| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gemley
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 02:59 |
Chaos Armor wrote:
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
|
 |
Chaos Armor
Forum Warrior
Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 213
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 02:46 |
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.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:45 |
|
I wouldn't particularly enjoy using this option or having it used against me.
|
 |
Innoble
Wordsmith
Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 141
|
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.
|
 |
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
Smoking GNU
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 23:47 |
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.
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
Smoking GNU
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 21:39 |
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.
|
 |
Gaia Nutella Tulips
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
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
|
 |