FYI - Backer number is in the KS confirmation email titled "You just backed".
Immortal - Early Bird Backer #94 checking in!
I like the idea that the more you have the more things cost you.
If a guild has multiple territories, resource plots, etc.. what have you.. they cost more to feed. In AO you feed territories, it's always seemed so obvious to me.. but SBI never went down that path. If you increase the maintenance costs, then things will find a balance. Guilds will determine what amount of effort they can afford. Same applies to alliances.. The more subjects aligned, the more it costs to exist. Be it food, items by value, or outright currency.. there should be scaling costs associated with growth. dynamic costs proportionate to size.
By implementing systems like this, the developers would introduce passive checks and balances to the open world.. They could tweak these variables as need be to impact the world and it's events. They could even take it a step further and intentionally impact the open world, food shortages.. natural disasters.. Spinning up the economy in different ways as time goes on to keep things interesting.. keeping players engaged.
My motivation was lasting value.. I think the Immortal package is the best value to support the game. That being said, I went Governor. I wanted to give in a way that the effect is felt for as long as the game is playable. I'm looking forward to trying my hand at running a town and I'm excited to participate in this style of game play. I'm excited to test things out through alphas and in to beta.. As I've grown older, I find equal enjoyment in economic play as I do PVP.
Small independent team.. Ask yourself, do you really want them spending time on a login screen at this stage?
Coming from Albion, I'm in full support of friendly fire. It's one of the things this type of game could really benefit from. Take a look at the large almost mindless zerg vs zerg battles from AO castle fights etc. While there is some strategy at a higher level, the majority of fighting was more about lag and mindless clicking then anything else. Friendly fire would be a great addition IMO.
@Jetah Great suggestions.
Personally, I'd like to see it stay and serve some purpose.. I think it's a well designed system that has seemed to work well. The community engagement during such early design stages has far surpassed anything I've seen around other new ip or projects with similar resources.
Toxic communities, rng, overload unnecessarily grindy grinding, and micro-transactions or pay 4 power
I support pay 4 convenience, not pay 2 win through pay 4 power
On the topic of guild and alliance sizes.. I like the concept of an upkeep cost.. think of it as a size tax. Be it resources or food.
This could be applied to territories and or guilds/alliances themselves. As your territories increase, they require something.. This something (maybe resources or food) scale as more territories come online. Same concept with guilds/alliances.. Sure, you could have an unlimited number of members or territories.. Is the upkeep worth it? Maybe the upkeep to maintain the guild hall or something scales as people join. imagine tiers with multipliers of resource requirement.. < 100 Members 0.25 resources per 24 hours. 101-200 0.35, etc etc..
I'm very interested in how this all plays out.. Many old friends in AO left because of these very types of systems being so poorly designed and the indirect negative play style they force.
We're at 12 of 15 now, we just need 3x more A2T3 players to guarantee the territory.
We're just West of the Ruins, NW of the Vale Of Shadows, and South of Goblin Hills.
For the next phase A2T3 towns have come online (more on that here) and we've founded a large territory centrally located on the map.
I want to welcome everyone to join those of us in Liberty City and test a Large Territory city in the next phase A2T3. You can easily find us on the world map with the picture below.
Visit the world map, locate the crest in the image above "West South West of the Ruins", click it, and then click Join City.