Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - City Subjugation
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCity Subjugation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>
Author
Gemley View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 02:59
Originally posted by Chaos Armor Chaos Armor wrote:


Originally posted by Innoble Innoble wrote:

I see you guys mostly arguing about the workings of the possible change, but I am still not convinced the majority of the players actually wants a change to the "pvp" part of Illy. One of the things that makes this game unique is that pvp is not a "sporty" "gimmicky" "fun" thing to do. It is a last resort tool of life and death.

Conflict does happen, cities do get destroyed, but only rarely and only when people aren't smart enough to work it out diplomatically. Right now you only siege someone when you REALLY don't like them. There
is a serious amount of e-hate required. When you dislike someone this
much, you don't care about whether it is profitable or not to attack
them. You just do it.

If this game will start to have features which make it profitable to hit towns and such, the game will change in such a way that it will become more similar to other games out there, by losing that which makes it unique. People will pvp just because they can. Bully their neighbours into getting their way, because there is no (or less) net-cost involved. This is how other games work.

Now I have played games like this and I have liked them, so I would probably be ok with it. I also know many of the current players would *not* like those games. Please keep in mind that if you are a pvp-oriënted player, you are not a majority in Illyriad.

I know there are quite a few pvp-type players that are frustrated with Illy because of the way it now works (war-wise) and this is why there is so much positive response in this thread, but perhaps if we did a widespread poll and give the rest of the players a reason to respond, it would go a different way.






I agree with this statement through and through. 

I also agree. Honestly I would dislike having this option in-game.
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien
Back to Top
Chaos Armor View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 02:46
Originally posted by Innoble Innoble wrote:

I see you guys mostly arguing about the workings of the possible change, but I am still not convinced the majority of the players actually wants a change to the "pvp" part of Illy. One of the things that makes this game unique is that pvp is not a "sporty" "gimmicky" "fun" thing to do. It is a last resort tool of life and death.

Conflict does happen, cities do get destroyed, but only rarely and only when people aren't smart enough to work it out diplomatically. Right now you only siege someone when you REALLY don't like them. There is a serious amount of e-hate required. When you dislike someone this much, you don't care about whether it is profitable or not to attack them. You just do it.

If this game will start to have features which make it profitable to hit towns and such, the game will change in such a way that it will become more similar to other games out there, by losing that which makes it unique. People will pvp just because they can. Bully their neighbours into getting their way, because there is no (or less) net-cost involved. This is how other games work.

Now I have played games like this and I have liked them, so I would probably be ok with it. I also know many of the current players would *not* like those games. Please keep in mind that if you are a pvp-oriënted player, you are not a majority in Illyriad.

I know there are quite a few pvp-type players that are frustrated with Illy because of the way it now works (war-wise) and this is why there is so much positive response in this thread, but perhaps if we did a widespread poll and give the rest of the players a reason to respond, it would go a different way.



I agree with this statement through and through. 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:45
I wouldn't particularly enjoy using this option or having it used against me.
Back to Top
Innoble View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:25
I see you guys mostly arguing about the workings of the possible change, but I am still not convinced the majority of the players actually wants a change to the "pvp" part of Illy. One of the things that makes this game unique is that pvp is not a "sporty" "gimmicky" "fun" thing to do. It is a last resort tool of life and death.

Conflict does happen, cities do get destroyed, but only rarely and only when people aren't smart enough to work it out diplomatically. Right now you only siege someone when you REALLY don't like them. There is a serious amount of e-hate required. When you dislike someone this much, you don't care about whether it is profitable or not to attack them. You just do it.

If this game will start to have features which make it profitable to hit towns and such, the game will change in such a way that it will become more similar to other games out there, by losing that which makes it unique. People will pvp just because they can. Bully their neighbours into getting their way, because there is no (or less) net-cost involved. This is how other games work.

Now I have played games like this and I have liked them, so I would probably be ok with it. I also know many of the current players would *not* like those games. Please keep in mind that if you are a pvp-oriënted player, you are not a majority in Illyriad.

I know there are quite a few pvp-type players that are frustrated with Illy because of the way it now works (war-wise) and this is why there is so much positive response in this thread, but perhaps if we did a widespread poll and give the rest of the players a reason to respond, it would go a different way.


Back to Top
JimJams View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:11
The idea could be very interesting but require a lot of study to fix all the possible abuse.

A simple attack and win leading to lose a city is even worst than a siege, especially because of the surprise factor (direct attack are way faster than siege). So we should try to find a way to make the success of the maneuver not that high... May be spies or saboteur inside the city could lower the success chance....

It have to last only a limited time, and I also would add some chance to "free" the city, using may be saboteur (wow) or spies.

Finally I think the city should not be damaged in any way, but the stored advanced resources should be partially lost in favor of the invader (percentage also depending on some of the internal diplo). All defending diplo are not lost in the process , as they go stealth immediately after the invasion.
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 23:47
Originally posted by Hadus Hadus wrote:

I really do like this idea.
 
I wonder: where will the resources go? If you can force res and taxes from the subjugated city, will it just go to the city whose forces have subjugated it?
 
I think one option is that the city produces res and gold normally, but you gain control of the cities caravans and can send goods to your own cities. Thus capturing and subjugating a trade city is more valuable profit-wise since you will have tons of caravans capable to exporting, while taking over a military city would be benefitial because it prevents that city from producing troops.
 
Also, if you send thieves into a city you have subjugated, then automatically succeed, giving you another option for taking res from the city.
 
Nice idea though.

Mmmhm, that's a nice idea
And gives the player a chance to hurt the subjugator. If the guy doing the subjugation has to use the cities caravans to transport the res he steals/taxes via caravan to his city, a blockade might then conceivably be utilized to try and block this.
Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 23:13
I really do like this idea.
 
I wonder: where will the resources go? If you can force res and taxes from the subjugated city, will it just go to the city whose forces have subjugated it?
 
I think one option is that the city produces res and gold normally, but you gain control of the cities caravans and can send goods to your own cities. Thus capturing and subjugating a trade city is more valuable profit-wise since you will have tons of caravans capable to exporting, while taking over a military city would be benefitial because it prevents that city from producing troops.
 
Also, if you send thieves into a city you have subjugated, then automatically succeed, giving you another option for taking res from the city.
 
Nice idea though.
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 22:09
I don't think there should be a magic or sov. requirement. This is strictly a military maneuver. 



Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 21:39
Originally posted by Gaia Nutella Tulips Gaia Nutella Tulips wrote:

GNU - you try being attacked by 5 peasants with pitchforks.. I think the odds are not in your favour.

What I think GNU and Geofrey are suggesting is that occupying a city would become like another form of sov.  This means that the aggressors city would need to use mana to stop the occupied cities casting spells..
 
 This would lead to another Magic tree and a Sov tree - And I am all in favour for this!

I'm not sure about geofry, but that's not what i had in mind/suggested at all. Nowhere di i mention in any way that magic or sov played any role.
Back to Top
Gaia Nutella Tulips View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 21:27
GNU - you try being attacked by 5 peasants with pitchforks.. May the odds be ever in your favour!

What Geofrey suggests with the cost to occupy a city would be similar to sov right? I camp an army and pay extra to get goodies from a square, sounds similar in this scenario!  I guess this would fall under the Military tree and/or Sov research tree.

SUGGESTION/QUESTION
Could the occupier cast a spell or have to spend more mana on the city they have occupied to stop it casting spells?


Edited by Gaia Nutella Tulips - 27 Aug 2012 at 21:49
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.