Major Release 14SEP10 - World Topography
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1019
Printed Date: 19 Apr 2024 at 22:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Major Release 14SEP10 - World Topography
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: Major Release 14SEP10 - World Topography
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 15:01
|
MAJOR RELEASE 14SEP10 WORLD TOPOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION As mentioned in http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-newness-18aug10_topic929.html - The Newness , we're changing the whole geography of Illyriad to give us a real, non-random, living breathing World in which to expand. Today is the first step in this process with the release of Topography. The World Map has been redistributed (fractally based on random seeds) into topographical features - mountain ranges, lakes, forests, hills, oceans, islands, rivers and so on. The first thing to note is that:
We made this change now largely because it becomes more difficult to do with every single additional new player who joins the game. This release provides us with a basis on which we can start applying biomes ("Cold in the North, Hot in the South"), seeding the New Factions into Illyriad, and - ultimately - applying pathfinding to units and movement and thus enabling water-based adventuring, commonly known as "messing around in boats".  As far as the graphics for the water features are concerned, these are simply placeholders for the moment - we will have proper rivers, riverbanks, lakes, lakesides, seas and beaches in the fullness of time! NEW RESOURCE DISTRIBUTIONS Whilst we were making this change we've also taken the opportunity to apply some resource variation to the existing, unsettled regular squares on the map. Here is a summary of the new types of resource distribution available on the world map:
NOTE: When we introduce the biome variations (jungle, arctic, desert etc) there will be further, more radical resource distributions to unsettled & unclaimed (in terms of sov) squares. For example, a jungle square might be 7|7|2|2|7 or a resource-rich arctic mountain might be 1|7|7|7|3. These more exotic squares will, of course, be commensurately rarer than regular squares. Q. WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR ME RIGHT NOW? Well, not a vast amount in practical terms, except that you now have a proper, sensible, non-random geography to consider for future settling. The four things you will notice from now on are:
We urge players not to rub their crystal balls and try and second guess what factions might be placed where, or whether X or Y terrain will be a jungle or not. We also urge players who settle around the map at this point to *carefully* consider whether they want to settle on an Island or not, because at some point in the future this will mean that you are cut-off from regular troop, caravan and diplomatic movements, without using a boat or ship, or building a bridge etc. Q. WHAT ARE YOU DOING NEXT? Initially, our expert and diligent geography, content and lore teams are working hard on producing the geopolitical reality of the new topography:
At the same time, our superlative arty-types are working on producing new world map graphics and underlays that suit the specific biomes (eg desert terrain such as dunes, tombs, ziggurats, oases etc). Whilst all this is going on, the work on the User Interface (UI) v2 will provide additional levels of zoom on the world map so you can actually see a much more comprehensive view of the world, as well as apply overlays (such as "show my alliance members" or "heat-colour the map by total volume traded" or "heat-colour the map by total troops killed" and many, many more options). The arrival of Trade v2 and Faction standing/dynamics will be the culmination of all of the above work; and the arrival of Crafting (though be warned that this last one is many moons away!) is the crowning glory. Q. WILL I BE ABLE TO MOVE MY CITIES? We understand that changing the world on you is something that you didn't necessarily expect, and we fully understand that many players will want to move for a wide variety of reasons (roleplay, trade, etc). We are going to provide a mechanism for people to move their cities around the map, but not until we have most of this (but definitely before Crafting and pathfinding/ships) out and live. As it stands, the impact of the topography on its own is fairly negligible for existing players, but once biomes and factions are in place - and especially when pathfinding is in place - people will want to move. Please note that moving your city (in general) will be a painful process (the amount of pain to depend on city size). We're still working out the exact mechanics, but there's a http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/enabling-disloyalty_topic838.html - thread here where you can contribute your thoughts. Players who AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, TODAY are settled anywhere on the map will get a "free" move without any penalty to population/building levels - and we will provide details on how to apply for relocation further down the road. If you are one of these players, don't ask us to move you yet, because we won't. Once the Factions and biomes are in place, we'll provide details on how to apply for "free" relocation. Please note that there will be a 'minimum square distance' from another town during the city relocation phase, to prevent people from using this as an excuse to create new powerblocs right next to their foes :) If this does not apply to you, and sometime after today you settle a new city on an island, you will not get the penalty-free move when it becomes available. We hope you all enjoy the changes we've made and are making in the future. GM Stormcrow |
