The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers )
-
@Rife Have you studied medieval sieges? After a siege, most places are leveled and need to be built up almost from the ground up as it is. You don't take a city and immediately benefit from all their resources. In fact, if a governing body sees they are about to lose their city, it would make sense for them to salt the fields, and load as much of their collected remaining resources as they can and smuggle them out while fighting focuses on another front. That's what City Siege warfare should be about. I figure most late game city sieges aren't going to be from new guilds trying to establish a foothold anyway, but rather from mega-guilds working on amassing their 2nd, 3rd, and so on cities,just to weaken the other guilds and increase their overall standing. Yes, this may allow for a couple more houses for that mega guild as well, but the majority of their players will be in the 1st city they took most likely, and the residential area around that city anyway.
-
@GamerSeuss I dont think giving a real world example is a good thing, since in the real world there is never a case where you take over a city and you're not able to live there.
My whole point about this topic is to enable new guilds that dont own a city to be able to establish a foothold in a city they conquer. If you don't allow new guilds to own new cities, then the game is not going to bring in new players, and that is a whole recipe for disaster.
The current system basically gives 0 incentives for a new guild to attempt sieging a city when it's residential district is full and has lots of the current city's guild members.
-
Maybe in the long run it just boils down to how many total housing spots there are in the whole world against how many characters will be supported by said world.
I'm saying that because maybe we're focusing on the wrong point, guildies against soloists, when we'll have homeless people anyway at a certain point just due to lack of housing slots.
How will forces homeless play then? Will it be a deterrent to join the game after a certain population limit is reached?
Do we know what ratio of homelessness is predicted on "full server"?
-
There is a huge issue with the overal mechanics here.
The more protected the citizens are, the LESS they are incentivized to participate in defending the city when siege happens.
This is not only bad for the city as it will surely be taken over if there is no defense. IT is also bad for any attacker, having no fun in the siege event whatsoever.Residents of the city SHOULDN'T be protected in the first place, they should have the RISK of loosing what they have in the city, to incentivize them to provide city defense in siege events, actually making those events possible.
No, don't be mistaken, providing some other rewards for city defense will not help a lot most people will NOT defend for those rewards, they will NOT defend if they aren't at risk of loosing stuff, they simply won't.
People need to be a risk of loosing everything. This is why "saferesidential area" is, in my opinion ofcourse, not the best choice.
IF people want safe residence, they should settle outside of city.
Out ofcity plot = ADVANTAGE no risk of loosing it during a siege, DISADVANTAGE not having all benefits that city residents have.
Balance has to be made somehow.
Please don't make city residents property safe through sieges!
-
@Gothix I think the point of residential zones around cities are exactly to be out of siege mechanics, and as you say maybe they should have some disadvantages for not being inside the city itself, because as it is now it sounds like staying in the residential zone is 100% safe whatsoever.
-
@GreatValdus people pay for their plots outside of a city in the residential area because they want to Opt out of the Siege mini-game experience, among other reasons.
As Gothix said, in city residences are part of the siege and incentivize those players to defend the city and thus their homes and livelihoods.
Out of city residences are not part of a siege, and they go about their business. They are affected by the aftermath of siege, when the climate of the city they are outside of changes, but their homes aren't put at risk.As I said in another post, guilds who join late and want to take over a city for the land around it would be better served by expansions to the game with new Continents and thus new Cities and Residential areas to populate, or, alternatively, if the Server reaches a certain occupancy level, a server split so that the population can be better served by the game.
Late game, as is, there is going to be a homeless population out there, period. That is, unless the game actually draws less total players than there are plots of land available. I don't think the system should be static either. A home that is abandoned should eventually be lost. Cities have to pay to upkeep their current level, AND build towards higher levels. Residential housing should have a small monthly or quarterly/annually charged upkeep cost that if it isn't paid puts the property in a state of disrepair, then if another due date comes around and they don't pay, they can then lose their deed to the land. This prevents 'dead' accounts from grabbing land and then deciding the game is not for them, but keeping said land locked up forever. Farms and Ranches need to be managed or they will fall into decay and be overrun as their livestock goes wild, and their plantings die off or overrun other fields like kudzu.
-
@GamerSeuss I'm interested on the point when you talk about upkeep costs for residential plots around the city.
Maybe that taxation could go directly into the city coffers, this way on a takeover the losing guild member's residing outside the city could be less willing to stay, knowing that they're paying the enemy guild.
-
Taxation already goes to the city coffers if im not mistaken. The only problem is that if you want a guild to move, you want to make the tax a really high number, which also then affects the other residents that you dont want to be affected. A safe eviction system is targeted - you can target those who you dont want them to live in your city to move out, whereas a tax system affects everyone, and there is also no guarantee that the previous guilds would move either.
