Posted May 21, 2013 It may be my memory playing tricks on me; however, I do recall the various politics during Wurm's beta to be a bit more mercurial, more backstabbing. The variety nowadays feels like its lacking... something. Do you feel this as well, and if so, what do you believe is needed? On the other hand, I may have simply grown accustomed to the point where it seems to be lacking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) I think your to used to it and missing TG. It's also evolved over time and goes through phases depending on who's doing what. But its still there. Edited May 21, 2013 by Protunia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 No, your memory isn't playing tricks The Alpha maps were city-states and not kingdoms. There were a few major power blocks and then behind the scenes courting of the smaller villages. Beta had the WL/BL orientation and a more kingdom orientation and was much more similar to the current political situation. Much preferred the Alpha days and trying to keep the village out of the control of The Horde...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 I remember being a non-foruming hermit back in the day, hearing rumors of 'the horde' being nearby. Good times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 I think freedom is a bit too safe these days. Some sort of non-consentual warfare without bashing might spice it up a bit without pissing off too many peeps. (eve did it pretty well with wardecs)I think also there should not be anti-scamming rules for freedom, let people rely more on trust and reputation, thus generating politics (again eve did this VERY well). Adding this would create politics very fast. anyways +1 to more politics/drama inb4 go play eve ~ i did for years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 If you want more politics just move on Epic ;-) How to make politics on Freedom when you can't kill ;-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) I think freedom is a bit too safe these days. Some sort of non-consentual warfare without bashing might spice it up a bit without pissing off too many peeps. (eve did it pretty well with wardecs) I think also there should not be anti-scamming rules for freedom, let people rely more on trust and reputation, thus generating politics (again eve did this VERY well). Ye, Eve is pretty great. I played it for 6 months while taking a break from Wurm and really enjoyed it. I can't imagine Wurm having security areas though, especially not in freedom, haha. Sounds like most of these posts are about history and not politics. Edited May 21, 2013 by Antony Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 Its the downfall of the direct Silver/Euro scheme... Beta had free money and allowed for Risk taking without fearing the loss of your playerbase. One of the downsides to the in game Silver system... you can't expand without a wallet... or someone elses wallet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 Politics? Hard to do with people having hundreds of alts and hopping from one kingdom to another every 20 days or so ... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 Might wanna check out my old post about an Eve revamp for wurm http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/77140-a-one-worldserver-revamp-idea/?p=763714 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 21, 2013 Politics? Hard to do with people having hundreds of alts and hopping from one kingdom to another every 20 days or so ... Much easier with PMK (which BL was in Beta... they had a way of "thinning the heard" so to speak) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 27, 2013 Hrm personally one means would be to instill more power into the king-player. Imagine the kind of drama that would unfold if a player could set outlaw status (negative reputation and tower guards) at will on players within his/her kingdom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 27, 2013 Currently on epic at least. Politics is less of a cloak and dagger affair and more of a political party or parliamentarian deal since the politics transends kingdom and exists on a spectrum much like the liberal/conservative one in the U.S. while people may change kingdom (some more often then their underwear) or exist in 2 or all 3 kingdoms their position on that spectrum and they way it effects the way they play and what they support does not. Even If they are pretending to be undercover because nobody cares about it. This spectrum exists inside both each kingdom and even inside the home servers themselves apart from the elevation contingent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 28, 2013 Hrm personally one means would be to instill more power into the king-player. Imagine the kind of drama that would unfold if a player could set outlaw status (negative reputation and tower guards) at will on players within his/her kingdom. Would be nice... but seeing as it takes 100 Silver to found a kingdom and 50 players (assuming all premium) it literally costs: 560 Euro (not counting the capital Deed) That is a huge investment to let 1 person have arguably "too much" power. I don't think it should cost any money at all really... Did the US pay England any money when they made a declaration of independence?!? (Hell no!) It just doesn't make much logic... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 29, 2013 Aye they made the Declaration of Independence, didn't go out and buy one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2013 Politics on epic would be pretty terrible in my opinion. I'm not saying on paper it looks awesome being able to hand down a king and not worry about waiting months for a new one.... The issue will come in hogging the king which is the reason rolf has it as it is, you will get one group of people controlling it and the drama would just brew and brew. Now if you are talking about freedom I really don't see any harm in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 30, 2013 Politics on epic would be pretty terrible in my opinion. I'm not saying on paper it looks awesome being able to hand down a king and not worry about waiting months for a new one.... The issue will come in hogging the king which is the reason rolf has it as it is, you will get one group of people controlling it and the drama would just brew and brew. Now if you are talking about freedom I really don't see any harm in it. You can't brew on Kings in a purely PMK server. The players decide who they want to be king, or they don't join a kingdom. If you can't get the requisite amount of pawns to form a kingdom, then you aren't fit to be king. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
