Suggestion for a new building: A bunker like building, stores some allies for long periods of time. Between 5-50 ally's per building. Each ally must be nominated as hidden or open. Ally trading should still pay good money, but coordinated guerrilla strikes of stripping all allies then stealing the gold will be less crippling, especially for big players. Naturally the ally can still be searched for and still displays its owner, it just doesn't show up in the owners ally list. The natural penalty would be that it takes up a valuable land space. Additional penalties, so the ally system stays alive: Option 1: bunkered allies increase in cost proportional to their increased power, the difference is paid by the owner periodically or the ally goes unhidden. Option 2: allies only hide for a week then require upkeep to refresh their stay. Option 3: allies stay indefinitely but their benefit to owner is reduced from 2% to 1% while bunkered. Good idea? Support or not please.
Yeah, I realised that after my first post. There were no banks back then blah blah blah. There were no crazy ass buildings but you stuck that in
Support for the building idea But the devs would have to pick out a pretty good name if they ever did incorporate this into the game.
No support The goal of the game is to war. And the goal of warring is getting gold. That basically removes that
No support. Ally trading is part of the game as is OSW, which centers around stripping your opponent.
Soo, I don't understand . Either you mean: 1.) ally won't show up in owners ally list to public A.) there is already something for this to be utilized somewhat: BACKPAGE OR 2.) the ally shouldn't be able to be hired while "hidden", whereas my response would be: A.) allies should NEVER be blocked from hiring from owner, in any situation.
Support but I must say I'd like to see the building reduced to only allowed 1 and the number of allies reduced to 1 or 2. Make ya pick who ya own. Be great for friends that 1 or 2 people you have because you like them. Many will say no and it probably ain't gonna happen but
I totally agree that ally trading is a core part of the game. The building I have suggested shouldn't stop allies from showing up on the allies list. After getting to HFBC the only way to grow is to buy allies. Lets welcome titanic sized players that can't be stripped till they get demoralised into stopping playing the game. As for stripping being core to osw: I think this argument is flawed. its an example of ''what has happened in the past should be welcomed in the future', so to me ally stripping being an acceptable part of osw is equivalent to saying that corruption should be a part of politics IMO. Finally, the equivalence with the existing mithryl fealty spells, keeping your allies hidden for a week would take unreasonable levels of activity or mithryl. The building I'm suggesting would have a huge impact on the game, especially osw, so should be carefully specced out and tested before being launched. Osw ally stripping is as scary and unfamiliar a part of the game for me as robot alts putting you on permanent pin (thank goodness these are banned) are, this is my attempt of increasing the illusion of player safety.
I'm only a relatively new player, so excuse me if I don't know what I'm talking about, but I just don't want to get to 5 years of playing, have a weeklong holiday and come back to find that I'm a quarter of the size with no gold. There are other solutions to this clash of rl with kaw, so please help the effort and either post here a better solution or start a better argument string from scratch, please.