Replies:
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 15:45
|
A world map for people to look at, showing the entire continent of Illyriad, will be available soon (tm). |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 15:55
|
GM Stormcrow wrote:Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:03
| Would there be an option to also change the non-special squares directly next to 'my' cities to conform to changes? It looks so.... out of place... |
Posted By: Grunvagr
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:18
|
Pretty much the coolest thing ever... as the TF2 medic would say: SANK YOU! |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:21
Hi Zangi, We took the position that people would be more likely to complain if the squares directly N,S,E & W around their cities changed their nature; as many people have settled in areas specifically to be able to take (eg) Sovereignty over these specific neighbouring squares - so we left these squares alone. Best, SC |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:26
|
@StormCrow: I mean on an individual choice basis. There are a lot of players who settled before sovereignty also and would actually prefer a random roll of the squares around them. Or for aesthetic reasons, especially since they don't choose their capital location. EDIT: Another random roll chance, but conforming with the terrain around them. Purely optional choice by the players on a city by city basis. |
Posted By: Aelfric
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:38
I am liking the direction of the updates, but I am missing the mini-mountain ranges near my cities already. Now all I see is a sea of plains.  Any chance of introducing terraforming in the future? |
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:44
| What disturbs me, is many in my alliance have built up entire hubs and city defenses based on their surrounding terrain and low and behold, that terrain has changed. Yes, some sovereignty squares are still there but others that players may have been interested in taking, are gone. I appreciate all the hard work you do on this game but this change is a bit too much for my liking. Sorry. :( |
Posted By: Bleash
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 16:46
|
You guys want to kill me or what? When I saw the changed map around my capital I thought I had a virus on my pc or something... I freaked out for a few seconds! So, I like your ideias to change the world map... I just have a small problem. My city is now completely sorrounded by mountains ( I'm a Dwarf ). Its really weird to have my caravans and armies cross treacherous mountains to get anywhere. Is this suposed to be like this? I have to say that its a little heavy to the eye. And I have another question. What is this "pathfinding" you guys are working on? Bleash
|
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:05
| When rivers, seas, and so are completely functional units will not be able to cross them, so the system will have to search for the quickest way. That's basically pathfinding. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:10
| Are there still "someday" plans to allow people to use magic spells to impact terrain and biomes? |
Posted By: Aelfric
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:15
| Will I be allowed to make my cities submersible? That way, they can be moved to bodies of water. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:39
I'm sorry, but there's no way that this is, was or could be feasible. It would also set a highly unfortunate precedent by allowing players to essentially "opt out" of forthcoming changes. We very much hope that the future distribution of Factions, trade hubs and allowing players to move their city locations will alleviate many of the current concerns players have with the map changing around them. This is, incidentally, precisely why it was so important to get this change out earlier rather than later.
and
Yes, very much so - as well as other "terrain impacting" possibilities, such as cutting down forests to make plains, and/or building canals to connect to rivers. We're still thrashing out the details of these, though, so I'm not willing to say more.
We do appreciate this - but there was simply no way of introducing a 'real' world geography without wholesale change to the terrain. The new geography will suit some people better than others. As mentioned before, I do think that allowing city relocation will alleviate this issue somewhat; although with the new geography I really should mention that a single location that has nearby access to forests, hills, mountains, rivers and plains all at the same time is going to be extremely hard to find - and, as far as the "new world" is concerned, existing players who have had:
I also strongly recommend that players spend some time looking at the new world geography and seriously evaluating whether moving elsewhere on the map is, actually, of benefit to them in terms of diversity of terrain. Of course, this is harder to do when we haven't released biomes, factions and trade hubs - and I'm sure we'll also have people express complaints when these are released as well; when they suddenly find themselves in the "Goblin" heartland whereas they really want to be in the magical Elven forest areas. This is unavoidable, and we hope you understand that.
