| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
geofrey 
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
 Posted: 05 Sep 2012 at 21:09 |
 Rill wrote:
If you don't like where a city is, why would you want it to grow? That makes no sense. |
It is very unlikely that someone doesn't like where a city is. Most territorial disputes are that one non allied player(player2) put a city where another player(player1) wanted to.
It's not the square the city is on, it's the fact that player(1) doesn't have control over it.
City Subjugation remedies that by giving player(1) the option to take control of player(2)'s city. To get resources from the city. To tax it. player(2) then has to decide if they are ok with that. If not, then begun the war has, with not as many de-levels as before.
The important thing is there is plenty of time to work out the details and negotiations for these sort of things. If a player doesn't want to give his opposition time, she can always siege. City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted.
|
|
|
 |
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
Posted: 05 Sep 2012 at 21:41 |
geofrey wrote:
City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted. |
A layer of slavery to get more than ten cities doesn't sound attractive for me, sorry.
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 05 Sep 2012 at 22:03 |
dunnoob wrote:
geofrey wrote:
City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted. |
A layer of slavery to get more than ten cities doesn't sound attractive for me, sorry. |
It sounds fun to me. Battling over taxation of a city and it's resources. Much more fun than my cities getting destroyed, or me destroying someone elses cities.
|
|
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 05:19 |
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over.
That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim.
|
|
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350 |
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 07:36 |
geofrey wrote:
dunnoob wrote:
geofrey wrote:
City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted. |
A layer of slavery to get more than ten cities doesn't sound attractive for me, sorry. |
It sounds fun to me. Battling over taxation of a city and it's resources. Much more fun than my cities getting destroyed, or me destroying someone elses cities.
|
you have a point here, i like this. but to keep a town subjugated, you have to keep there an army whit the order "subjugate". if this army is wiped, or the army returns home whit no other army stationed there whit the same orders, the town will be freed from the iron grip.
also i would say you can not build or research anything in the subjugated town, also all advanced and basic resource producer safe food should work at a strongly reduced rate. also, the overlord that sends the army shall not be able to set taxation into a % that damages the town.
Edited by SugarFree - 06 Sep 2012 at 07:37
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 08:52 |
geofrey wrote:
Rill wrote:
If you don't like where a city is, why would you want it to grow? That makes no sense. |
It is very unlikely that someone doesn't like where a city is. Most territorial disputes are that one non allied player(player2) put a city where another player(player1) wanted to.
It's not the square the city is on, it's the fact that player(1) doesn't have control over it.
|
That's not my experience. At least 50% of city placement issues relate to concerns about future sovereignty claims. The only think that city subjugation does to address this is make it less likely that city (2) will claim sovereignty where player (1) wanted to, but it does not completely prevent it and therefore does not address a large percentage of city placement issues.
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 |
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 12:40 |
|
sounds like they should just make raids more destructive, with the addition of quicker march times a military player could hit a castle over and over basically ruining a castle over time, the quicker march time the new crafting has will provide this plus the addition of spells will make placement of ill advised castle a liability but with the current gameplay in illyriad no one is aware of the great war tools the devs have already provided us, the devs just have to change other aspects of the game to make military more of an accepted part of the game....speed building times, get rid of or limit naps and confederations, and a new server to get rid of the hierarchy that is on the current server, certain people are god like here
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 06:58 |
Hadus wrote:
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over.
That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim.
|
Even if placed in as a temp solution it would be anything but that in majority of the cases. Lets say that we put a 48 hr time frame on it before it got removed automatically... what is to stop just redoing it once its in place? With the addition of this idea I imagine those that are being subjugated either will be told to let it happen otherwise worse things will happen or would be receiving it as punishment for other reasons. Though there may be a few that might have their primary account do it to their secondary account.
As it stands there is no real valid reason to add it other than to make war profitable simply put. In doing so all the complaints you get about the server having bullies and being at times cutthroat is going to grow somewhat exponentially as they have a valid reason to do it outside of just bad feelings for someone else. Don't get me wrong I don't mind making war profitable but illyriad will no longer be illyriad but rather just a copy of many of the other games people left when they came here.
So again regardless of how you cut it the goal of the idea to turn a profit out of fighting and calling a duck by its only the name it should be... a duck. Its why the idea is ultimately going to go really really bad...
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:02 |
gameplayer wrote:
sounds like they should just make raids more destructive, with the addition of quicker march times a military player could hit a castle over and over basically ruining a castle over time, the quicker march time the new crafting has will provide this plus the addition of spells will make placement of ill advised castle a liability but with the current gameplay in illyriad no one is aware of the great war tools the devs have already provided us, the devs just have to change other aspects of the game to make military more of an accepted part of the game....speed building times, get rid of or limit naps and confederations, and a new server to get rid of the hierarchy that is on the current server, certain people are god like here |
I am starting to feel as though you play this game with a tin foil hat...
Even if they got rid of Naps/Confed it doesn't mean they can't exist. Just because the game put it in writing somewhere doesn't mean that because Illyriad placed it there that without Illyriad said agreements would of never came to be. If you do feel this then it is quite apparent that you have never played a game without hardcoded politics where said agreements still exist.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:14 |
hellion19 wrote:
Hadus wrote:
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over.
That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim.
|
Even if placed in as a temp solution it would be anything but that in majority of the cases. Lets say that we put a 48 hr time frame on it before it got removed automatically... what is to stop just redoing it once its in place? With the addition of this idea I imagine those that are being subjugated either will be told to let it happen otherwise worse things will happen or would be receiving it as punishment for other reasons. Though there may be a few that might have their primary account do it to their secondary account.
As it stands there is no real valid reason to add it other than to make war profitable simply put. In doing so all the complaints you get about the server having bullies and being at times cutthroat is going to grow somewhat exponentially as they have a valid reason to do it outside of just bad feelings for someone else. Don't get me wrong I don't mind making war profitable but illyriad will no longer be illyriad but rather just a copy of many of the other games people left when they came here.
So again regardless of how you cut it the goal of the idea to turn a profit out of fighting and calling a duck by its only the name it should be... a duck. Its why the idea is ultimately going to go really really bad...
|
Oh, I guess my system was just misleading. I was trying NOT to make it unprofitable, while posing an alternative that does not require the destruction of cities.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
City Subjugation
