PDA

View Full Version : What Happens when you Deafeat a city


lonewolf9567
11-25-2010, 12:28 PM
I dont mean the start out city of a player. I understand you being only able to sack a players "last city" cause then they dont get kicked out of the game.

But what about other towns a player makes? Is it possible to take it over? Is it even possible to have a second city?

Im a very harcore focused player, and i would love to see this possible. I checked the FAQ it said
"The stronghold will revert back to the defender; however, you will be able to loot conquered strongholds for lots of resources."

I'm not sure if it applys to every city cause that would be kinda lame :(

SilverLeaf
11-25-2010, 03:58 PM
Hey I don't want to have to live in fear every day that everything I worked for in the past 6 months can be taken away in 6 hours when I'm not looking. That's why I left eve :P

Anyway directly answering your question. In multiplayer you only have ONE city you cannot take over other cities and npc cities exist for you to sack and interact with but cannot take them over.

It ain't like tribal wars or travain or insert other civ clone browser based mmo here where you can build new cities, just don't work that way. Except in singleplayer mode.

lonewolf9567
11-25-2010, 05:51 PM
Ah well guess it's just my style to like something like that :(

Well that's a turn off for me, but I'll manage :)
Guess I'll have to hope for a separate server for players like me

GPS51
11-25-2010, 06:56 PM
I wouldn't be too disappointed yet. This game is built on a different style then other games. It's got creative ideas instead of just stock ideas :)

lonewolf9567
11-25-2010, 07:00 PM
I wouldn't be too disappointed yet. This game is built on a different style then other games. It's got creative ideas instead of just stock ideas :)

Yeah who knows right? I'm kinda disappointing that ill be sharing borders with the same people till they quit. And sad to see ill never be able to expand my city into a country.

I understand Alliances, but really its just a collection of City-States working with each other to plunder other collections of City-States.

Espadachim
11-26-2010, 04:48 AM
I understand Alliances, but really its just a collection of City-States working with each other to plunder other collections of City-States.Hmm, yes. But the enemy city states will be forming alliances too. Fight fire with fire, I always say. And fight armies with bigger, better equipped, better trained armies. ;)

lonewolf9567
11-26-2010, 10:04 AM
Hmm, yes. But the enemy city states will be forming alliances too. Fight fire with fire, I always say. And fight armies with bigger, better equipped, better trained armies. ;)

But i dont understand the goal in the Alliances. If not for more territory then what? What is the point of having better trained/equipped armies?

A server (ONCE THE GAME HAS ENOUGH POPULATION) dedicated to this would make a lot of players happy. Empire building would make this game very re playable.

I'm sure he devs could think of ways to allow new players to get into the game before they can be taken over.


I understand after reading around the forums that the devs would have to rework the game for something like this. So i know ill never see this but its cool to think about. I mean they gotta remember that making this game to casual will drive players off too. And the only reason WoW does so good is because of the timing of its release, the already popular Warcraft series, money, and polish not because its extremely casual.

Taunaic
11-26-2010, 04:10 PM
Hmm, yes. But the enemy city states will be forming alliances too. Fight fire with fire, I always say. And fight armies with bigger, better equipped, better trained armies. ;)

Is not this great?:cool:

Altastico
11-27-2010, 05:23 AM
I think empire building would be good too, i love RTS empire builders, and tbh theres not that many good ones, they all seem to be turn-based. However what would happen when people empires become too big on server, it would make it too hard for new comers, and as empires got bigger and bigger then the population of the server would get smaller and smaller.

lonewolf9567
11-27-2010, 09:16 AM
I think empire building would be good too, i love RTS empire builders, and tbh theres not that many good ones, they all seem to be turn-based. However what would happen when people empires become too big on server, it would make it too hard for new comers, and as empires got bigger and bigger then the population of the server would get smaller and smaller.

Why do you think it would be so easy for one player to form an empire? You wouldn't be able to do it alone so you would make friends!

It wouldn't be for the feint of heart. My guess is that a number of big alliances would form, and new players would choose which side they wanted. After all this is a mmo who wants to play solo.

To me as a new player I'd get right to work on making friends, and allying the closet empire. I realise that some players wouldn't be so quick to do this. But those are the players who would go to the other server that has never changing borders, and no threat of being conquered.

So like I said two servers, two play styles.

lonewolf9567
11-27-2010, 09:20 AM
Is not this great?:cool:

The reason I don't find this great is because what's the point of having these extra better units? To plunder some more cities so you can just do it again? It lacks meaning to be honest. I want to be afraid of cities more powerful then me! I also want others to fear me.

