Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
John5420 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 05:05
Any one else getting this error :

Unable to claim this Sovereignty!

You are currently claiming Sovereignty on 6 Sovereign Squares, and your current Sovereign skill level only allows you to claim Sovereignty on 6 squares.

6 Sovereign Squares is not even an option any more 

Sigh must be bugged from the automatic grandfather upgrades 
Back to Top
Faldrin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:50
I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.  
Back to Top
intor View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 07:20
Originally posted by Faldrin Faldrin wrote:

I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.  

Maybe once pathfinding is implemented, sov squares could cause attrition to non-allied armies. This could be in the form of unit stat penalties, including movement speed. The deeper inside unfriendly territory, the greater the penalty (though it should still be relatively small, like 2%-5%, not 50%-60%).
Back to Top
GM ThunderCat View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2012
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:40
Also in-case it hadn't been realised as well as preventing other players from settling on a square Sovereignty also shows on the Alliance and Strategic maps as squares belonging to that alliance.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:51
Ahh I didn't know that, thx TC. It'd be good if we could view more alliances' areas of influence on the strategic map at once though.

Having said that - I think think the chancery basic res upkeep is very high - considering that (at the moment) there appears to be very little real gain to be had from owning sov on a large tract of level 1 claims - given that sov structures are still limited to 20.

If anything - I reckon level 1 claims shoul be used to raise gold income not decrease it... if you want to put an element of 'realness' in I guess you'd say that cities with influence over the largest surrounding areas woul generally be the richest ones.

This would also give people a reason to fight over land.


Edited by Createure - 08 Oct 2011 at 14:56
Back to Top
Faldrin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:36
I would like to propose the following: The removal of range in the cost of level 1 sovereignty and the building just in general lowering the cost of sovereignty. Then the price reduction of 40% will be reasonable.
The result: We will have something to fight over beside our towns.
Back to Top
surferdude View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 103
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:53
Originally posted by Mara Zira Mara Zira wrote:

Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100 squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures on 20 of those squares.
So an Alliance with 100 people each having 10 cities could claim (at max) 100,000 squares? That's huge! O_o

From now on if someone says "Get your city off my land" - if they aren't claiming Sov that surely isn't valid?
Back to Top
Faldrin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:59
Originally posted by surferdude surferdude wrote:

So an Alliance with 100 people each having 10 cities could claim (at max) 100,000 squares? That's huge! O_o

From now on if someone says "Get your city off my land" - if they aren't claiming Sov that surely isn't valid?


It would be HUGE and FUN but the cost of claiming 100 squares will be WAY to high to make it HUGE and FUN.
Back to Top
GM Stormcrow View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3355
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:26
Thinking in the new way ("City specialisation") rather than the old way ("I want every city to be a powerhouse of everything") is the key to understanding all of the new buildings, including the Chancery of Estates.

If you choose to specialise just one of your ten cities in Sovereignty, you can support on a positive resource and research balance well over 100 squares of L1 sovereignty.  The city can, of course dual and triple-purpose itself, as the support of units, spells etc are not so contingent on research points - and gold is still reasonably abundant.

If a number of the largest players in the alliance specialise a city in sovereignty, an alliance can very much carve out its own chunk of the map of Illyriad, presenting a public claim to territory and preventing people from settling, moving (via Exodus or Tenarils) nearby.

Further benefits will (in the near future) be available, such as getting toponymy rights over the territory in their possession.  Also, as and when specialist harvestable resource types are introduced this will further provide an economic incentive for claiming sovereignty at L1 over parts of the map (and the potential for inter-player/alliance friction that this will help catalyse).

I would suggest that people should a) think laterally, and b) clear-out the mindset that every city needs to be an identical copy of every other city and embrace "city specialisation", and c) run some numbers.  We believe the Chancery of Estates is - as it is - an incredibly useful building right now, and will become even more so in the future.  If, however, you don't value claiming your "neck of the woods" very much, then this building isn't really designed for you.  Not every specialist building is going to appeal to everyone!

Regards,

SC
Back to Top
intor View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:31
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

If anything - I reckon level 1 claims shoul be used to raise gold income not decrease it... if you want to put an element of 'realness' in I guess you'd say that cities with influence over the largest surrounding areas woul generally be the richest ones.

This would also give people a reason to fight over land.

I'm in favor of this. Something like 10 or 25 gold / hour for each sov I square. The RP cost might have to be changed as well.

(EDIT: Wrote this before SC posted his reply. Should be disregarded now.)

Another approach could be to base the gold income on the highest number of the basic resources of the square, as well as the production bonus, if any.

For example, Sharp Crags (Small mountain) would give a slightly bigger income from its 6 iron (which is its highest basic), over a Plains with 5 as its highest basic. The 3% sword of the mountains would also increase the gold income, whereas the lack of a bonus on the Plains would not. This would make some squares more valuable than others (especially dolmens).

Some restrictions on this might be that only sov squares connected to the city through other sov squares would give the bonus, and that only sov squares without any improvements on them would work this way.

The first restriction should prevent players from having isolated pockets of sov at only the more valuable squares (they still might, but would not gain any gold out of it). It should also discourage players from connecting such pockets to the city with only a 1 square wide line of sov, as they could then be easily cut off by an enemy.


Edited by intor - 08 Oct 2011 at 16:34
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.