Diplomatic Penalties

[Management]

It's no secret at this point that the massive amount of diplomacy and "hugging" going on in tw2 has pretty much ruined all the strategic aspects of the game. Too many players/tribes find it easier to Ally/NAP with everyone rather than fight out of fear of losing their villages. They are able to do this with no repercussion, and so you end up with less action which results in players becoming bored with the game.

I propose there be tribe penalties imposed for making Alliances and NAPs in game. For example... each NAP you set lowers your tribes overall unit recruitment speed and/or Attack Power by 2%, each Alliance lowers it by 5%. Or it could be progressive.. so the first NAP is a 2% reduction in recruitment speed/attack power, the second is 5%.. the third is 12% etc.

A simple system that penalizes tribes who actively avoid fighting would go a long way to getting this game back to being about strategy.

I know it probably won't happen as there would be development costs involved and Inno has no interest in saving tw2....but as is, without any kind of limitations/penalties on diplomacy, this game is simply broken.

 

[DeletedUser1179]

Well it doesn't hurt to try, will present it and see what happens. I like the idea actually.

 

[DeletedUser2158]

That would hit their favorite wallet player.. cant have that. You need to be more subtle management

 

[DeletedUser1179]

I don't think that it will. No one is saying you can't crown, you can still crown all you want. I think the idea is to take the game back to when it was fun, when people actually fought to win.

 

[DeletedUser1376]

you know you can actually have your cake and eat it too here . you could impose the penalties but they can be bought off with crowns so 1st alliance would cost you 2% and double for each additional but you can pay crowns to have alliances and avoid the penalty maybe as a tribe skill for example . heck game wins crowners win and everyone is a bit happier

 

[DeletedUser2228]

Or just do away with the whole NAP Alliance thing all together. cant see why a penalty should be a thing if we just couldnt do it to begin with, It was a good idea at first i was told. but it does seem like some of the smaller tribes are hiding behind the protection of larger tribes. We also have larger tribes actually hiding behind smaller as well. letting the smaller tribes take the hits while they set back and build.

 

[DeletedUser1179]

That could be a possibility too BG...I passed it up the chain, so we will have to see what happens.

 

[DeletedUser1385]

would'nt they do the NAP or alliance through messages and not officially making them blue or purple to avoid the penalty.

 

[Management]

would'nt they do the NAP or alliance through messages and not officially making them blue or purple to avoid the penalty.

Sure but then it would be hard to get all your members to abide. Players would get frustrated at all the confusion because they're attacking people they're not supposed to..being told to stop.. being kicked. players would get angry and leave the tribe..
It would cause a lot of problems and headaches for leadership.

 

[DeletedUser1376]

Sure but then it would be hard to get all your members to abide. Players would get frustrated at all the confusion because they're attacking people they're not supposed to..being told to stop.. being kicked. players would get angry and leave the tribe..
It would cause a lot of problems and headaches for leadership.

isn't that the exact opposite of what we want . last thing that leadership needs is more headaches and by the way this will lead to MRTs becoming resurgent

 

[DeletedUser2228]

You could have an Alliance without the actual ability of marking a tribe as such. there are other ways of marking a tribe but this is all ready being done any ways. if you were to do this then attacking them "accidentally" would be easy and i am afraid a common thing. there is no perfect way to get rid of an alliance or sister tribe fairly. Having a penalty wouldnt hurt any tribe that coined a lot or even a little. And you can do away with the ability to have NAPs and Alliances but it can still be done. I am sure if there is a way for INNO to make a buck on these ideas it will be done though,

 

[Management]

isn't that the exact opposite of what we want . last thing that leadership needs is more headaches and by the way this will lead to MRTs becoming resurgent

No it's exactly what we want. The headaches of player disputes and members getting frustrated would be just another reason not to try and have unofficial diplomacy. Leaders would eventually realize its just easier to let their members fight.
And a penalty on build speed and attack power would absolutely hurt the crowners. crowners do not crown ALL their troops...and diminished attack power cannot be avoided with crowns no matter what.

 

[DeletedUser2228]

Honestly Management. i wouldnt know if it could or couldnt. I dont know if the Mods could varify this for you but i have never spent a dime on this game. I might have if i had a dime but as of now i have not spent a dime.