Freyer
11-29-2010, 03:25 AM
hmm after reading this i am quite dissapointed too i thought you would be able to expand and build on also oh well maybe one day

raizun
11-29-2010, 08:10 AM
Well, yeah, I would have prefered a conquer system where you can take cities and grow, but we'll see if it gets put in down the line, we can only hope.

SmasherKao
11-29-2010, 07:02 PM
i agree, i really hope that they implement this

Daft
12-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Being able to occupy old abandoned/captured cities would be completely awesome, especially if the former owners retaliated and had to siege their own city, which could be both annoying and fantastic.

Tenebrion
12-04-2010, 01:25 PM
I was under the impression that when you conquer a player's city, you plunder the city (though don't capture it for yourself).

Boomshaker
12-04-2010, 01:29 PM
Well plundering is an option :)

Alex Walz
12-04-2010, 01:49 PM
In Kingdom Wars (the single-player Conquer the World campaign) you keep the cities you conquer. In Online Kingdom (the MMO mode), you loot the city but do not keep it. This is because your city is the equivalent of an MMORPG's player character. You can only have one city and it's out of here that the majority of your economy and military strength thrives. You'll also use your homeland to pick up some quests, heal your units, and revive your hero. If someone takes your city, you simply wouldn't be able to continue the game.

Sturn
12-04-2010, 02:06 PM
After playing Facebook games of this genre, I would prefer more servers with less players. Having thousands of cities per "world" is a turnoff especially when player cities can't be conquered. A persistent, long-lasting world with thousands of players that can't be defeated outright and are often never there can create boredom.

I might even prefer "worlds" that were short-lived, only a few months. Then it all restarts? Something like Endwar? The game is too far developed to make drastic changes like this though.

Just fear there will be initial excitement then death of servers after only a couple months.

Daft
12-04-2010, 02:16 PM
So, what happens to you when you get sacked? Do you just rebuild?

hogtalare5
12-04-2010, 02:17 PM
so the as it is right now you only have one city, online? i hope it will come out a mod so you can claim other towns and form new ones. It would probably be a kind of hardcore server, for those who dont have life. I dont know what i think about taking over other players last town. It would be fun to do your self, but on the other hand it would be very bad to be the one destroyed.

Katana
12-04-2010, 02:24 PM
It will probably work out the way that it is now.

ZuluDawn
12-04-2010, 10:55 PM
Damn i was really hoping for some conquering to be going down... i guess i have other games like the Total War series to splash my cash on for that.

Gwydion
12-04-2010, 10:58 PM
The simple fact is --- everything will be owned by da orcs in da end, so whru curs! lol no really, im glad you don't lose everything if you lose because EVERYONE is going to lose at some point

ryuujin
12-05-2010, 03:15 AM
so the as it is right now you only have one city, online? i hope it will come out a mod so you can claim other towns and form new ones. It would probably be a kind of hardcore server, for those who dont have life. I dont know what i think about taking over other players last town. It would be fun to do your self, but on the other hand it would be very bad to be the one destroyed.

yeah i think the game would be more interesting that way :D

Lord_Itzalak
12-08-2010, 08:22 AM
I don't mind that you can't "conquer" a city really. That's all fine for a game that has a start and end, but I think this helps keep sanity in someone's life, not feeling pressured to always be working on it or else you'll fall to far behind and have to restart from scratch. Besides, you'll still get the satisfaction of massacring troops and plundering tons of resources. It makes some sense realistically, I think many conquered cities in historic days had relatively the same management after being conquered, they just lost a lot of resources and were forced to rebuild and fear for the next attack. You know that attack will be coming, so that is when you start getting an alliance together to try to withstand together that bigger player.

After playing Facebook games of this genre, I would prefer more servers with less players. Having thousands of cities per "world" is a turnoff especially when player cities can't be conquered. A persistent, long-lasting world with thousands of players that can't be defeated outright and are often never there can create boredom.

There are thousands of cities in our world Earth too...I'm not sure how the not attacking players when they aren't there will work either (although I think it's a good thing)...my guess it will be pretty obvious who is and isn't online...and this way if you think you are the best and you hear about someone else who is terrorizing others, you can actually confront them directly instead of having to switch servers.

ceronor298
01-20-2011, 06:03 AM
The simple fact is --- everything will be owned by da orcs in da end, so whru curs! lol no really, im glad you don't lose everything if you lose because EVERYONE is going to lose at some point

Not while the ancient Elves are putting arrows in all your ugly faces.