It is something that's crossed our mind, Aelfric - there is a Merfolk faction in the works... However, it's not set in stone that we'll allow players to do this, even if I woudn't write it off entirely. |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:55
| As an elf i find myself nowhere near woods yet other players of different races find themselves smack up against them...is there a reason for this ? woods i had near me and had planned for when building my cluster have now gone taking into account the work i have done building it up render it now useless. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 17:57
|
I'd love to be in the magical Elven Forest area. So I can wage proper war with the tree-hugging hippies. |
Posted By: Akita
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 19:13
|
I'm not sure the change went down quite as planned... Seems like at least some squares directly N/S/E/W of cities were changed (either in type, resource count or both) instead of remaining unaffected as they were supposed to, while some cities themselves have changed terrain type but retained the initially settled resource distribution. There are also unusual variations in the same type of tile. Take for instance (I just took a relatively random walk on the map from 0|0 diagonally up and right) a look on location... Also, "unique" resource squares (dolmens, ruined towers, ancient forests, etc) got their "preferential resources" scrambled around (most dolmens seem to now like wood more than food, a lot of ruined towers look like they now prefer food instead of stone, etc). Any idea what went wonky ? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 20:00
They never do!
No one has yet Petitioned this. Does anyone have a specific example or an X|Y that we can check into?
Yes, we're aware of this. These tiles will be reset to their proper resource assignments (or if settled/claimed will be reset to the type that matches their resource levels) sometime tomorrow morning.
For aesthetic purposes, some NPC terrain icons and underlying square type icons were changed - for example, Ancient Forests (Wood Heavy) on Plains squares looked fairly terrible, and so were changed to Dolmens. However, we didn't want to change the underlying resources under these NPC tiles as people might have settled specifically to get that unique resource combination nearby. So we left the underlying resource distribution the same. This is why Dolmens in Plains topography will also have some propensity towards Wood, and why - outside of currently sov claimed squares - you won't find (m)any Ancient Forests in Plains topography any more. Best, SC |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 20:13
|
Please note that we're extending the "one free relocation per city" to every town that is currently on the map. Again, this won't be in place until biomes and Factions are live, and will be a one-off ability for existing players (as of today) only. All other players will have to undergo "the pain" of relocation (tbc). There will be restrictions on where you can settle (proximity-based mostly) and we'll give full details on this programme shortly. |
Posted By: lep
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 20:18
|
Yeah I was surprised to find a rather iron rich plains :-)
Are we going to be able to claim sovereignty on rivers to get extra food from fishing or gold from panning or something? To harvest north of the river I am south of I assume someone will need to build a bridge of some sort? Can these bridges be built by anyone? Then Destroyed by anyone? I'm about 20 terrains south of the river, to bridge it would I need to settle/capture close to the river? I know it maybe early days yet but I'm not going to be able to settle many more settlements and would like to know If I should settle north to have some advantage on river bridges. There's a spot where river is only 1 terrain wide and might be a nice tactical place to be. Build a bridge, charge tolls, maybe smash with siege any other bridges nearby :-) |
Posted By: Shrapnel
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 20:22
| Poor GMs just can't win. It's always when are we gonna get this? When are we gonna get that? What's taking so long? Well, you guys actually came out too soon with this change. I found a sweet spot of Sov rich squares and I was going to settle it, but now it's gone. :( S'okay, I think there may actually be more sweet spots on the map now though. Think I've already found a new super cool spot. |
Posted By: lep
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 20:36
|
LOL, yeah, I think this change is good and for the better. But its made future plans rather chaotic.
This free mover for every existing settlement will be a nightmare though. clans moving together. and dozens of players all wanting same sweet resource rich spot... LOL is gonnabe a major headache I reckon and I don't envy the game staff doing it. If I stay where I am my 6th settlement will be weaker than planned but my capital has been made better :-) |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 21:42
|
I cann't wait to see the map as a whole. I'm an elf in mountain so I hope I will be able to buy darves units (millitary, trade) as they will undouptedly do better in this terrain (speed, effectivness). ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: [ZF]GeoffGoB
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 21:42
|
I'm also a dwarf and all around me is blue, not pretty lake graphics just blocks of blue squares. In theory there is no way across it, although everyone's caravans and diplo units seem to be making good progress (could be back stroke). Is this a glitch or did I just become the first merdwarf? 121 -81  |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 21:47
|
