Will there be any downsides to being royalty?

Will there be any "risks" to match all the "rewards" of being royalty, (mayor's, kings, etc)?

Maybe assassination contracts or certain vulnerabilitys out in the open world?

I agree it should have perks for all the work being put into it, but it should have counterbalance imo. What do you all think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

3am

Frank Castle wrote: »

3am wrote: »

Frank Castle wrote: »

So if I'm a mayor and a siege is declared I just go offline till the siege starts gamed the system already

If you do that your side of the sieges is at an immediate disadvantage as you won't be able to use your unique royalty abilities to buff and defend the area. In which case even if you win, public opinion could very well be enough to take you out of office, or you may simply lose out right.

Yeah but the siege doesn't start until 5 days and I understood the topic / suggestion in a way that means:

1. Siege is declared
2. Rogues / assassin's get a quest chain to assassinate high value targets
3. If successful, the attackers get buffs and the defenders debuffs

Therefore I either hide in my freehold or I just go offline in order to prevent that until the siege actually starts. By then the assassination will become way harder due to people being more observend

But there are also minor sieges leading up to the major siege In which not having royalty would lead to a disadvantage. And who said you couldnt assassinate a target in their city?

Beekeeper

Killing the enemy king is, in itself, already a great boon for your side. Pre-siege assassination for a buff during the siege would feel pretty meh to me if I was involved, because I had potentially no input into that at all. 3 days ago some numpty got ganked in the woods while questing, and now I can't properly defend my city? That can't feel right.

Child Item