In fact the current tax system might hurt solo-ists even more. A guild takes over, puts high tax to make their enemies move, their enemies are rich, they dont mind paying the tax - but the solo-ists are not, they are forced to leave anyway.
Also, new continents and new cities solves the problems of residence, but does not solve the problem of established cities not having any incentive of being fought over.
-
@Rife The value for a city in a Siege is actually in it's non-member residences. You take over a city to get a city that is further along the City Upgrade Track, and that's affected by both citizens of the city, and residents around the city. Thus, a City becomes more popular not only for its proximity to certain resource nodes, but also for its already existent resident population. Obviously, city upgrade levels that require a certain population density doesn't mean the few citizens within town.
You also want the residents because as was said, taxes for the land goes to the city. That is the only thing the city gets out of their residents, their taxes and their warm bodies for the overall qualifications to upgrade the city (and in human cities, their Tech Tree upgrade)
Taxation has some limits so you can't totally gouge the residents in your area, however, an even more powerful limiter is the fact you set the taxes too high, you can't maintain your residents, and thus you can't maintain your population requirements to upgrade the city.
-
This whole discussion makes it sound like the entire game will be controlled by guilds and only by guilds. Now I suppose to a large degree that is true, however, I am enjoying the dilemmas that guilds will find when taking over a city. It should be hard!
There are ways, that to this point, I have yet to see anyone mention. Perhaps I skimmed parts of the thread too fast but then again maybe they have not been brought up yet. For instance, the conquering guild members can simply camp outside of houses of those refusing to leave and continuously kill the resident every time they leave the property until they decide to move out. Evil yes, but effective I would think. Or the conquering guild could bribe people to leave. Give me enough money and a day to transport goods and I would likely relocate.
I would imagine that it will be somewhat like taking over a real city. You are going to get a mixed bag. In real life if you take over a city and your invading force has more invaders than empty housing then you are faced with a multitude of problems. Also, you will have housing occupied by friendly and enemy occupants. It is what makes life interesting…
-
@StormBug said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Or the conquering guild could bribe people to leave. Give me enough money and a day to transport goods and I would likely relocate.
This is precisely the system I am advocating for, where when a city gets taken over, the new city owners have a period in which they can evict players from the residential area, but at a cost - you would need to pay to evict people, and the payment value depends on how much well built the plot of land is.
The evicted person would then become a refugee, where he has a safe status and can't be attacked or killed for a time period so that he/she can safely move.
-
@Rife said
This is precisely the system I am advocating for, where when a city gets taken over, the new city owners have a period in which they can evict players from the residential area,
No, you are talking about evicting people. I am talking about bribing them. The difference is, if you evict someone they have no choice; if you bribe someone they can turn you down and chose to stay. Eviction and bribery, in this case, are polar opposites.
-
If you go the route that you're proposing @GamerSeuss , where players have housing security regardless of sieges you're just going to end up in a situation where housing will stagnate. Final Fantasy XIV has this problem. A large community with limited housing and no mechanic to move people out means that large numbers of people will be out of luck, and only invites opportunists like gold farming companies to step in and form a third-party market for RMT trading of stolen/hacked accounts which have housing.
Only ways around that are some mechanic to free up housing such as eviction or sieges as mentioned here, or making housing unlimited via some kind of instanced system or unending expansion of housing areas which make it far less meaningful.
-
A question (or perspective) that I didn't see mentioned yet is if the human planet has to carter for 'soloist-consentual' players. If you want to be completely save, you can happily live your live on the Beastman planet in your house. Nobody can evict you, nobody can harm you, you can play the game solo, PvE, PvP, however you want.
If you don't want any security measures at all, you can fight for your right at the Demon planet.
But if you choose to live on the Human planet, you're kind of somewhere in between, were actions should be possible, but should have consequences.That would, at least in my humble opinion, mean there's no absolute safety required for Humans.
-
Just an idea.
Lets say the area where you can build your houses is split:
X spots are available from the beginning and can be claimed by everyone.
X spots are generated whenever the city levels up and can only be claimed by guild members of the city owner. This spots could be cheap, but would be lost when the city changes owner. Here the new city owner could get there foodhold.
I think the "refugee" state would be useful here to bring the stuff away after loosing the fight.
This would also make it a bit more "real" - a growing city has a growing population, ...You can even make something like "area based plots":
The "city owned spots" could be nearest to the city.
The "free spots" could be farthest away from the city. They spots would nearly be "wilderness" spots - just near enough for some benefits of the town, but far enough away to not be a problem for sieges, ...The numbers of spots of each kind could depend on the planet.
-
@FluffKugel said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Just an idea.
Lets say the area where you can build your houses is split:
X spots are available from the beginning and can be claimed by everyone.
X spots are generated whenever the city levels up and can only be claimed by guild members of the city owner. This spots could be cheap, but would be lost when the city changes owner. Here the new city owner could get there foodhold.
I think the "refugee" state would be useful here to bring the stuff away after loosing the fight.
This would also make it a bit more "real" - a growing city has a growing population, ...You can even make something like "area based plots":
The "city owned spots" could be nearest to the city.
The "free spots" could be farthest away from the city. They spots would nearly be "wilderness" spots - just near enough for some benefits of the town, but far enough away to not be a problem for sieges, ...The numbers of spots of each kind could depend on the planet.
This is an excellent idea! I love it. Can probably even change it to be instead of plots that only the guild members of the governor can reside, to basically anyone who is a citizen of the city.
They should also make it so that citizens of the city can't apply for the plots in the non-citizens residential area.
-
They already have a system like that in place.
Within the City Limits, the Governor controls the plots and can give them away or charge for them as they see fit to Guildies, Citizens, etc... In a Siege, these internal plots are lost and available to the conquerers. The issue is, these are also the same plots of land used to make city buildings such as the Inn, or Blacksmith shop, or what have you, so the Governor needs to balance out how many such plots are available. Also, as a city levels up, in the past, more in-town plots become available, so one assumes that will probably be the case here as well until shown/told differently. Want more citizen plots? Level up your town.
Out of town, you have the Resident plots, these pay their taxes and even a portion of their purchase price into the City coffers, and the residences within these houses count for population density when leveling up the city, but they are autonomous and immune to Sieges. Also @StormBug I don't think you remembered from previous videos that Prometheus did, but within the Residential Area and within the City it is a no-combat zone, so camping outside of people's houses would not be possible to force them to leave, you would have to camp the border of the Residential area and get people when they leave for the Wilderness.
Yes, @Logain Syndesia is the Beastmen planet and completely safe, no PvP or Siege mechanic whatsoever but that is only 1/3 of the game space. The Devs said they want to as equally as possible support different playstyles, which is why the Human Planet is a mixed bag planet, with both PvP and PvE concerns addressed. You can't permanently take up residence on another planet other than the one your race comes from, so Humans would need residences in the human world in order to go forward, and quite frankly, as much fun as it is for some people to play Beastmen, for the newbie population, sometimes there is a comfort factor in being able to play Humans. They are familiar and thus it is less jarring for those who aren't necessarily seasoned gamers, and these humans need to be able to opt-out of the Siege mechanic as well, if anything, they need it more than others as they are barely getting their feet wet in the MMORPG world.
The whole Residential areas being divorced from the Cities, and also a Safe Zone is really meant for the Human world anyway, as the Demon world has no real safe zones
-
@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Also @StormBug I don't think you remembered from previous videos that Prometheus did, but within the Residential Area and within the City it is a no-combat zone, so camping outside of people's houses would not be possible to force them to leave, you would have to camp the border of the Residential area and get people when they leave for the Wilderness.
This is actually untrue. Residence area is NOT a safe area, only your house plot is. You can definitely camp someone outside their house if you wanted to.
Which is another reason why a safe eviction system is good - it prevents alot of undesirable behaviour from taking place if people are forced to take drastic and griefing measures just to ensure they can live next to their city.
No matter how many times people claim that Residential area is not part of the city, it is. It is a safe piece of land where you can store alot of materials next to your city, it is going to give you loads of advantages for having a plot of land next to a city, and not being able to be a resident area of a city that you take over, again, doesn't make sense at all when the enemy guild can still live closer to your city than you can, and you need to destroy loads of city buildings just to move your guild into the city which again doesn't make sense either.
You do not get more housing plots in your city as you level up because the size of your city is static and does not grow as you level it up.
-
@Rife said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Which is another reason why a safe eviction system is good - it prevents alot of undesirable behaviour from taking place if people are forced to take drastic and griefing measures just to ensure they can live next to their city.
You’re talking about people that just conquered a city being worried about taking drastic action to live next to their city. Isn’t that somewhat of an oxymoron? I’m sorry, but I couldn’t resist
-
@StormBug said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
@Rife said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Which is another reason why a safe eviction system is good - it prevents alot of undesirable behaviour from taking place if people are forced to take drastic and griefing measures just to ensure they can live next to their city.
You’re talking about people that just conquered a city being worried about taking drastic action to live next to their city. Isn’t that somewhat of an oxymoron? I’m sorry, but I couldn’t resist
Eh, one is a game mechanic (siege), the other is pure griefing that should be discouraged by the devs...not encouraged by having a lack of way to get old guild to move somewhere else