Thats awesome, it means you will get a free painless "move-your-city-around". You should start looking for a really good place to move your city. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:05
You might want to wait till after tomorrow before you start looking in earnest - some of the square assignments (as people have noted there are mountains out there that are 5|5|5|5|5) aren't yet entirely correct, and we will be releasing a viewable "entire continent" world map which people might wish to peruse. Best, SC |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:07
Please read the first post, which explains that pathfinding etc aren't in place - and won't be for some time. Best, SC |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:24
I've investigated this further, and my apologies for mis-speaking on the last page! Many cities have had their underlying terrain changed, to bring them into line with the new resource type distribution. For example, if your city was on a Abundant Clay (which was 3|7|5|5|5 before), now that Abundant Clay is 5|7|5|3|5 instead, the terrain type that your city was on was changed to Clay Seam to make your current resource distribution match the new one. This change should not affect anything else - your terrain combat defense bonuses and your resource distribution are the same as they were. Best, SC |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:31
| I think the new map rocks and I can't wait to see the World Map when you release it... Lot's of planning in the works!!! |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:41
| This is going to be awsome. however I belive the most vied over sov squares would mostly be dolmens. It may have been better if no dolmens were added or removed. It evened out in my case however it seems a bit odd to allow the very large players a major advantage in that they may now have close access to extra food in all well established cities. Also I totally agree with fishing. Unless the current sov mechanic is change being near a river would be a disadvantage due to less nearby squares to claim |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 22:49
| you really dont like the restaurant, do you. lol |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 23:02
Thanks col0005, I should clarify again - the replacement of Ancient Forests in plains by Dolmens hasn't given any extra food at all; this change was cosmetic only; the Wood-heavy bonus of the Ancient Forest is still in place on the squares that were changed over, it's only the icon that's become a dolmen. tbh, we're really just waiting for another graphic suitable for heavy wood in plains that didn't look as out-of-place as the Ancient Forest did; when we get that graphic, the wood-heavy dolmens will be changed again to a new icon. Hope that makes sense, SC |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 23:34
|
|
Posted By: SirTwitchy
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 23:35
| graphic suitable for heavy wood in plains, huhuhuhuh SC said heavy wood |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 23:36
|
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic972_post7224.html#7224 - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic972_post7224.html#7224
You killed it. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2010 at 23:46
|
Sorry I actually meant that when the tiles were re-distributed no dolmens were moved or created at all (unless in a river)
Also with the realease of bio-regions and factions it is likely that elven factions would be in forest regions. Elves already have a disadvantage in their home terrain due to their strongest weapon being the bow. If that is the case then as a trade item bows would become essentially worthless in these areas as the amount of good targets for arches would be very limited, plus bows would be provided by the factions.
Again not only would elves have a disadvantage when defending their forest homes but in a forest area they would have a disadvantage attacking almost anything in their locality. Is it likely that racial terrain bonus's will be introduced to counteract this? or that summoned/future units for each race will have an advantage on their natural terrain? it just seems absurd from a RP perspective that sensible elven players would want to move all their cities into mountain terrain or atleast move their cities far from a densly forested locality.
|
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 00:01
| If you choose to use your 1 free relocation how with that affect your Sov squares that you own im assuming you lose them and have to start over over with new squs |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 00:35
|
oh actually probbabbly even better than racial terrain bonus' would be if we could build units of the new factions if our standing was high enough withsaid faction. If there was a faction that was good in forest terrain, ONLY appeared in densly forrested areas and more friendly with elves (not quite friendly enough for units to be available without some increase in standing due to quest/trade) The this would make it very worthwhile for elves to settle in densly forested areas. Also If it was eventually made so that the new factions were playable then these players would have an increadible advantage over other new players as alliances would favour these players unique attributes and skills due to a shortage of these races. If instead it was made so that player effort in increasing their standing with a faction allowed for the use of their units and with extreamly good standing perhaps even constructing a unique building then this would allow for a greater diversity in playable races without damaging the balance.
I also like the idea of say humans having by far the best ships (in trade and battle), however only elves and dwarves have a great enough command of the merfolk tounge to utilise these underwater troops I know increadibly long way off.... but still.
