch on them before anyone else. This will actually cause MORE people to burn out and quit due to an activity level they are uncomfortable with.
Anyway, good try, but I wouldnt play the game you're proposing.
|
