• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

ALLIANCES or TRIBES

DeletedUser

Future development requests:

Here are a few sugestions that players may like :)

1) 5-10 member per Alliances.
2) Have an Alliance arena for battle.
3) Have ranks incorperated into the Alliances.
4) Have a Possible increase is Alliance member size after attaining a certain goal.
5)Have a Castle or Manor for the Alliance for alliance quests.
 

DeletedUser

2. Have an Alliance arena for battle.
Click to expand...

First thing I thought of when reading this point, Sparticus! Would be quite an interesting idea (Sorry to take this point slightly off topic) to have an actual character as you. The king if you would call it that would be your strongest character in the battle, and of course if your king does die you automatically lose the battle. This would be quite interesting have your king (alliance leader) leading the battle and having your members in the alliance attack the opposing team.

As for your point 1, I think a suitable alliance limit would be on about 20 - 25. Not everyone is actively playing online games while some only log in now and then.

Nonetheless, thank you for the feedback.
 

DeletedUser

ZapDragon said:
Future development requests:

Here are a few sugestions that players may like :)

1) 5-10 member per Alliances.
2) Have an Alliance arena for battle.
3) Have ranks incorperated into the Alliances.
4) Have a Possible increase is Alliance member size after attaining a certain goal.
5)Have a Castle or Manor for the Alliance for alliance quests.
Click to expand...


1.No
2.No
3.No
4.No
5.No

Yeah like in every other game, hide behind big brother back like a little sissy.
I hope there will be no option of alliances.You can cooperate with other players if You want to.
Alliances are good for lazy. weak and not creative people.
 

DeletedUser

Hyndel is right. This game is good as it is created now. It has combination of different elements which a lot of games do not have. And it is only good.

If there is any "element" of other game, this could not be called ForgeOfEmpires but "TraIkaCasGlaSpa" - weird combination of some online games.

Here comes my suggestion: But I think there could not be bad to have "a team" that will consist of very few players. It will not be official (there would be only one person who can invite you to cooperate-the first one who creates this team) but everyone of that team could know who is online and there would be no option in attacking the members of your own team. There would be no arena, arena is not good for this game. And what would be the main advantages? ... Players can help themselves more often than once a day and they can attack the territories by uniting the armies but by supporting (max.) two chosen units. Two units: I think it is enough for the support.

Ranks, ... a lot of people want to compare themselves, but what They are going to bring us next?

You have already "a castle" in your village.
 

DeletedUser

It has been mentioned that 'Guilds' will be introduced to the game. As with all online games of this nature, there is a group of players that want to be part of a 'team' in order to progress.

Within reasonable limits on Guilds, it's not the case where player A hides behind player B for protection. At this point I'm ranked 2 in my group, I can attack probably about 70 of my neighbors with a strong force of units, plunder them and there is nothing they can say or do about it. NAP agreements and alliances are great ideas to have in this game, it will help the smaller players with larger players attacking them.
 

DeletedUser

My experience has been in grepolis and I personally like the idea of alliances or tribes or whatever you want to call them. Certainly some players are more active and others may try and hide behind them but that is simply the way it is both here and in RL. I enjoy the team work with the players that are active in an allinace based game.
 

DeletedUser

On a side note ... does anyone know if at some point we will be able to found new cities? Conquest of cities? i.e., expand the empires???
 

DeletedUser

At this point we only know that we can take over the provinces to gain good supplies for making products, well an increase in the products you create.

There has been a few ideas or suggestions coming in that players would like to attack another player where if they win they get a percentage of their resources or gold. But there is no mention that you will be able to gain more than the potential available space you currently have at this point (10 x 10 of 4 x 4 expansions = 100 expansion blocks).

If anything does come along I would think it would be an increase in your city size rather than a complete new building area. But I do reckon it's still to early to say, we can only speculate for now.
 

DeletedUser

Thanks for the reply DaTwista ... maybe they will consider something along those lines in the future, i.e. similar to Civilization but with the added twist of warring on others in an alliance based strategy war game :)
 

DeletedUser

Hyndel said:
...Alliances are good for lazy. weak and not creative people.
Click to expand...

There is no way you can last in good alliance for long time if you are lazy and weak. You'll be kicked out very soon. And being in lazy/weak alliances that allow lazy/weak members helps you (and such alliances) not much.

Therefore i personally very like idea of alliances and some challenges (province acquires? some complex buildings? etc...) that are possible to make only in strong enough alliance + even alliance-against-alliance wars.
 

DeletedUser366

Hate to say it, but if you don't do some kind of RVR, this game is going to be boring for many and they won't be staying long. There isn't much interaction with people and while building a city is fun, it gets old and eventually, you drift away. While you will get money up front for expansion, long term there is no reason to stay.

I keep pointing back to the West and your model the interaction there, but it works and players chat, cooperate and have fun. Here, you are isolated and pretty much playing alone. With no sense of community or reason for it, boredom will set in fast and people will leave.
 

DeletedUser

I agree - we have formed an "unofficial" alliance, but it would be helpful if this could be formalised with an alliance chat window and basic forum much like Grepolis has, I like the idea of limiting it to 6 players or 12 if the alliance upgrades its keep to a castle or some such thing as that... and the keep could store shared resources that would be available to all members and allow players in the alliance to share more freely... thus increasing the trade and interaction also...

If we do add this, might I suggest a team banner gets added to the background, with a limit of 20 alliances per continent and 20 unique flags this would give a easy to see system of alliances...you could then also provide each alliance with its own forum thread and a chat room, with the alliances so small it would not need to be complex, just a simple single forum thread for the members to communicate available from the same screen as messages
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I think this needs to be a priority for the developers, the ability to form small groups and trade with each other more freely is vital in this game, it happens naturally because of people fighting others, and this really is needed as a way for people to group together, protect each other and co-operate...
 

DeletedUser

What about simply grouping players by their 'location' or some other random factor. That way you will have people to rely on, but you won't get one massive tribe that picks on new payers.
 

DeletedUser

We are grouped in neighbourhoods of 80 already... so new players are never in with old ones...
 

DeletedUser

Carasus said:
I like the idea of limiting it to 6 players or 12
Click to expand...
With 80 people per a continent and at least half no longer playing 12 is too many.6 should be the limit-unless you can make it inter-contintental
 

DeletedUser

but with better interaction etc, the game may be played by more players, also the ability to have 12 I have suggested should not be available until the EMA... this would simply allow two alliances to merge rather than being separate, with the trade advantages suggested, this could be vital in the ema
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top