Passed Razing Cities

[DeletedUser31385]

ok, sounds great

 

[DeletedUser]

The first thing I post on when I get back is this, and I see little merit to the idea. Razing a city is not worth it. At all. It's been discussed at least one other time. Check out that/those other threads. Despite there being another/other thread(s) with my opinion of this idea, I'll again argue my point.

Let's start with this. Say I'm a new player. Built my city up to 4k and I'm just about to colonize when all of a sudden. Bam! My city is razed. That's not strategic of the enemy. It's senseless. It's ridiculous things like this that would cause even more players to bail on the game. It's bad enough that a lot of people get their first cities colonized and bail out. Why would they want to play a game where the enemy can just rim you off for the no useful reason? (Not that players don't already do that but this is even more useless)

Secondly, any city gained could be put to use. It'd be more logical to keep a city and put it to use than destroy it. Even if you wanted to shorten the distance between you and the enemy. This idea would be for cowards. It would lower the fighting rates due to the fact that you can't fight to retake a destroyed city (or fight to take back a severely crippled city).

Thirdly, I don't know how you exactly plan this DS to work into CP, but however it affects CP, it does so negatively. It'd be a waste to use CP just to raze something.

If you really want this idea implemented, make raze complete. Make it so that the DS would destroy the city leaving an empty slot. A crippled city is no good.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

The issue I have with it is, that you raze someone's city, and then force them to retain and waste their culture over it?

Maybe the death ship can simply destroy the city completely and bring an anchor point there? so the attacker damages the enemy as he wants and and defender frees up a slot to take another city.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

That was how it originally was until I edited it to fit what the public wants.

Razing Worlds
A new world type! You cant conquer, only founding and capturing ghosts. When the total of the top 50 alliances reaches 50 million points (NO WWs!) a new era will begin and razing will be available as a research (Registrations and restarts close too).
You will destroy enemy cities while also trying to muster 100 million favor. Instead of a WW tab there will be another tab where anyone in the alliance can deposit favor. The first alliance to make it to 100M favor and enact "The Black Death" wins the world.

I think that may interest some people.
Give your opinions on this please.

World types would make this DNS and would require me to close it. I wouldn't recommend that road

 

[DeletedUser]

World types would make this DNS and would require me to close it. I wouldn't recommend that road

Do it, do it!

 

[DeletedUser38224]

The first thing I post on when I get back is this, and I see little merit to the idea. Razing a city is not worth it. At all. It's been discussed at least one other time. Check out that/those other threads. Despite there being another/other thread(s) with my opinion of this idea, I'll again argue my point.

Let's start with this. Say I'm a new player. Built my city up to 4k and I'm just about to colonize when all of a sudden. Bam! My city is razed. That's not strategic of the enemy. It's senseless. It's ridiculous things like this that would cause even more players to bail on the game. It's bad enough that a lot of people get their first cities colonized and bail out. Why would they want to play a game where the enemy can just rim you off for the no useful reason? (Not that players don't already do that but this is even more useless)

Secondly, any city gained could be put to use. It'd be more logical to keep a city and put it to use than destroy it. Even if you wanted to shorten the distance between you and the enemy. This idea would be for cowards. It would lower the fighting rates due to the fact that you can't fight to retake a destroyed city (or fight to take back a severely crippled city).

Thirdly, I don't know how you exactly plan this DS to work into CP, but however it affects CP, it does so negatively. It'd be a waste to use CP just to raze something.

If you really want this idea implemented, make raze complete. Make it so that the DS would destroy the city leaving an empty slot. A crippled city is no good.

The way around that Is to implement it the other way I suggested, with the cats/rams system from TW. Anyone who has ever played TW knows that this is a very good system since you're not destroying the entire city at once, but in parts with 1-3 building levels taken off per successful attack.

 

[DeletedUser31385]

The issue I have with it is, that you raze someone's city, and then force them to retain and waste their culture over it?

Maybe the death ship can simply destroy the city completely and bring an anchor point there? so the attacker damages the enemy as he wants and and defender frees up a slot to take another city.

Most people dont want their city destroyed, I think it would be better to be destroyed and cost 1 cp. If you have a big enemy it may be well worth killling the city.

