Conquering capitals
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Implemented
Forum Description: Suggestions which have been implemented or resolved.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=238
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 02:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Conquering capitals
Posted By: Jim
Subject: Conquering capitals
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 10:25
| Please clarify for someone who doesnt want to spend too much time sifting thru the forums. - - - Is it impossible to capture or destroy other capital cities and if so is that always going to be so. It seems pretty pointless in waging war if you cannot take the enemy out. |
Replies:
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 11:29
| Please tell me that this will be made possible. If you cant take out your enemy there is very little point in waging war. Where is the fun in that ?? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:18
| Yes, and probably, but reducing a city to rubble is the next best thing anyway. All alliance capital protection does is prevent obliterating players out of the game entirely. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:20
|
Hi Jim, Well, you can't conquer a player's first city - however, you can certainly siege a capital city and if you maintain the siege for long enough you can flatten the city and prevent a player from building any buildings whatsoever. Player cities after their first city are completely up-for-grabs. The point behind being unable to "capture" the capital city is to give players some chance - however slim - of being able to organise some sort of defense as opposed to being instantly and completely driven out of the game the moment their new player protection expires. That defence might include bringing home some reinforcements from elsewhere, joining an alliance and getting help from them, or hiring a player mercenary alliance. Regards, |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:27
|
Do you really feel it's absolutely necessary to kick people out of the game altogether? They'd just make a new account anyway, and then they'd get newbie protection too, so what's the point? This isn't a death match or last man standing--half the point is that you to learn to deal with people constructively for the sake of your own progress and prosperity. The other half is that you're actually still allowed to play the game regardless of what (non-GM) forces oppose your existence. |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 14:15
|
I have just discovered that capital cities cannot be conquered or destroyed. That has kind of spoilt it for me. I have another city right next to me. I would have liked to be able to fight for all of the land in my vicinity. Instead I have to put up with him on my doorstep forever. That sucks. I understand that you dont want to knock people out of game but as a suggestion , when conquered, why not reduce the city to a settler who cannot resettle within a certain distance of his original location. That gives him a fresh start. You could even give him an initial quick build boost as an incentive to start again.
I think its a worthy goal to be able to mark your boundaries and claim all that land within for yourself.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 14:22
|
Whilst we appreciate your enthusiasm on this subject, after 3 different posts (and a petition) in three different threads - I'm aggregating them all into this single thread, above. Thanks, ------------- GM Stormcrow | http://bit.ly/rLKfoT" rel="nofollow - Twitter | http://on.fb.me/uvfajA" rel="nofollow - Facebook | http://bit.ly/rBzlzf" rel="nofollow - G+ |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 14:47
|
First I was establishing the facts and then I had a suggestion to make, hence the different threads. Hey I dont want to drive people out of the game but Im sure most would agree that they would like to be able to remove troublesome cities that are in their way. You say I am able to reduce them to rubble, well how is that better for the victim than being destroyed and able to start again with a new settler. ????
If I was being reduced to nothing then I would prefer a fresh start elsewhere so its best for both players. This is a war game, but you will greatly reduce the amount of action if you make it pointless to attack anybody.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:11
| /me makes a mental note about where my first siege blocks are going... |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:19
|
:) Indeed. Now Stormcrow you see why I asked for this discussion in a private petition. Because sometimes you cannot ask what you want without giving away your tactics. No point in attacking me though Poodle, you can bruise me but you cant kill me. So why bother :) |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:21
Totally understood, Jim. I did respond with answers to your petition before you posted in any of the threads, though - so you didn't have to tip your hand if you didn't want to!  |
Jim wrote:Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:38
Because sometimes the bruise alone is reward enough.  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:47
|
I actually do agree with him slightly, but not at all in the manner he suggests. In this game especially, protecting a player's last city instead of their first one better accommodates everyone. In that scenario, people like Jim who want someone out of their way are encouraged to leave someone alone long enough to settle elsewhere, which gives them a chance to build up, prepare defenses, and survive for a while at their original city while they more speedily build up the second in a safer location. Harassing the first city before another is settled will never give Jim what he wants, so he has to wait or suffer the presence of another permanently...but if patient, he can actually get what he wants. In turn, the other player has greater chance to thrive in the face of enemies more powerful than he. And Jim-like players can't just use nearby suckers to build up cities at the cost of their prestige for him either, since siege and capture decimates the captured city and Jiminy gets to rebuild most of it anyway. |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:53
|
