"Unlocking Cities"
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2989
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 20:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Unlocking Cities"
Posted By: Createure
Subject: "Unlocking Cities"
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 15:25
|
I would like to see players being able to 'permanently' unlock a new city when they reach the population requirement for it, even if their population then drops below this amount later. For example - if a player reaches the requirement for 10 cities, and then delevels many of his buildings to make his/her empire more efficient - and then gets their ass kicked and loses several cities - if they can still be bothered to rebuild after this they will have to get 10 cities the hard way, by raising their population to enormous levels, only to again demolish half their empire later in order to raise taxes. Having cities permanently unlockable would make rebuilding in many circumstances (particularly for high level players) significantly less hellish - which would make people less protective of their cities and less averse to some good pvp combat. I don't think this is unbalancing because losing cities will still be a big blow for any player - it just means that well developed players/veterans losing cities will not be completely demoted to absolute 'newbie levels' of development. |
Replies:
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 16:38
| They still have the advantage of the last cities' research, but I agree with this. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 20:01
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 20:21
|
I agree! The goal of the game is to keep players playing, the time commitment to repopulate and then rebuild might encumber that.
I would say the loss of a city or two is "really significant."
 |
Rill wrote:Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 20:33
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 23:14
|
yeh Rill but newer players can benefit from this just the same as players with 9 or 10 cities. If a guy with just 4-5 cities happens to get on the wrong side of an alliance and gets levelled they will be able to recreate their account again up to the previous level and it will be easier the second time because they will be able to build their cities again much more quickly. And I believe you are totally wrong when you say a guy with 10 cities losing 2 is less of a loss than a guy with only 3 cities... losing a city when you have 10 means you are losing a hell of alot more building time and micromanagement and resources or whatever else you can think of - not only that but you on top of losing a city you will also lose the ability to rebuild that city (unless you want to go through the enormous effort of redesigning your entire account to max out population a second time. The fact is losing cities is a massive loss whichever way you spin it - but the improvement suggested in this thread greatly enhances the potential for reconstruction, slightly lessenning the harsh penalties for losing an all-out war - which will in turn mean that the old established alliances/players will not shy away from PvP warfare quite as much. EDIT: NB. I am not trying to say that Illy PvP combat is too harsh - I like the way there are severe consequences for actions - I just want to enable people to rebuild more readily so people are less likely to quit the game as a result of losing a fight, every war has a winner and a loser and I don't like to see a mass Exoudus of veteran players from the game every time we have an all-out war (and hence all-out war is now increadibly rare). |
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 27 Dec 2011 at 23:31
| The loss of any amount of cities to a player with any amount of cities is significant, let's not get fixated on larger players, because all players would benefit from this change. This proposal makes it easier to rebuild. |
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 00:56
| When you grow up to get 2 cities you are really happy, when you grow your 10th you are exhausted. In both cases the chance of rebuilding without having to grow again in case of loss will be good news. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 01:02
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 02:22
|
Ever the champion of newbie ehh Rill? ;) The only guys this proposal would advantage is those who have already been smashed into the dust... They've already lost their units, their buildings, their research, their commanders... why is there a problem with allowing these people a tiny benefit in rebuilding rather than totally reducing their account to the level of a brand new newbie account? And the fact is people that have played a long time already have a big advantage - this is why there is a 10 city limit, to allow new players a chance to catch up. But new players benefit from this thing is just the same way as an old player who has been annihilated in the long-term. The only thing this proposal does is slightly soften the harshness of destroying cities (while not taking anything away from the person doing the destroying) - how is that not a good thing for everyone long-term? If it means less people quitting after losing some cities... but more importantly, less people quitting out of boredom [because there is absolutely nought challenging combat in this military based game - because everyone is too scared of being wiped out] then I am totally for it - at the end of the day more people playing the game means more people paying for prestige and that means more money for our devs - hence less worry less about funding and more time spent on what they (and we) love. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 02:42
|
