So unless you're committed to spend energy in wars with no other benefit you're not only restricted to a 5 member capacity but you're going to lose it. Why not offer any accommodations to the players who want no part in that? Such as peaceful factions listed separately, unable to switch status, without armories or organized crime but with a member capacity of 100.
It's because it's a really stupid idea. GTA V had a budget of over 100 million dollars and a browser game comparable to it isn't even by any means possible.
I'm in the dark about the names you mentioned but I gotta say, amyrlin and RogueSubmarine got a rightful 10 from me while I gave SuckMyGypsy a 1 for the lousy name. Sucks that someone like that is the favorite to win.
Dude, this game needs more girls, not less because they turned inactive or quit after all the abuse they have been subjected to as a result of your angles.
Ah, so I suppose it would be good to use it over and over on a daily basis. I presume this outdated guide is still relevant about having low addiction: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#!p=threads&f=61&t=15908641&b=0&a=0 And then there's that honor "Spaced Out" which I understand is very rare.
An army attacking another army because the game provides them with respect doesn't quite resemble an actual army either. That's like punching a guy on the street because someone paid for the entertainment. Under an alternative system such as https://www.torn.com/forums.php#!p=threads&f=4&t=16017568&b=0&a=0&start=0&to=18001843 disputes could still arise from other causes and attacks could still be made as a means of coercion.
"We wanted to give factions the choice⦠To be peaceful or aggressive, this however did not work. With 800 factions created, 4 of those chose to be aggressive. The issue we were faced with... what would happen in 6 months? All factions but one would inevitably end up peaceful, destroying the whole point of factions. It is supposed to be a dangerous world; the decisions you make are supposed to affect you, positively or negatively to create meaningful play. The change was by no means influenced by any other factions or people.Three months is a long time, a long time to get all of your faction members ready to protect themselves, build up a respect buffer from OCs and gain allies. The three months, by the way, started for all factions yesterday, so you all have the same amount of time to get ready. And of course, with the new 50 faction war base limit it should make things really interesting. Just because your faction was destroyed last time, it doesnât mean the same will happen this time⦠Weâre even giving you 3 months to get prepared. Over these three months, more things will change. For example, OC respect gain may be upped including the adding of additional OCs and an easier system to plan and initiate them. Small disadvantages may be added to higher factions attacking lower factions. At this current moment in time, if a level 40 attacked a level 10, the respect gain is decreased because of the level gap, we may raise the decrease further until we are perfectly happy with the system.I realise the peaceful status change may have came as a shock, but try to think of it as a new beginning, a chance for you to prove yourself without having to have the nanny that you call âpeaceful statusâ.Thank you."
Or a different form of association entirely, political parties with annual elections for something. Members would have to hold campaigns, mailing random people who in turn could be inspired to start/join parties as well and thus many players would be part of something.
So unless you're committed to spend energy in wars with no other benefit you're not only restricted to a 5 member capacity but you're going to lose it. Why not offer any accommodations to the players who want no part in that? Such as peaceful factions listed separately, unable to switch status, without armories or organized crime but with a member capacity of 100.