Rejected Suggestion !~Ability to Raze villages~!

[DeletedUser1075]

Just wanted to see if there's any interest in having a "Raze" selection button for villages. Always dis-liked the fact that
someone could just hop on over and take your hard earned village. The limited time frame to actually "destroy" buildings
one at a time always seemed outta touch with the times.

Being able to Raze the village in one fell swoop is not only historically accurate, but would be a welcomed optioned for
those getting "rimmed". What a great last parting gift for the new Land Lord, enjoy the ash piles

 

[DeletedUser894]

Thats an interesting thought but wouldnt it somewhat spoil it? No point in nobling a villa if you can only bake potato's in its ashes.... However what about a refinement to that idea. You could choose to randomly raze a building. You would have no control of the outcome but there could be a range of % chance to the damage done to any building.

 

[DeletedUser1075]

Excellent proposal, Would really like some way of having a final "pot shot" against your adversary. Could soften
the blow of losing your hard work, and put a lil sunshine in an otherwise stormy day.

 

[DeletedUser1075]

Perhaps even the potential of Paladin weapon breaking?

 

[DeletedUser831]

So we are proposing that we start punishing players that have the audacity to be better at the game?

 

[DeletedUser1075]

So we are proposing that we start punishing players that have the audacity to be better at the game?

Just because a player has the troops to noble, does not automatically mean they are better. The main reason I suggested this was to address
the very historical practice of razing a village/goods before an enemy could use them against you. It would certainly help those new comers who
are not in a high experienced guild to feel as though they have some control in the final moments of their villages loss. It would also cause attackers
to plan carefully where they decide to expand. Perhaps a world type with this option could be attempted just to see how the overall community feels
about it.

 

[DeletedUser831]

Just because a player has the troops to noble, does not automatically mean they are better. The main reason I suggested this was to address
the very historical practice of razing a village/goods before an enemy could use them against you. It would certainly help those new comers who
are not in a high experienced guild to feel as though they have some control in the final moments of their villages loss. It would also cause attackers
to plan carefully where they decide to expand. Perhaps a world type with this option could be attempted just to see how the overall community feels
about it.

I don't dispute that it is historically accurate.

I do feel that this is just spiteful. Would it cause me to change my target? No. But when I do noble my target, it'll be gone in one go, and I would probably spend a bit of time establishing when I think you aren't going to be online and then attack then. If I think your village is the best target, it isn't going to stop me going for it.

In the late game though, this could be highly destructive. Every time you lose a village you can make it so the opposing player cannot use it effectively for about a month. It is going to turn wars into a long hard slog over villages that are worthless in their current state.

I admit the way the beta works may lead to exceptions to this rule due to the lower population and join rates, but generally, the player who gets a noble first is the player who grows fastest, who is the player who has the greatest idea about what is going on - he is more active, farms effectively and builds his village effectively. If anything, in general, he probably works harder. And this doesn't prevent him from doing what he intends, it is just the nobled player giving him a last kick that really doesn't do anything other than slow his whole game down a notch.

 

[DeletedUser1075]

Your point is well taken regarding turning wars into a "long hard slog over villages" Which is why I suggested they make a world type
where players in the community could explore/thrive with this option.

As for being spiteful, what other reaction/emotion would you expect players to express after losing what they worked so hard to establish?
I don't know about you, but I have received more then a few "colorful" messages from players who did not welcome my nobles arrival.

I do see the best player definition slightly different. There are many talented players utilizing the various aspects of this game. Together
they make for a strong team. With the odds being in their favor, and a lot of hard work they may rise to the top of the leader board.

Not everyone will want to raze their villages. Guild mates could make for better in-roads to harder areas.

What will remain however is the players sense of ownership and dignity. I for one would welcome such a world type/option

 

[DeletedUser905]

The point of this game is to conquer the world by taking villages from other players. I wouldn't want to play that type of world where player can raze his village.

 

[DeletedUser1075]

The point of this game is to conquer the world by taking villages from other players. I wouldn't want to play that type of world where player can raze his village.

Mainly experienced players are currently on this beta world. I'm attempting to bring forward an option that
appeals to new and less successful players, as well as some of those experienced players looking to try a different
challenge to this game.