Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
They gained the score whilst they were in your alliance, therefore, imo, the score is as much the alliances as the planets. You know as well as I do that people leaving alliances midround generally are spineless shipjumpers looking for protection and not people genuinely dissatisfied with a "crap" alliance and I think this would be somewhat of a reassurance to the alliance that gets screwed over by selfish members.
|
An alliance is nothing more than the sum total of its members' efforts in my opinion. Frankly I'd say it's your (obviously not specifically you) fault for recruiting spineless shipjumpers in the first place.
Quote:
|
It would also allow alliances to take more of a chance on people who have no proven record or perhaps even a poor track record as it doesn't matter what they do (if they shipjump or end up shit), any score they do gain will contribute to your score anyway.
|
Hmm, I would have said that the alliance member limit is more of a limiting factor on recruiting people you're not sure on to be honest. There'd be a small danger of this being abusable as well, get planets to crash for xp and then swap in a planet with better score-gaining potential so you hold onto the xp score but you still have the actual fleet, or something close to it, that it was gained with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grog
How about a war tax? Say a 1% resource tax on every planet in the tag for every war you have declared.
So you'd have to balance the benefit of the extra XPs against the resource costs in declaring war.
|
I really don't like the idea of losing value in order to gain xp heh. We're already punishing the value aspect of going to war this round by nerfing salvage, going even further in that direction isn't that healthy in my opinion.
I'd agree as far as hardcoding politics into the game would be a nice shift. What I wouldn't like to see is it decreasing the actual political options you have.