Do you not agree that not being able to finish off a city is a deterrent to war/interest. I wont want to ever attack anyone because I know that unless I keep pounding them forever they can always come back and retaliate if I ever take a day off. So therefore its better not to ever attack anyone. There is nothing to gain by being aggressive. Sounds boring. I hope you will re-consider. What of my suggestion to preserve the defeated player by giving him a super-settler. ????? |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 15:56
| You lost me totally there Mule. All I would like is a little area of the map that I can call my own. Will look silly if someone else has a city in the middle of it. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 16:55
|
We actually looked at all sorts of options for this mechanic. The fundamental is that we don't want players to be immediately and instantly at risk of being literally thrown out of the game (destruction of their only city) as soon as they come out of new player protection. This left us with the following options: 1. Make the first city built invulnerable to complete destruction by another player 2. Make the last city built invulnerable to complete destruction by another player 3. Allow a player to designate a single city as the capital (invulnerable) once they have a second city 4. Make no city invulnerable except the last suriving one 5. Make the player's first, invulnerable capital city expire its invulnerability after a period of time. The problem with 2, 3 & 4 is in the siege/blockade mechanics, whereby an attacking player must occupy an empty square adjacent to a city in order to siege or blockade it. If players can effectively "choose" which city is designated invulnerable (either by methods 2, 3 or 4) then cities clumped together will then make the middle cities in the clump entirely invulnerable to being captured or razed as well, regardless of their capital status, because there wouldn't be any angles of attack. The issue with 5 is simply that it's arbitrary and we don't like that much either. I guess there's a 5b, whereby players lose invulnerability when they reach (eg) their third city. But somehow I think that's an unlikely circumstance for anyone too near you, Jim! The way things work currently that it is possible to bombard a player's invulnerable capital city into essentially a husk, but: a) the attacked player is not forced out of the game and can attempt to seek protection by hiring mercenaries, joining an alliance etc, and b) the attacking player is forced to expose his armies in a siege encampment should a third party choose to involve themselves in the fray Allowing a player to build settlers and relocate their city isn't a solution as this simply means that alliance powerbloc clumps of cities will spring up even more quickly and densely as players use the mechanics to force early resettlement. We'd much rather a player in this situation (who could not / would not / or was unwilling to seek an alternative way out of the situation) abandoned their account and - if they wished to restart on the same server - set up a new account and were randomly assigned to a new starting position as a new player. To help this process along we will be putting in place a procedure whereby accounts that have not grown in population (or had a player log in to that account) for a period of 3 weeks will go into "abandoned" mode. The player will receive an out-of-game email telling him or her the city has effectively been abandoned, and the city will cease to generate resources. One week later, if there's still no login, the account will be closed and the city removed from the game. So, Jim, you will still be able to have your part of the centre of the map to call your own if you wish, but we shouldn't pretend that it's not going to involve some unpleasantness for those people who are in the part of the map that you claim - whether it's by forcible resettlement, an account restart, or razing the city to the ground. (For the avoidance of doubt, we neither condone nor condemn such actions - it's part of the Illyriad sandbox - but we *do* want to make sure that coming out of new player protection isn't an automatic death sentence from more agressive players). I'm willing to entertain any other suggestions that are better - but please make sure you think them all through and argue them from all perspectives, including potentially exploitable ones. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 19:05
In regard to these points, I'm concerned about some prestige and identity-related issues: 1) Can a player restart from the same account or somehow forward purchased prestige to the new account? Can he optionally retain his username and account id? Or is he forced to abandon one or both of financial investment and a username that he may consider intrinsic to his online presence? Some people like myself invest heavily into a single username whose reputation has been cultivated for many years. Losing my username would be a deeper fatality than losing my account. 2) Are accounts that have purchased prestige also be subject to inactivity-triggered account closure? Will the account holder be able to re-open/restart his account and retain the purchased prestige? It becomes a sticky matter if real world money could be deducted without any recourse to reclaim the benefit of that investment. Also, could you clarify the issue with option #4? How does it make clusters more impenetrable? Do you mean clusters comprised entirely of single-city accounts, and if so, why would any strategist allow those cities to be their last? This is not a serious issue for me, but you know me...I'm picky. I do believe #3 and #5 are the worst options by far. Option #2 just complicates matters and makes no sense. |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 19:53
|
Well thank you for your reply Stormcrow, but at the end of the day the game has to be about conquest - "smite your foes" your artwork says. I understand that you want to have as many active players as possible but I still dont see how beating a city down to a shell without destroying it is better for anyone, least of all the victim. I guess most guys will either quit or restart the game anyhow if somebody has their foot on their throat preventing them recovering. Even if you remove inactive cities you have still taken away the thrill of the kill. I hear you say that you think this rule prevents clusters growing too fast but I dont think it will make very much difference to that. If a capital city could only be destroyed not captured, that would be ok. It would still allow you to stamp your territory without benefitting directly.
