| Author | Thread: Clan relations |
| Nageya Posts: 86
Location: Asylum
Magus Age: 111 years old
| Message #6777 Posted: Jul 13, 2008, 11:29 am |
I was thinking it would be nice to be able to have settings on clan relations and have these settings have effects on game play here are my ideas
War: clan leader declares war aginst other clan, for both clans the motivation cost to attack each others members drops by one
Cease fire: leaders of two clans agree, members of both clans can't attack each other for a amount of time decided on by the clan leaders. cancels War status. clan leader can break but at a penalty
peace treaty: like cease fire but no time limit and a heavier penalty for breaking, if both leaders agree it can be broken with out penalty
alliance: Created by both leaders agreeing, can use transfer office between clans, able to trade lower lvl clan items between clans. can be dissolved by ether clans leader.
|
|
| FatherCoyne Posts: 332
Location: Mallow
Magus Age: 116 years old
Real Name: Kevin Coyne
Email: KCoyne@umail.ucsb.edu
| Message #6799 Posted: Jul 13, 2008, 7:09 pm |
Ooo, forum sharing. Let clans make forums, and then adjust permission to let other clans use it.
Then allied clans could have a board for discussing business, or hostile clans could have a place to negotiate peace or taunt each other. :o |
|
| Elsworth Posts: 93
Location: Fellin
Magus Age: 112 years old
| Message #6909 Posted: Jul 15, 2008, 2:29 am |
What kind of penalty would you see in place for breaking treaties?
Aside from that, I like the idea.
E |
|
| Endovior Posts: 172
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 118 years old
| Message #6963 Posted: Jul 15, 2008, 5:05 pm |
| I'd suggest a motivation penalty; such that it takes more motivation to attack those you've agreed not to attack. |
|
| Kaizhireith Posts: 20
Location: Jaaron
Magus Age: 134 years old
| Message #6970 Posted: Jul 15, 2008, 6:04 pm |
Personally, it seems odd for there to be a motivation penalty for such. I would suggest there be no gameplay penalty for breaking treaties, but rather a notification to everyone involved when someone does (and which side broke it).
On the other hand, a motivation penalty could be explained as a geas of sorts affecting the golems of the factions involved, which takes some effort to overcome. |
|
ViconiaXunraePosts: 226 Location: Andulaz Magus Age: 119 years old Clan: ADV | Message #6973 Posted: Jul 15, 2008, 6:22 pm |
| Perhaps a motivation penalty could make sense. Maybe your golem is not as willing to comply to your orders, thus making it slightly more difficult to attack an allied player. I realize the golem should be completely under your control, but perhaps clan members have a very small effect on the golem's willingness to do something you are ordered not to. |
|
| Kaelas Posts: 1052
Location: Darghelm
Magus Age: 118 years old
Real Name: Barry
| Message #6977 Posted: Jul 15, 2008, 6:56 pm |
I would imagine that joining a Clan is somewhat more involved than getting a decoder ring and a plastic card with your name on it. My take on it involved at least some kind of arcane ceremony that bonds the Magi to the Clan as a whole. This is what allows your apprentices to enter other Clan members workshops to make delivers, why members can enter the Great Hall to check the forums, etc. It isn't that much of a stretch to say the same bond could allow the Clan itself to help or hinder individual Magi's control over there golems, depending on if the Magus was acting for or against the consensus of the Clan.
Attacking during war: minus one motivation cost.
Attacking during cease fire: plus one motivation cost. (does not break cease fire for either side)
Attacking during peace treaty: plus three motivation cost. (breaks peace treaty for both sides, attacking side still takes penalty for 24 hours).
Attacking a Formal Ally: Double motivation cost (breaks alliance, attacking side still takes penalty for 24 hours and maybe is displayed to the public, like skirmish records can be)
Attacking someone under a cease fire, peace treaty or an Ally would require you to click a confirm button (like the one to send a Clan-Wide message) so accidents are near impossible. Attacking someone under a cease fir or peace treaty would show up as a Clan activity for both Clans. Attacking an Ally does that and sends out a Clan-wide notification to both Clans or maybe just officers/Sovereigns (not sure how hard that would be to program though). |
|
| Nageya Posts: 86
Location: Asylum
Magus Age: 111 years old
| Message #7076 Posted: Jul 16, 2008, 7:24 am |
| perhaps instead of a motivation penalty the damage to your clan reputation causes the government to temporarily suspend that clans golems licenses. |
|
| Thuriya Posts: 76
Location: Jaaron
Magus Age: 110 years old
| Message #7088 Posted: Jul 16, 2008, 1:09 pm |
| I would imagine that joining a Clan is somewhat more involved than getting a decoder ring and a plastic card with your name on it.
But its a very nice decoder ring. :)
|
|
[ADMIN] ArkhamPosts: 902 Location: Mallow Magus Age: 124 years old Clan: AGOMC | Message #7116 Posted: Jul 16, 2008, 7:00 pm |
| But its a very nice decoder ring. :)
It's an AWESOME decoder ring. :D
I do like the clan relations idea quite a bit. These are my rough notes I had scribbled down when I read the original idea a couple of days ago:
"At War" - Skirmish point values increased.
"Non-Aggression Pact" or "Peace Treaty" - Adds a confirm button before being able to attack someone in that clan; otherwise no change.
"Ally" - Prevents attacks between clans; allows clans to trade resources (but not items/golems) from HQ to HQ
Not very detailed obviously, but it's interesting that others also came up with the same idea (such as a confirm button). I'm very likely going to put in something like this, with some additional ideas stolen from this thread. I'm keen on the motivation changes with status (using less or more), but will need to think on those.
Give me some time -- I have some infrastructure things to finish up, such as final testing for the multi-account restrictions and additional logging in various places.
Kep |
|
| |
| |