 

[DeletedUser44856]

Only issue I see is it just leads to more extended pain, atleast if you get CQ'd, you get rimmed, you start again, around new players & get another opportunity to grow. Away from the enemy that you have obviously annoyed. If I had this open I'd hit someone who was really annoying me, and then just farm them all day, and there is nothing they can now do about it.

Their once bigger city that had a decent wall, good barracks to supply troops has been wrecked and they just have to deal with getting farmed, as soon as you start making another comeback up, bang knocked down again. They don't get moved away after I have essentially 'beaten' them as they would in CQ, they will have to quit the world, wait for the time & then re-join.

So perhaps add an option that if your city gets razed, a window pops up asking if you would like to re-start or try and continue the fight. This balances the raze out, sure you have practically embarrassed your enemy, I'm annoyed when my city gets CQ'd let alone razed. Then I can't get it back

Let me know summarize raze in a way that will get peoples attention
Scenario, I make a InstaCookieMachine, someone comes along and steals my InstaCookieMachine, but they use it, sure I'm annoyed but then I can plot to get my InstaCookieMachine back. But if someone comes along and destroys my InstaCookieMachine, that's it, I don't get no cookies, they don't get no cookies and all I have left is to quit.

 

[DeletedUser31385]

How about anyone under 10k cant raze or be razed, after that if a player is (speed 1: 125% larger, Speed 2: 250% larger, Speed 3: 375% larger) you cant be razed if your 100k and the other guy is 500k no matter what the speed, this will protect smaller players.

Comments?:

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Yes to 10k score limit, no to %. Just my opinion though.

 

[DeletedUser38224]

(speed 1: 125% larger, Speed 2: 250% larger, Speed 3: 375% larger) you cant be razed if your 100k and the other guy is 500k no matter what the speed, this will protect smaller players.

Comments?:

Sounds like morale to me, I don't like it. Maybe something along those lines could be implemented on morale worlds.

 

[DeletedUser]

Interisting idea... However, if 2 alliances are at war, it means they fight for getting power on some area, so normally they'd rather take cities than raze them. They'd rather get +1 city, and -1 for the opponent, than just -1 for the opponent. Matter of score, that's usually how we count who has won a war. There would be some use for this, but more specific.
1) 2 players/alliances are at war, 1 is taking the edge but lacks of slots, so razes enemy cities. Quite unlikely, reason above.
2) An alliance wants to punish a player, let's say because he betrayed them. They may raze some cities to destroy the player faster. Impact for the game: neutral, I guess.
3) Someone wants to get rid of some useless remote cities and publicly offers them in alliance forum to free some slots. As it is, usually most cities won't be taken. He could instead ask a teammate to raze them. Impact for the game: rather good.
4) A player goes inactive in WW ocean, suddenly the alliance has to gobble 40 cities before enemies do. They may destroy some to avoid danger. But, as it is, this kind of situation can enliven the game, it offers enemy alliances opportunities to settle near the WW. We would lose that. Impact for the game: rather bad.
5) An alliance wants to secure its WW ocean and decides to raze everything that is not theirs. Same as above, it would act like a suspense killer, making WW only a building race. Impact for the game: rather bad.
6) At the start of the game, a player wants to be alone on his island and razes all the other cities. Others can do the same. Then what? Less opportunities for fighting. Impact for the game: bad.

I see the purpose of this idea. It can offer a new way of fighting. But, taking into account various possible uses, I feel it would favor the turtles. So I'd rather say no. Keeping oceans messy makes the game more lively. Just my view.

 

[DeletedUser32373]

I like this idea....later on in the game it gets hard to get city slots and you will never be able to take all of your enemy's cities, but it might be possible to destroy all of them.