Lalas
01-20-2011, 07:08 AM
So what is the cost of losing a battle?
It would be interesting a gameplay in which your city is defeated, and then you have two options, create an alliance with the victor, or give your city to the enemy completely, and so extend their conquered territory, perhaps a style of play "king of the mountain" in a diferent server "PVP-Harcore" or so.

DirtEaterr
01-20-2011, 07:51 AM
Yeah. It would be realy cool to take ower another citys. But then it would be not friendly to new players ! ^^

Kashindo
01-20-2011, 08:09 AM
I think if it would be possible to overtake other citys a few hardcore players would dominate the "world" and new or weaker players would have no chance to come up. A MMO has to make sure, that all players have fun, or why should someone pay money for a game where he has no chance to achieve something because he gets overrun after 5 minutes every time.

Quarok
01-20-2011, 08:22 AM
Striking the balance between how persistent the world is and how noob-friendly is going to be difficult. I reckon having several different servers with different settings should be the way forward - also, if you had a server for the hardcore pvpers where conquering can occur, running an empire is surely more difficult than running a fort, so perhaps there could be a way of handicapping those who have more land. You might have more resources, but you also open yourself up to more angles of attack

Webi
01-20-2011, 10:37 AM
It would be wise not to destroy or take over enemy city, but just make it iddle for few days, so the defender could repair it.

Joseph Visscher
01-20-2011, 10:48 AM
You can take over cities in Kingdom Wars, but thats not online. We don't want the entire world taken over by one giant online clan, just wont be good for new comers.

But hey maybe we can do something with the large cities along the lines of king of the hill. Though I could not imagine even 3 human players being able to take on Makkada let alone hold it. ;)

Hurryforcurry
01-22-2011, 12:46 PM
In singleplayer is the game like Tribal wars?

Barca
01-23-2011, 12:25 AM
Random thought, would it be possible for people to be more nomadic and travel with their people across the land as opposed to just staying and defending one area? Potentially more like Nomadic peoples like the Mongols or the Otto-Turks?

luizeba
01-23-2011, 12:47 PM
Random thought, would it be possible for people to be more nomadic and travel with their people across the land as opposed to just staying and defending one area? Potentially more like Nomadic peoples like the Mongols or the Otto-Turks?
o.O
Lol, funny idea, but probably too difficult to put on the game.

Karl-Heinz
01-23-2011, 04:51 PM
Well, I was reading the other posts and actually lose your last city and be wiped out of the game must be really annoying, but not having the option to either create or conquer new cities is ... Discouraging. A good idea would be:
1: If the city in question is not your enemy Capital you can:
A) Only Capture, which will maintain all structures of the city almost intact but will generate little return on resources.
B) Capture and Loot, which will cause major damage to structures but will generate a much higher return on resources.
C) Only Loot, giving too much profit for the attacker, but the loser will remain in control of the city.
D) Destroy the city, which generates a moderate reward and, well, destroy the city.

2: If the city in question is the Capital the conqueror can only loot the city.

3: After being defeated the Capital cannot be attacked by any player in a given period of time, which may be a week for example.

4: Each player can only hold a limited number of cities [Criterion to be defined.(A specific technology, for example.)] and if he has more than allowed its cities suffer severe penalties in the speed of construction, resource generation and recruitment of troops.

A good suggestion would also create a single server where these rules can be applied not to discouraging new players may find it too difficult to get a world where great empires are already established.

Rhino
01-23-2011, 05:24 PM
I would actually be happy to only have one city. I hate having to manage seperate things as I become very consentrated on one thing. So thats one particular aspect of this game that I really will enjoy! ;D

Lalas
01-24-2011, 03:49 AM
1: If the city in question is not your enemy Capital you can:
A) Only Capture, which will maintain all structures of the city almost intact but will generate little return on resources.
B) Capture and Loot, which will cause major damage to structures but will generate a much higher return on resources.
C) Only Loot, giving too much profit for the attacker, but the loser will remain in control of the city.
D) Destroy the city, which generates a moderate reward and, well, destroy the city.

2: If the city in question is the Capital the conqueror can only loot the city.

3: After being defeated the Capital cannot be attacked by any player in a given period of time, which may be a week for example.

4: Each player can only hold a limited number of cities [Criterion to be defined.(A specific technology, for example.)] and if he has more than allowed its cities suffer severe penalties in the speed of construction, resource generation and recruitment of troops.

And for example, the conquered city suffers for a period of time a vulnerability, so the alliance of the player will be able to recapture the city captured more easily.