This would be less of a help to smaller players, but it would be a help. It's not just rebuilding a lost city that's impacted; if you don't immediately settle cities when you're eligible and happen to get into a war or decide to exodus for whatever reason, your growth will be delayed. Players of any size who have put in their time and suffered loss as an active participant shouldn't be unnecessarily discouraged by the effort of rebuilding. As for achieving the population requirement for the tenth city, this seems like a grueling test of skill that, once demonstrated, should stand as an accomplishment rather than a perpetual requirement, analogous to an Illyriad black belt. Having built ten cities, you should be proud of what you've built rather than fearful of losing it.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 03:30
|
I agree. The mere act of rebuilding a city in any circumstances is a long and very tedious affair. Going from 10 cities to 1, and having to rebuild them all one-by-one isn't far short of losing everything you've ever done--of having even your history erased from the world. I wouldn't blame others who faced that loss for leaving. I expect most would. I wouldn't leave because my attachment is to my alliance and my friends within it, but I'd never re-invest the years of rebuilding (or buy more prestige) to recover that empire of cities, research, commander experience, etc. I'd just putter around and and focus on my leadership/technical roles. Being able to rebuild all 10 cities at once would still leave you down for the count, taking months to rebuild even if you spend a bunch more prestige. That's punishment enough for any crime that doesn't get you banned from the game altogether. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 03:42
 |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 04:07
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 04:59
|
I understand you are playing devils advocate - guess we all like to start a good debate... The proposal removes no risk though - seige will still be just as devastating, and players will still stand to lose their buildings, their research, their units, their commanders, their discoveries, any mysteries... essentially MANY things that can take a long long time to build up. But who is this person that will not benefit? The game is designed to allow everyone to build up a certain number of cities to a certain level - in the long-term everyone stands to benefit from this level of "city destruction" help when it comes to chosing whether to rebuild or not. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 06:13
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 11:53
|
Fact is - the consequence for picking on weaker players is still potentially the complete destruction of a player's account - exactly the same as it was before - all that changes is a player getting a slight leg-up for reconstruction - so that higher-level players can enter into some good PvP combat safe in the knowledge that if they do lose, they WILL lose ALOT, but they WILL NOT be demoted to 100% newb status. Can you honestly envisage a league of advanced players suddenly deciding to risk farming all the newbies near them because now if someone takes revenge on their with their big buddy, they still lose ALL their construction micromanagement + research + units + commander exp + discoveries... but that is ok because they can place their cities again afterwards more quickly? Honestly you need to see the bigger picture here Rill - you have ended up taking an extreme view point to stick by your tireless and honorable campaign to wrap new players in cotton wool - a view I believe that can get so extreme it is to the detriment of every other player. I remember you making some post about asking for new guys to have protection (in the game mechanics) for their caravans in tournament squares... it is the same problem... new players should be helped and encouraged by the wider community - but they should NOT be shielded from the realities of Illyiad, which I believe are some of the elements that make it most fun - implementing the suggestion of yours I mentioned here would again be a wonderful example of putting the requirements of brand new accounts miles above the needs of every other account in Illy. Please try and remember that Illy is essentially a war game. |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 12:32
| I think creatures suggestion is a fantastic one. And i've said this before, but rill, has it occurred to you that some small players actually enjoy an element of risk? Getting repeatedly smashed to the ground is never fun, but when I first started I liked the fact that there was potential for me to be hit by a much larger player, it was very unlikely even then but it did happen. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 13:56
|
I have a mixed feeling about this. It was fun building till my 8th city and I stopped there. I did not build any structures for the sake of population and decided not to build something only to demolish later - that is not what I like to do in a sandbox. Creature's suggestion helps everyone equally and I don't see how it is biased against new players. The only bad feeling i have against this is that it gives a very good reason to go for a 10th city - an incentive for doing a lot of boring and pointless work. If the 'unlocking cities' suggestion is to be implemented, i hope that the population requirement criteria for cities will be changed too.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 14:19
|
Same here Ander - I will be stopping at 9 cities - number 10 just isn't my cup of tea. But I do not think this diminishes my idea much (or at all) - the amount of players with or aiming for 10 cities is a relatively small percentage - like you say, this suggestion has something to offer to everybody in the long-term, it is not just a foot-stool for the pro-simmers with 10 cities. |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 15:11
