City Subjugation

If you don't like where a city is, why would you want it to grow?  That makes no sense.

TomBombadil wrote: The idea is not to have a profitable alternative to siege, but to have an alternative to siege. The continued existence and growth of a conquered city is what we desire.

Rorgash wrote: @Hadus that sounds pretty good actually :) atleast something to think about since it does what you want which is get the city away from you aswell as exodus really hurts the town. Edit to add: And if you want to attack and start a fight with someone you want to HURT them, you want them to suffer and maybe even die, that the plan, but siege is heavily frowned upon by farmville citizens so a alternative to be able to get rid of people atleast from your area sounds great.

Even with Hadus's idea I imagine that its going to be equally frowned upon when it comes across global saying that your occing said town. At that point you will be looked at as an aggressor to occupy them unless intention is to make them exile with said idea which I imagine is going to look worse than them doing a simple exodus.

So your goal is to hurt them while not taking out the city but don't want them to exodus... I imagine with that idea your also wanting to avoid occupation being shown on global also? Otherwise I imagine its going to be equally frowned upon knowing the community from what I seen on the short time I been here.

Hadus wrote: Given the nature of the community yes, for the most part it will likely acquire a stigma similar to siege. But there are a few advantages to forced exodus that could make it more accepted/tolerable:   - First and foremost, instead of the attacked player losing months/years worth of time and effort, they lose at the most 8 levels from each building and lots of resources. Still a big loss, but not nearly as devastating. - It forces one player's city away from the other's, reducing, at least a little, the chance for future conflict. - If the defender and his/her allies do manage to defeat the occupying force, they will only have suffered military losses and some lost time, rather than de-leveled buildings during a siege. - Putting a city or multiple cities into lockdown is an excellent way to initiate negotiations and peace talks. Compare this to siege, which is a ticking timer to destruction that forces rushed communication.   While siege is often seen as an act of aggresion, in light of these advantages City Occupation might be looked at as more an act of repression, which only escalates if the defending player chooses Exile and loses building levels.

1. As others mentioned there is little reason to subjugate over having them exodus. If you planned to have them move and are planning on forcing them out they still have to agree to it happening. Whether you subjugate the city or work towards demolishing it brings roughly the same results.

2. It doesn't change many peoples actions. If they feel they are wronged in a particular situation they will do whatever they choose to do regardless of the threats that come. Sometimes they change their minds once enforced but regardless most still take their initial actions as normal.

3. This has no difference then a normal attack then setting up a siege. Wipe out the military and the possibility to clear out parts of the town if talks aren't worked on asap. That or just a really diplo...

4. It doesn't exactly force talks to complete by end of talks. It does however have the potential of dragging someone back to the table and it also puts in perspective a little more of what is at loss in the total situation. Usually in other games when I did diplomacy if we have a large advantage over another guild or player then it would also show in diplo talks when you use said advantage even if it has no substance in that particular trade. Its how many diplo talks can sometimes go... as I start to siege your town I could put your town being sieged on the table which doesn't give you a city exactly but it does get talks moving.

gameplayer wrote: lets all just nap with each other and stop all this talk, this isnt a pvp game, if the devs wanted it player vs player they would make it easier to war....wait i got to change a building and harvest more stuff, i want to craft more stuff to kill npc easier! someone start a fight in chat...thats real fun! oh wait, remember to snuggle first! real life is hard enough, why do we want to play a game that is hard?....wait i got to click research and put more resources in my unlimited storage in the hub...click click click, ten castles are too time consuming to do all these things, the smart player should only have like five, all this clicking just wears my fingers out.....i might even have to think

Pretty useless post. So because some think the idea is poor we should go to a strictly pve game? Perhaps because this idea is poorly planned out we should also get rid of 'Suggestions and Game Enhancements" because that means all ideas are poorly thought out. Infact why have any new things added to the game as those are ideas and ideas are bad.

Terrible logic is usually just terrible logic.

If you wanted to change how things are done I would likely just start by going in game and making changes through your guild to push it more into a pvp game. There is of course pvp and its designed to play with PvP if the player chooses to do so but this idea being added would be more trouble than actual good.