In practice I guess nearly all cities will either be capital cities or members of big alliances, therefore very unlikely to be defeated. People will build up huge siege mechanics and be unable or too afraid to put them to much use, the game will stagnate.
The advantages of allowing capital cities to be destroyed seem to far outweigh the disadvantages.
Thanks for your time.
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 20:36
|
P.S Oh and the longer a city is pounded for without being destroyed the more likely it is that it will join the biggest alliances to get protection, polarising and stalemating the game even faster. Even second cities are unlikely to fall if a siege lasts too long. They will be saved by joining alliances. More I think on it the more unlikely it seems that any decent action will be had. Its going to be all about wood gathering.
Hope you right, me wrong. :)
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 22:35
So let's see: 1) No sense of humor 2) Completely convinced he's right and everyone with a different view point is wrong. 3) Convinced that the sky is falling because of one game mechanic. 4) When given an answer, starts spamming everywhere to try to get around the answer. Good way to make friends and influence people there, bud. How about you actually live in the game for a while before writing it off so quickly. |
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 22:57
.... likes xx ------------- Cake |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 00:22
| I smiled at your joke. You have me completely wrong poodle. But I think I have you pegged right. You are a complete fool. |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 00:27
| You can't kill all of the people all of the time, or there'd be nobody left to respect you... |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 00:53
|
Well like I said, I hope you guys are right. Contrary to what idiotpoodle said I totally admit I could be wrong. Maybe endlessly going round in circles without ever being able to kill or be killed is the way to go. :) |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 01:24
Make all cities vulnerable to complete destruction - however when last city is destroyed the player respawns to random location with new city and n00b protection?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 01:28
| Jim, you haven't played many browser-based strategy games, have you? |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 09:09
|
I'm trying to make a constructive and logical suggestion without any repetition. I am not trying to be patronising like you or insulting like the idiot. Resendent and I have made a valid suggestion, it is only a single game mechanic but it is a pretty massive one. I was interested to discuss it with anyone who wanted to.
Mule - I have played enough online to wonder why people can never disagree, or develop a dialogue, without being so rude.
Stormcrow - great game. Thanks for it. xxx
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 11:14
You're welcome! Here's a suggestion, that may or may not be of interest: How about allowing players who have their first and only city "levelled" the *option* to relocate - an "Abandon City" button or somesuch - that relocates them to a fresh city on another random part of the map, but keeping their username / account details. There could be a timer (say 1 week) during which time players have the option to abandon the city or not. If they chose not to abandon the city during this time, they could seek to join an alliance / hire mercenaries / rebuild their city or whatever they wish to try to keep their foothold - but if the city is still levelled at the end of the one week timer, the relocation could be "forced". This would apply only to the first city of course.
Think this suggestion handles this.
No, prestige accounts won't be closed. But they would still have their city relocated under this mechanism. Any thoughts? |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 16:02
| Sounds great to me. I just feel that players need a way of removing things in their way. So whatever way you come up with to make that possible would be excellent. Could you make the relocation not quite random, could you make it at least a minimum distance from their original location. Well away from their conqueror. Thanks for your ear, I guess the forum might have been a little busy today after your little prank :). |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 16:54
|
I think SC's idea is a great one! Only a fool wouldn't relocate if they're next to a major power bloc who is pounding them incessantly... Great way for alliances to expand their "spheres of influence" without killing off the other player... |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 21:02
|
"I just feel that players need a way of removing things in their way." I understand your viewpoint but it is not one with which I can sympathize. It's simply too selfish. Much to the contrary, I feel that players need to be forced to deal with their neighborhood responsibly (or at least invest some hard work) rather than terraforming it from the comfort of their armchairs. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 21:08
| When you remove any sense of consequences, the world degenerates into a thug fest. I've played games that let people squeeze neighbors out of the game (Tribal Wars). It sucked royally. Even after I established a successful multi-city empire, I ended up quitting out of sheer boredom with the mindless slugging and complete lack of higher strategy or social maturity. |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 22:25
| Mule. Its a war game. If it wasn't we wouldnt have armies would we ? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 22:27
|
By that logic, real life is a war game. I'm glad differently minded people run some of our nations. It's also an argument completely auxiliary to whether achieving solidarity from a position of advantage should be easy. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 17:21
Jim-- It's a war and diplomacy and magic and trading and city building game... War is one element, not the only element of the game, and the most successful players (and alliances) will balance those.
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2010 at 15:03
| Of course it is. And the great challenge and difficulty for the players, but even moreso, the designers is to get that balance right. Not sure whether it is too in favour of the pacifists who basically want nothing to ever happen, but time will tell. Mule thinks I am some kind of bloodthirsty barbarian :). If I am then so is every chess player out there. Chess is the ultimate war game. |