|
I really really like this idea. I cant see the points that Rill makes matter. This is something all can benefit from and wont give any insane advantages. ------------- 
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 18:08
|
Nice Idea! You get hit hard from that food changeor were your cities changed enough to not get insta demolished? ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 18:19
| With respect to Rill's concerns, the disincentive to engage is just as likely to work in reverse. A player faces potential loss when he provokes a fight; another player faces potential loss when he intervenes. Either might lose one or more cities and face the daunting task of rebuilding, which is made easier by this change. The game invites more participation if it has a bias for action. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 19:05
| I can't honestly see that having a bit more action would be a bad thing. I mean, I don't want Illy to turn into a game where if I blink wrong I get sieged, but a BIT more action wouldn't be a bad thing. There is no real issue to this, since this won't immediately kill newbie protectivity, and a lot of gain. |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 19:43
|
Thanks G0Ds - nope I didn't lose any pop on the day of the "neg-food/res" update - most of my pop dropped before hand due to Exodus. But I never had any plan to get city #10 so dropping pop was no major bother for me in this case. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 20:14
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 23:53
| Rill, I understand your position; I was trying to point out that the increased risk you are arguing for is at least as likely to deter a white knight as it is a military opportunist. I agree with others on the thread that the most likely effect of facing the population bar again is to discourage players who have suffered losses from getting back into the game; it probably does not do anything to suppress conflict that the prospect of rebuilding doesn't already do. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 00:46
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 03:40
|
How are the risks not still big Rill? People will still stand to lose everything (months or years of work) from losing at large-scale PvP. The proposal gives people a bigger incentive not to just quit. Tell me: Do you prefer seeing people quit or do you prefer seeing people stick with the game? Not only this - but since, as you say, this proposal decreases the risk involved with PvP - you would most likely also notice in increase in the occurence of PvP - maybe a little action would see less people quitting out of boredom. And this last point applies to newbies and vets and everyone in between... I've seen just as many newbies quitting this game after 2 weeks when they hear that all their city and army building is for nothing because their main interest is combat and there is no challenging combat in Illy - SC himself referred to this exact problem and the current politcal empass himself in the interview yesterday, and referred to potential measures to motivate players into a little more action. Also I think you are making a mistake by trying to draw such a distinct line between established players and new players - the point is every new player has the potential to grow into an established player, and to benefit from everything an established player benefits from, and to the same level - this is a direct intention/result of the game design. It seems a pretty logical step to me that if new players see established players active and enjoying the game they will have more motivation to stick with the game and become established themselves - if new players see established players getting bored and quitting or preferring to quit rather than rebuild after getting beaten then the adverse. Edit: although I feel our disussion is rather taking the spotlight here - I'd like to see some other opinions from others in other alliances, and from both newbs and vets alike... now to wait and see what range of people frequent 'suggestions' regularly. ^^ |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 04:23
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 04:52
|
You keep insisting that this proposal somehow removes the consequences of 'bad' actions by removing the ability for players to get totally smashed? The fact is this is blatantly not true - for the third or fourth time I'll remind you that ALL of the consequences for actions will still be exactly the same - I.E. the total destruction of a player's account... this is not some little joke or minor annoyance.... this is months/years of micromanagement account growth we are talking about... when a player loses ALL of that in a couple of days of war how is it a bad thing that they might be able to save a small amount of effort in rebuilding when they already face a choice between months/years of micromanagement to get where they were before or quitting? You claim you get singled out for objecting to PvP - nobody cares that you don't want to be involved in PvP - that is your choice - what perhaps I care about is that you are extremely voiciferous against everything that might be done to encourage more pvp among those who might want it. Why does it bother you so much? You say it is pvpers faults that there is hardly ever pvp in Illy? How is it a PvPers fault that the game is designed to offer almost nothing for successful conflict and to offer complete and utter annihilation for failure? But now Rill I stop arguing with you about this. It is enough already and I don't like just 2 people dominating one thread. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 04:56
|
Please stop personalizing the discussion. It is not about me.
