| Galaxy Legion Forum http://galaxylegion.com/forum/ |
|
| Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system http://galaxylegion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10115 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Veristek [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
Hey all, Me and a legionmate noticed a couple of things that needs to be fixed or tweaked in the new legion trade system. 1. The players in the "Trade" tab in the "Send stuff to?" screen should have their legion listed under their names. As of right now, we can't tell who's in what legion in the trade window. 2. My legionmate commented that 3 treaties with 1 legion takes up 3 treaty spaces. He suggested that trade + NAP + battle treaty with the same legion should be counted as one treaty space as its one legion, instead of 3 seperate spaces as if its 3 seperate legions. Comments? |
|
| Author: | JKGreene76 [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
I agree on #1 disagree on #2 |
|
| Author: | jtr415 [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
+1 to both |
|
| Author: | JKGreene76 [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
question being ..... if you have ONLY a TRADE PACT with a legion and you unknowingly attack one of thier members in BT .... will it warn you that you have a TRADE pact ....similar to a NAP ? |
|
| Author: | Ejjakai [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
That's an excellent question JK, I think the warning should be present, but unlike BREAKING A NAP when you attack, a BT hit will NOT break a Trade Pact. Similarly, I think a Battle Pact should ABSOLUTELY INCLUDE a NAP, thus eliminating the need to have both a NAP and a Battle Pact with a legion. Why would you attack an ally? Or like the NAP, attacking a BT target that you have a Battle Pact with would warn you, and following through WOULD cease the Battle Pact. Just my thoughts on the intricacies of each Pact. Ejjakai Undertakers Incorporated |
|
| Author: | Loki the Grim [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
+1 to both, a smaller legion with multiple NAP's already takes up a lot of space... add just a couple trade pacts in there and we now have no room for Battle pacts. |
|
| Author: | Commonwealth <TK> [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
+1 to both. Especially number 1 |
|
| Author: | Veristek [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
Slight improvement to my idea #2... Battle Pact = Battle, NAP, and Trade bunched together in one treaty. NAP = Trade + NAP bunched together in one treaty Trade = just Trade treaty itself. NAP overrides Trade, and Battle overrides NAP and Trade treaties, so you can have 3 "levels" of treaty / diplomacy. So if you want to trade but still battle like Dysonians, you can. If you want to NAP, you can. Battle is the closest thing to full alliance. Then later on, if Dan wants to implement an "Alliance" treaty, he can just put it above the "Battle" treaty in priority. The "Alliance" could mean full NPC + PvP + planet alerts between the two allied legions in addition to the other 3 treaties and their benefits. |
|
| Author: | blackknightmare [ Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Two fixes suggested for new trade treaty system |
brilliant tho only 4 alliance allowed no matter what ( and its counted seperate) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|