Jump to content

Land loyalty matters for AP


Burns

Recommended Posts

I think there should be another bit to that idea to stop people from being citizen of all lands for a while to get bonus on all lands.
Imo, the land loyalty should only decrease the AP needed for traveling if the loyalty in question is the highest of all the loyalties of that player, or in the calculation of the AP cost, loyalties to other lands get subtracted from the land loyalty that's currently used.

If the loyalties of a person change, the land should notice that, and not give them bonus anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm don't loyalty count only for the last two lands? Anyway, in terms of mobiility of mainlands only GG and NV are attractive.
I like the new development. As announcement says - time will show whether 1AP/ AD is OK - my initial feeling is that it should be a factor of 3-4 lower; 40A in GG alliance is not really that much for free mobility when most ppl struggle (and with new entry cost - most cannot enter). Of course it may happen that now GG citizens will be coming and going making GG low viscosity
[i]How about reducing AP cost for moving based on number of visits in location. Not too much - say 1AP for every 25-50 visits. Visiting a location also shows affinity... Maybe even more than citizenship with citizens not visiting their homeland.[/i]

LE: new idea - opened a new thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Burns' timestamp='1317533932' post='93082']
I think there should be another bit to that idea to stop people from being citizen of all lands for a while to get bonus on all lands.
Imo, the land loyalty should only decrease the AP needed for traveling if the loyalty in question is the highest of all the loyalties of that player, or in the calculation of the AP cost, loyalties to other lands get subtracted from the land loyalty that's currently used.

If the loyalties of a person change, the land should notice that, and not give them bonus anymore.
[/quote]
This change would imply that I am not loyal to Mur and the Tribunal at the same time as being loyal to Necrovion and it's citizens, and I resent such an implication*.

By duty I am of Tribunal, but by choice I am of Necrovion.

*Please note, I am not speaking of an implication by Burns himself, but the change he suggests. I do not claim to know what Burns thinks of my citizenship status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it only affects current citizens of the land, not past citizens. I may be mistaken though. If not, then I think it should only affect current citizens

"render viscosity insignificant just for citizens of a land while they are within their land"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    16,148
    Total Topics
    176,364
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...