"Unlocking Cities"

They still have the advantage of the last cities' research, but I agree with this.

Rill wrote: I'm not sure that I agree.  Perhaps it's better that even really big players have something really significant to lose.

Edited by Silverlake - 27 Dec 2011 at 20:21

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).


Edited by Createure - 27 Dec 2011 at 23:18

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.

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.


Edited by Createure - 28 Dec 2011 at 02:36