I think whether a person quits or rebuilds is a deeply personal decision that has more to do with their overall experience of Illy and their individual life circumstances rather than this particular game mechanic. Therefore each person should make the decision that is right for him or her at that time.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 05:12
|
Sorry I was editing that before you posted, not sure what exactly you were referring to. But I agree lets not make this personal, we have already both made our opinions abundantly clear. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 12:31
|
For me, Createure's idea is pretty fair. Currently, a player who is totally wiped out just restarts with a 0 pop capitale, and with the research kept; that is not so much help, either a reward of the hard work he brought in the game during so many time. I personnally lost a great amount of population in this game, and im glad none of my cities were destroyed so i can still develop myself with 9 cities, while i currently really dont have the pop requirements to have these 9 cities. So i truely understand and feel this idea of unlocking cities. In my opinion, once a player got the gratitude of King Sigurd for his bravour and his talent, and the authorisation to build an other city, he should keep the prestige of this achievement during all his game experience, even if his cities are destroyed. And anyway, if all of his cities are destroyed, he would have to wait for months before he can settle all of his cities again, as 1 settler takes 4 days to build. Imo, we could even imagine ghost cities. When a city of a player has been Razed, he could still have that city in his city list, as a ghost city: all the physical structure of that city has been destroyed, but not everyone is dead. These people have the immaterial property of that city, meaning its knowledge and its name. So, following that idea, a player would see his dead cities in his list (0 pop; no location), and would have the option to settle that city where he wants, with no other requirements than waiting for some days. Capitale would still automatically resettle somewhere randomly if all cities were razed. These resettled cities would restart from the dust, but with the research they had when they were wiped out. With that, losing some cities is still a very hard blow... but i think it would give wiped players some more hope and some more fun. Who would continue to play while being totally razed in the current game conditions? As HM said, only players who have an important place in Illy and many friends would hang around to see how things are going and give some intellectual help... but no much pop rushing for most... |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 17:37
|
Just so I understand, you would still need settlers in order to rebuild the cities correct? That would still be 144 days or just under 5 months in order to produce the settlers needed to resettle 10 cities. If they implementing something like they it'd be awesome if they made it so you keep the research of your capital no matter which city was last, something they have said they were going to change over a year ago and still haven't. I wonder where this kind of stuff falls on the priority list... Anyway, seems like a great idea to me. I've been waiting for them to implement something to lessen the effects of losing your cities for a long time now. -------------  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 17:57
|
Something to keep in mind is that if cities were permanently unlocked, then a player could recover a lot faster by capturing 9 cities after sufficiently building up the first to be siege-capable. It would however still be many months before all those demolished and captured cities were rebuilt, moved, re-focused, etc. Also, settling cities would take less than 144 days because it wouldn't be (relatively) long after city 2 was founded that it could start producing settlers as well, then city 3 could do the same shortly after that, and so on. The player could probably have 10 cities founded within 90 days using either tactic. It would simply still be a very long road or a lot of friendly support+prestige to build those cities up and have a strong empire again. And there's simply no shortcut to rebuilding high-level commanders, armies, and sovereignty holdings whatsoever.
------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: shadow
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 18:12
| Great idea! (late poster..lol) As a regular prestige purchaser, the thought of starting completely over makes me uneasy. Although i mainly use it for van boosting nowadays, i would completely stop purchasing if this were to happen. I too would "lull" around or quit entirely. I would argue that, between settler build time (although capturing towns is an option), and complete loss of months/ years of work, anyone would be punished enough. (yes, i said anyone) It's not a big advantage, but some incentive to keep veterans from walking away from the game in droves. |