| Author |
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
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.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650 |
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
|
 |
Silverlake
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 417 |
Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 03:42 |
Edited by Silverlake - 30 Dec 2011 at 17:14
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 04:07 |
|
Edited by Rill - 29 Dec 2011 at 06:22
|
 |
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Location: uk Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
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.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 28 Dec 2011 at 06:13 |
|
Edited by Rill - 29 Dec 2011 at 06:23
|
 |
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Location: uk Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
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.
|
 |
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
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.
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269 |
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.
|
 |
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Location: uk Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
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.
|
 |