Adonai_80
02-03-2011, 07:59 PM
I'm definately going to have to read up more on this!

Jiiri
02-03-2011, 08:07 PM
Yeah me too Adonai, I can't wait for this game!

DisgruntledGoat
02-04-2011, 09:24 AM
The simple fact is --- everything will be owned by da orcs in da end, so whru curs! lol no really, im glad you don't lose everything if you lose because EVERYONE is going to lose at some point

From what Ive experienced with another MMORTS that ive been beta testing in which everyone is very much able to lose everything over night. but since everyone is pretty much able to lose everything, it balances itself out. it also helps that the defender as many more options available to them.

however in the game im testing (Stronghold Kingdoms) the whole game is based off of territory control and the only way to gain control of territory is either by getting everyone to join you in the target area OR to capture/destroy the enemies villages.

I think that without any real consequence to a defeated defender, attacking on a large scale to constitute a 'guild war' or a war between a few players would be come obsolete since there will be little profit other than a few extra resources.

I personally like the idea of capturing someone else's village and being able to use it for personal gain. As an attacker, a higher reward would entice me to risk more troops and such. However, I do realize that we will be attacking cities of different races and i get the idea that orcs arnt supposed to live in trees like elves. So an idea for this could be where the attacker wins the city plot and either begins a new city there from scratch or starts with whatever resources were in that city when it was captured.

food for thought

-DG-

master0p
02-04-2011, 11:52 AM
You can take over cities in Kingdom Wars, but thats not online. We don't want the entire world taken over by one giant online clan, just wont be good for new comers.

But hey maybe we can do something with the large cities along the lines of king of the hill. Though I could not imagine even 3 human players being able to take on Makkada let alone hold it. ;)

I agree taking over player cities wouldn't suit this game.
But having big cities that alliances can take over for example your idea
King of the hills would be amazing.

And I will try to solo makkada :P i am so awesome in RTS its just not healthy anymore.

natatan
02-04-2011, 09:44 PM
What if there were like, plots of land where you could make cities, and so other players could capture/conquer you new cities but cant capture you home city.this would make it so you can still have the enjoyment of an expanding empire.;)

master0p
02-05-2011, 07:18 AM
From what Ive experienced with another MMORTS that ive been beta testing in which everyone is very much able to lose everything over night. but since everyone is pretty much able to lose everything, it balances itself out. it also helps that the defender as many more options available to them.

however in the game im testing (Stronghold Kingdoms) the whole game is based off of territory control and the only way to gain control of territory is either by getting everyone to join you in the target area OR to capture/destroy the enemies villages.

I think that without any real consequence to a defeated defender, attacking on a large scale to constitute a 'guild war' or a war between a few players would be come obsolete since there will be little profit other than a few extra resources.

I personally like the idea of capturing someone else's village and being able to use it for personal gain. As an attacker, a higher reward would entice me to risk more troops and such. However, I do realize that we will be attacking cities of different races and i get the idea that orcs arnt supposed to live in trees like elves. So an idea for this could be where the attacker wins the city plot and either begins a new city there from scratch or starts with whatever resources were in that city when it was captured.

food for thought

-DG-

Yeah i understand where you coming from.
But i don't think it will fit in this game.
That would be just TOO much to micromanage everything.
But the option they gave to mass up an army and put resources into that and lvl them up makes them valuable to me.

I don't want an amazing army thats lvled pretty good and then it gets whipped off by an enemy. And on top of that i lose all my resources from my town thats a very good penalty for losing a defense match.

Territory wise, would be nice to have a "guild castle" that you can "destroy/take over"
For example a regional capital that you only can take over with a guild and teamwork with 3-4 people and ALOT of effort. Ofcourse at first its owned by an AMAZINGLY strong NPC.
At takeover you can send soldiers to the castle to garrison it. Cool part about it is it would be a mixed army if the alliance have mixed up races. Best of all races in the garrison :d.
And the bonus to have a castle like that is the guildleader could upgrade it so people in the alliance gets bonusses.Few Trade-mules or carts from the regional capital will go members of the alliance and deliver a bonus!

Mokhir
02-05-2011, 08:50 AM
Experience from playing Stronghold kingdoms, there you can conquer everyone cities, down to the last city and they will just start over from the beggining, still containing all of their researching to boom cities fast and high rank. So you just start all over from the beggining in a new location. This has happened very rarely because defences are very strong. I came to this game hoping you can EMPIRE BUILD, and althought i will cope without it, I just would have more fun empire building.
Can you atleast empire build with freinds in LAN MODE?