Quote:
Originally Posted by stormiejs
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Sounds like a difficult system for players to handle without it being enforced. The only reason certain cities have with alliances is because they'll just get destroyed early on (or the inevitable later).
I was talking more or less about overall imbalances such as unfair positioning, gear/levels, and amount of players on your team. It's obvious that some races are going to have more people than others.
Some examples of my point:
- Ak'anon is 1 zone away from another city and can't progress without taking gfay.
- Felwithe can't progress without taking gfay.
- Kelethin can't progress without taking gfay.
- Kaladim is 1 zone away from two cities (gfay and freeport) and elves/gnomes can't progress unless butcherblock is taken. Nor can humans progress on Faydwer without taking out the dwarves first.
Under the assumption that all of these races create an alliance (in reality, one or two of those will get slaughtered immediately), they are then pretty much going to destroy the humans because there is no way for them to progress without taking freeport.
The same idea goes for Halas, Erudin, and Qeynos.
Then you have Grobb and Oggok sitting happily 6 zones away from having to interfere with anyone. It makes sense with them and Rivervale because there are numerous ways around it and there are numerous ways to attack it.
I'm not saying this can't work, infact, I think it'd be really interesting to see how it would play out.
|
I think that's the idea we modify the ruleset each iteration of the game. For example if this becomes a really big problem we could introduce the idea that if you take say a zone with Wizard spires you can attack Tox, Karana in one move.