20 cities per an account?
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=5093
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 20 cities per an account?
Posted By: twilights
Subject: 20 cities per an account?
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 20:36
what do other members think about the decision allowing 20 cities per an account once broken lands opens? i guess we are going to be allowed to play 10 per a section. how many players think with current interface of gameplay that even 10 cities is hard? are many players just playing with a few cities and allowing the rest to sit using set up that allow little maintaince? how many believe that many castles just sit there with little interaction by the account holder? please be polite in your answers and please just one response from a person. |
Replies:
Posted By: The Politician
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 20:42
|
20 cities would be too much, besides reaching 10 cities is a hard goal to achieve. Also think of the time it would take to administrate 20 cities... ------------- In war there are rules, in politics however, there are no rules. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 21:27
| Many players currently maintain two accounts with 7-10 cities each. I don't see this as remarkably different. |
Posted By: ickyfritz
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 21:27
|
Participation in the Broken Lands is entirely optional. If you don't want to manage those extra cities, no one is going to make you. When it opens, participating in Elgea will be entirely optional for new players. No one will make them take on the extra towns if they don't wish it. One of the things I really like about the game is that I decide what I want to do. I could refuse to build armies, additional cities, kilns, diplos or anything in the game if i desire to do so. I think the game is great because the player decides the level of play and level of time to invest.... not the game. I would rather have the option, than not have it. I plan on participating. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 23:39
|
How about 40 cities over 2 accounts...
------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 23:41
|
I think 20 cities is a little much. Especially with an alt 40 cities. And if your sitting for someone on vacation now 60 cities possible. I think it would be great to get some additional User Interface things to assist. The last harvesting update was a great time saver. I think the sov interface could save lots of people time. Specifically in the sending out armies waiting 10min claiming sov. Or changing sov structures from map. |
Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 09 May 2013 at 23:57
|
I think I will play in BL or Elgea, not both. I don't have the time to manage that many cities along with all the other tedious daily clicks. SB
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 01:15
|
I see no reason not to allow ten cities per world, if you don't want to manage that many cities then don't build/take that many in Broken Lands. I do object to the suggestion that cities are limited to less than what is allowed in Elgea. It's a personal preference and a decision each player needs to make; build as many cities (up to ten) that you can manage. Ten cities in Elgea is not that difficult but it requires a lot of building and work, the same will hold true in Broken Lands. ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 01:41
|
I'd prefer success in Illyriad not to be a measure of the amount of time one spends playing the game. It's not a count of clicks; it's a strategy game, so brains should win over quantity. Personally, I think 40 ( (10+10) × 2 continents ) is too much work*. Others would be quite willing to put the time in, but I would feel a little aggrieved if, as a rule, I could not compete with those who spent the most time pushing their city count to the limits through sheer persistence and brute force. * it would certainly help if there was a radical redesign of the UI, with overviews of a player's empire (all cities), improved visibility of timers, and so on. -------------  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 01:55
| I have eight cities in Elgea, and I'm not in a super hurry to get a ninth. I haven't found that it significantly limits my ability to "compete" (insofar as that is even a relevant concept). People will have as many cities as they are willing to make time for, both in Elgea and in Bacon Lands, just as they do now. |
Posted By: Machete
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 02:46
| play as many cities as you want..1, 2, 20, 40. |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 04:02
|
The idea of having 40 or so cities seems crazy to me. Im making a "push" for my 10th city now- and I think its been a long haul to get here. In any case I think the game is well balanced as it is now. I dont want the devs to upset that too much. Someone made the comment on here its about strategy not time put into the game-- Well if the game was setup so someone whos played for a month can compete with those of us who have played for 2 years or more- then there is a flaw in the system. As I stated above I like the way the games balanced like it is now both the longevity and playabilty(which seems to keep improving.). ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 18:47
| People who play more are always going to have the advantage over people who play less. This is true of any game. I think forty cities might be more than I can handle, but others can go for it if they want. Anyway, the continents are separated, so someone with twenty cities in Elgea isn't disadvantaged against someone with forty. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 20:24
|
I think that considering that about 50% of Broken Lands will be non PVP area, it will be a good idea to limit city numbers to allow as many players as possible space and opportunity in the expansion.
------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 22:11
|
There is no sov in the non-PVP area of broken lands. So instead of 20 sq's for each city you need 1 sq. I doubt space will be a problem there. How much of BL will be habitable though? It looks like a large amount is water, non-pvp ect. Also I vote that we do what Rill suggested and make it Bacon Lands :D
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 22:45
|
Not referring to the non-PVP crowd, but the "normal" players.
------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |