[Proposal] - Town Management Changes

Allow homeowners to sell their place back to the town. Force companies & territories to compete for people to buy & pay taxes ( or rent, or more accurately lease from hell)

1 Like

Don’t hold your breath for anyone from AGS to even bother reading this. When it’s pointed out how utterly idiotic it is even giving player guilds the ability to pocket tax revenue it’s blatantly ignored by them.

1 Like

Three factions never work in games.

Oh, I like this idea. Companies being able to withdraw town funds has shown itself to be a problem on a number of servers already, but I didn’t want to take it away as I was worried that people may not want to purchase a town without that benefit, as it would be risky with the chance of players removing you as leader.

However, adding a civil allowance, like the militia allowance, and other significant incentives like you’ve suggested, would offset this and allow a treasury to stay with the town.

This is a completely new game. There’s no way they’d be able do this in any type of reasonable amount of time. The best you could hope for would be a couple of these changes in a big expansion.

i love the idea about a pvp focused settlement and a pve focused settlement! I really hope they look more into this.

1 Like

It would feel like a new game but actually, it’s just using existing game systems, except for the town auction.

Militia - based on existing War system with a few tweaks

Civil management/bonuses - based on the current town system, territory discount goes to faction members as currently

Revolution/Peace missions - based on existing PvP Faction missions’ Infuence system

Town interface - could just use the same interface for Civil and Militia management, with the non-accessible part greyed out.

The main thing that would need to be added is a bidding system for purchasing the town, and maybe that’s not even the best way to determine civil leadership, it’s just the first one that came into my head. Any ideas?

Better to simply completely separate Settlements from all player influence whatsoever.
Solves a lot more problems, reduces a lot of complication and potential exploitation, and creates additional opportunities.

1 Like

It’s one of the cornerstone game systems. Why fight wars if not for control?

Hi @GrailQuest thanks for sharing your thread.

Your ideas are interesting and I can see you’ve run into some of the same frustrations that we have. I think it’s important to balance the needs of all playstyles, though, so I’m concerned that stripping any town influence from war is a step too far. I’m actually advocating for more ways for players to have influence over Settlements, not just through PvP.

With the Militia idea, you would fight wars for control of Keep upgrades, gold income from the town, territory discounts and the glory of being the Militia of that town, publically demonstrating your prowess in battle.

You don’t need to worry about pesky things like crafting stations, let the merchant leaders manage that!

All we plebs want is some input into the democratic process if, and only if, our leaders fail in their duties to look after us. Is that too much to ask?

Thank you! :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Part of the issue is that any mechanic would already take too long when an exploit or attempt to grief starts.
For example, recently AGS gave out a lot of coin to house owners to make up for lost income and being unable to pay rent.
Settlement owners jacked up rents to maximum to take advantage of this.

How soon can any system – even reporting this to AGS as griefing – take effect? And in the meantime how much damage is done? And how much work will be needed to undo the effects?

We’ve basically seen from Alpha that players can’t be trusted. And since launch they have continued to cheat, exploit, and grief in every possible way they can discover. It’s no exaggeration to say a new cheat or exploit is found every week.
As soon as you put in a system, players will try to exploit it. Any system you try needs to look at this foremost. Don’t just look at how to solve X. Look at how your potential solution can be exploited or bypassed.

I agree it is important to look at how players will use any power they are given and make sure there are checks in place to prevent abuse. This is why I included the Peace missions, so there is some recourse for a town that has a bunch of people trying to raise Discontent on good leadership for griefing purposes. Further thought and testing would be needed for a polished, working version - this is just the seed of an idea.

Slightly off-topic - I hope you can see the dangerous path your line of thinking leads to, in regards to restricting participation because people can’t be trusted. This is an attack on Democracy itself. While I agree that it’s an imperfect system and people make decisions based on manipulation and self-interest, it’s OUR imperfect system and better than the current alternatives.

So they jump ship to another company to run those missions but show up to help in any Wars. No problem. Or have friends in other companies run it.

Honestly, now you are being ridiculous. You know Democacy has limits, right? And even Democracies recognize people can’t be trusted and have to sometimes be excluded from participation.
That’s why there are laws. And organizations can additionally set their own “laws”, and they do in order to continue running reasonably and effectively.

As for restricting participation because people can’t be trusted – absolutely. But it’s also equal and fair because no one can participate or manipulate it. We’re not scrambling to catch exploiters and cheaters after the damage is done.
Maybe you should take a look at REAL LIFE.
We have LAWS precisely because a few untrustworthy people make them necessary to protect everyone. And as a result, everyone’s liberties are curtailed bit by bit every time someone untrustworthy exploits the system.
That’s reality. Hoping for an even rosier version of reality in a game where there are even fewer consequences for toxic behavior is, to put it kindly, naive.

Good catch, so there would need to be a mechanic to account for that, maybe a cooldown period after leaving the company where you can’t run those missions.

Fair point, I did feel a bit ridiculous when I posted it. I just get really annoyed when people use the predicted poor behaviour of “the other” to dead-end ideas. Laws and regulations are for the most part compromises that allow balanced participation, not complete barriers.

But people do this all the time and in many situations when there is reasonable cause to do so.
“Should I leave my purse on the car seat?”
Maybe 40 years ago, you wouldn’t have even needed to lock your car door.
But realistically, for the last 20 years you can expect your car window to be smashed and your purse gone.
It’s called “Common Sense”. And it changes as society changes.

Allowing player to own territories under the current system is a massive problem for attracting the casual PvE players new world needs to succeed.

Players aren’t dumb, they resent the current system because having some DBs negatively impact their gaming experience isn’t acceptable design.

1 Like

Oh but it does, look at DAOC…

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.