Proposal City Protection needs a name change

  • Thread starter DeletedUser23649
  • Start date

DeletedUser23649

Guest
When I think of City "Protection", I think it's a spell that will protect my city from bad things.
If I cast it on myself, it should protect me from other player's negative spells.

It should not prevent me from casting good spells on my city, but it does.

Likewise, if another player casts City "Protection" on me, it should not stop me from spelling troops or resources, but it does.
To add insult, if I try and use "Purification" (Artemis cleanses a TOWN or a troop unit of mythical influences) it doesn't work.

I feel if you want to keep calling it city protection, then allow the player that is under it's influence to still cast "good" spells.
Otherwise let's rename it to "All Spells Inhibit" or something that more accurately describes what it does, as it certainly isn't protecting me completely.

Likewise on the Purification description, if it's not going to cleanse a TOWN of ALL mythical influences, don't say it does.
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
City Protection and Purification is actually a pretty simple issue. Both of the spell's concepts hold true even when you try to cast Purification on City Protection. Look at it this way:
- When you cast the spell, it's effect is applied to the target. You have to cast the spell for the effect to be applied.
- City Protection prevents you from casting a spell on a city. It doesn't let you cast the spell and just null the effect, it prevents you from casting the spell.
- No matter what it does, Purification is still a spell.
- City Protection prevents you from casting spells on a city, therefore it prevents you from casting Purification on a city.
- If you can't cast Purification on the city, then you cannot get the cleansing effect on the city.

If City Protection let you cast the spell but nulled the effect (i.e. you spent the favour on the spell, but it did nothing to the city), then I would argue that the current description of Purification doesn't make sense. But as Purification does what it says it does whenever you cast the spell, I'd say it is accurate.

Also, if you look up the definition of protect or protection, it doesn't have to be from negative things. It's generally used to mean protection from something negative, but it doesn't have to be.

I'd say that City Protection is fairly balanced as it is. It actually makes city protection quite fun as a gimmicky weapon, and can be used rather cleverly in conquest when it comes to preventing massed troop spells.
 

DeletedUser54339

Guest
I like the idea of city protection as a two-way spell that generally benefits the defender. Although even in revolt it can have its uses against a defender - (cats/EQ then Plague then CP denies the defender resources, spelled in resources to build the wall and spelled in troops)

It does seem odd that Purification doesn't work on cities as such - although if it did remove CP it should cost a lot more than 200 favor IMO.
 
Top