
Originally Posted by
neko_lord
I still need to go back and fully read your post before, and I still need to work on typing up something for Thalin, but a severe problem with this is the restriction of 10 cities as a maximum. Once you reach 10 cities, your effectiveness as a fighter takes on a limitation. Yes, you can still attack people, but what you can't do is capture another city.
Hypothetical example:
Player with 10 cities ports a city into hostile territory. They attack a hostile city and get the wall down and troops cleaned out. There also does not appear to be account-sharing going on (unrealistic these days, but work with me). The nearest player that is online that can help take the city is 4 hours away by cavalry.
With that example, there are several possible "you should have done this" items.
First, you could say the 10-city player "should have abandoned a city". Does that really make sense? The assertion from the company is that they don't like NPCs scattered everywhere on the map. Further, does abandoning the city work towards a goal of occupying territory?
Second, you could say that the alliance of the 10-city player that is attacking "should have organized a time when someone closer would have been online". As far as that goes, maybe there was a plan, but maybe the second player had a power outage or had some other emergency. Maybe the hostile alliance put up more of a fight and thus things took longer than anticipated and the initial support had to leave. Should the attacker just say, "aww, shucks, I guess you can have more time"?
Third, you could argue that the 10-city player should have stayed at only 9 cities. As in the first item, how does that work towards a goal of occupying territory? Also, when the player conquers that city, they'll then have 10 and be in the predicament of the first item.
Nowhere in the terms and conditions does it state that you can't give a city to another player. The closest it can possibly come to stating that is that you are not allowed to sell or transfer "virtual goods" or "virtual property". If that statement is stretched to mean that a city is a "virtual good" / "virtual property", then "transfer" can also be stretched to mean that attacking someone and taking their city from them is a "transfer" and would also not be allowed.
The fundamental issue here is there has not been an explanation of the goal of the change. If the company were to explain the goal, then perhaps players might be able to think about the stated goal and maybe customers would understand, and perhaps even go so far as to accept that the change is good.
Change for change's sake is not always a good thing, and I think that's what we're seeing here.
Bookmarks