 

[DeletedUser36085]

1) 2 players/alliances are at war, 1 is taking the edge but lacks of slots, so razes enemy cities. Quite unlikely, reason above.
4) A player goes inactive in WW ocean, suddenly the alliance has to gobble 40 cities before enemies do. They may destroy some to avoid danger. But, as it is, this kind of situation can enliven the game, it offers enemy alliances opportunities to settle near the WW. We would lose that. Impact for the game: rather bad.
5) An alliance wants to secure its WW ocean and decides to raze everything that is not theirs. Same as above, it would act like a suspense killer, making WW only a building race. Impact for the game: rather bad.
6) At the start of the game, a player wants to be alone on his island and razes all the other cities. Others can do the same. Then what? Less opportunities for fighting. Impact for the game: bad.

Possible solutions:

1) Limit how many cities of active players can be razed. If this is the only city the player has, it can't be razed (will also make the problem with razing new players' only cities disappear). Only 1 in three cities can be razed (or 1 in 4, whichever's better) if the targeted player is active. Exceptions: greys and inactives. And if you're in vacation mode, your cities, obviously, can't be razed.

4) The higher the level of the WW, the longer it takes to raze a city. Also, razing chance can be introduced. The higher the WW's level, the lower the chance that the city will be successfully razed. Additionally, if the chance is lower than 50%, the targeted player could use certain amounts of favor to cancel the razing process.

As for islands with low-level WWs, there can be a limit of razable cities, based on the size of the alliance. The bigger the alliance, the more of their cities can be razed

5) As I mentioned before, the number of razable cities can be limited. Also, remember, razing takes away Culture Points, the amount of DSs per player is limited, and not every player and every alliance will regard razing as important. You never know whether a stigma will build up or not, and the feature would have to be beta-tested anyway if it were to pass.

6) Again, you can't raze the city if it's the only one the player has. In fact, you can destroy only 1 in several cities. Granted the player is active.

 

[DeletedUser31385]

10k is the standard now and percents on morale worlds along with the 10k
How much CP?

 

[DeletedUser]

very cool idea.

So right now you guys are discussing
1) CP cost for razing?
2) Limits such as no razing the last city of a player
3) I thought razing only reset the city to founding levels, not destroy it entirely.

 

[DeletedUser36085]

1) CP cost for razing?
2) Limits such as no razing the last city of a player
3) I thought razing only reset the city to founding levels, not destroy it entirely.

1) This can depend on the culture level. The higher the level, the more CP it can cost. 1 CP early on means more than 1 CP later in the game.

2) Yeah. 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 if target player is active. The rest can be razed away. Good riddance.

3) This is debatable. Some people want razing to be complete, others want to just downgrade the city. For now, we settled on downgrading, excluding cities on islands with WWs. Again, debatable.

 

[DeletedUser44167]

So right now you guys are discussing
1) CP cost for razing?
2) Limits such as no razing the last city of a player
3) I thought razing only reset the city to founding levels, not destroy it entirely.

I do not like the ideal
But do like process of hashing it out

Couldnt you just use a regular CS and once city was conquered have a pop up
giving you option of adding it to your kingdom or razing it
Showing the CP cost

1: CP cost
Could be progressive
1 CP = 1st city razed
3 CP = 2nd city razed
etc

A kingdom that razes its neighbors cant be very civilized

2) Limits such as no razing the last city of a player
Maybe can not raze first 2 city of a player
Be bad build your 3rd city just to have your first city razed

Would not razing a city make a certain Olympian very angry with you
You just razed the temple of one of the gods
Whatever god that city worshipped
1)You would lose all favor from that god instantly
2)Your favor production from that god would drop to 0 and increase by 4% per hour
So be little over full day before favor production returned to normal

If later in the game you razed another city worshipping this god
Penalty would be stiffer
1)You would lose all favor from that god instantly
2)Your favor production from that god would drop to 0 and increase by 2% per hour
So be 50 hours before favor production returned to normal

Raze a 3rd city of this god
1)You would lose all favor from that god instantly
2)Your favor production from that god would drop to 0 and increase by 1% per hour
So be 100 hours before favor production returns to normal

Each time you razed another city of this god favor increase would be divided by half
.5
.25
.125
Certain point you might as well forget about this god
He/she hates you

 

[DeletedUser11965]

I don't think razing should be allowed unless someone has a second city. Otherwise I just find this as a completely wrong strategy, because you raze an entire alliance...you get the idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

having it cost cp would be crazy, pretty much no one would do it....