[Discuss] Estates Problems

[Timothy Collett]

On Friday, May 04, 2007, at 08:10AM, "James" <TheKobald at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Timothy Collett wrote:
>>
>> But since there is really no significant negative consequence to the players (or even the characters!) for having their realm destroyed, it becomes a pretty viable option.
>>
>There is now that lords and knights will lose honour when their region 
>is taken over etc.

Well, you would think so, but apparently not enough.  (Is that even fully coded yet?  I've not seen it in action...)

To be honest, I like Gias Kay Lee's suggestion, though I know it'll never be implemented.  In fact, I would prefer to extend it even further: anyone who was a lord for the last month or a council member for the last 3 months who's still in the realm is automatically imprisoned upon destruction of the realm, lose half their honour and prestige, and are subject to execution.  Any of the above characters who are no longer in the realm lose half their honour and prestige and are given a ban from all realms at war with theirs at the time of its destruction (if they're still on the continent and not *in* one of those realms).

Destroying a realm should be *hard*.  However, it should also be *VERY BAD* for the people in the destroyed realm.  If players are still thinking in terms of, "I'd rather let my realm be destroyed so the claims don't go away, just to spite our enemies," then there's something wrong, and there needs to be more penalties for those in realms that get destroyed.

The real problem I see with this is how long it takes to actually destroy a realm--even once the last region is conquered, it can take a long time for Tom to get around to destroying it.  That time can all too easily be used by those still in the realm to flee and escape the consequences of their actions.

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

(No laptop, no sigs :-( )