|
Posted By: Aelfric
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 00:44
|
With regard to water-bound units: Humans should have sail ships. Elves should ride giant turtles (with a small tower to house on their back to house the riders). Orcs should paddle on rafts (probably pulled by werebeavers). Dwarves should have steam-powered ironclads. |
Posted By: WildBill
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 00:47
|
I hate to say it but the map looks like crap. Secondly, you said squares within 5 squares of your cities wouldn't change, which they have. I settled my last city with plans on it for soveriegn squares, its still a small city so I never claimed any of the squares yet. Of the 5 squares I was planning on using only 1 is left and the others are now all useless for the plans I had. Maybe a heads up that only the squares directly around the city would have been in order so I could have claimed the squares before you went ahead with the map change would have been nice. And again the map looks terrible to me, all I see is a big green clump around my cities where there use to be mountains and hills. |
Posted By: Akita
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 01:58
|
I guess it makes sense and it's somewhat nice for the defender (if they settled it for the defensive bonus, that is)... although, I can only assume it's going to get a bit weird for the attackers. But if that's the case, and the city tile type changed to accommodate the resource distributions, the next double question is (as per the previous example, at around map location 85|60):
P.S. I see "Fertile Ground" squares (not directly near cities nor with sov on them) which are supposed to be 3/5/5/5/7 according to the table in the first post that are equally odd, for instance: |
Posted By: WildBill
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 02:40
|
I'm almost ready to settle another city and just want to clarify something that was said earlier about the ancient forests turning into dolmens but still producing high amounts of wood. I was planning on settling my city near a couple of dolmens that are now ancient forests, so they will also stay as high food production squares? |
Posted By: Jargas
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 06:20
 ------------- Jargas Bargnothaltros Officer of Dark Blight Resident of The Underdark |
Posted By: Beengalas
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 06:55
|
Some people wheren't so lucky: 158|282 Otherwise, so far I have no real opinion on this. I will wait and see how it evolves. But I lost my future sov. tiles! :(
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 07:41
That's actually a *very* good point, Akita - and one that I'd overlooked entirely. The other option (which is probably preferable at this point) is to return the underlying city terrain description back to what it was and also leave the resource distribution as it is. This means that we have resource anomalies compared to the unsettled squares, but that's of less impact than having an unexpected combat terrain type. In fact I think that's the only sensible option here. Best, SC |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 07:43
The resource distribution underneath any and every NPC tile has not changed - and will not change. Whatever it was last week is what it is today and will be tomorrow. The icons may have changed, but nothing else. Regards, SC |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 07:48
Hi WildBill, We will, over time, be providing more (new) icon variation and flow between the tiles, so they should look more naturalistic than they currently do. Regarding your second point, I think this may have been a misunderstanding, and perhaps we weren't clear enough. What we originally said was:
... and by this we meant your city square and the squares N, S, E & W of it, to make up the "5 squares". Best, SC |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 08:24
|
When we get the terraforming spell, race should only be able to create a certain type of terrain. Orc would create hills, elves forest, darves mountain, human plain. This will force people to have friends from another race. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 13:11
|
But, spell range kinda doodles all over that friend thing. And it can just as easily be used as an attack tool to switch up someone's sovereign square... or potential sovereign square... |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 13:56
|
Yes thats the point! So far you cann't really use magic in an offensive way. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 14:42
|
Hi, I'd like to know how naval units are going to be used. I am going to build a new city, so does it need to be next to a river or lake? Will cities not next to one of these squares be able to build channels or something like that? Thanks for the support |
Posted By: Ottar
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 15:40
|
First reaction to the new topography was it is not too restful on the eyes, particularly heavily wooded areas and mountainous areas. Seeing the poor NPC's swimming to keep afloat was quite amusing. If you wanted to besiege one of these island cities, your army would be splashing around a bit. I guess that could put some players off. I hope the players surrounded by water don't mind submerged sov' squares. On a more serious note, whilst topography has a factor on troop performance has anyone looked at the weather? For example, bowmen perform poorly in heavy rain or windy conditions. Armoured units would find it hard going in snow, particularly in mountainous areas. Has anyone looked at this? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 17:11
|
Most issues with the topography release are now fixed, we think, with http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/update-15sep10_topic1029.html - this patch . Thanks for your patience. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 17:38
Hi Raritor, The short answer is "we don't know, because we haven't really started working on them yet, and won't for a good few months" One thing I can certainly say is that the naval side of Illyriad will definitely require access to water in some way The longer answer is that we would like to do naval combat, piracy, ship transport, river and lake transport barges, siege ships, ramming galleys, building canals and locks... and everything else we can think of that will give players more options in Illyriad. But we don't know when this will happen - though I'd say that 2010 is out of the question - and we don't know exactly what form this will take when it's released. Seriously though, I don't want players to get too caught up in planning for the mechanics of what we may do in the future - whether that's regarding seas and navies, or trade and factions. Best, SC |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 18:49
| I think it's going to take the world map before anyone can make real sense of what you guys have done here.... |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 18:59
Sometimes it's like http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/world-map-15sep10_topic1030.html - you're reading my mind , KP... Scary. World Map available above. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 19:40
|
Nice. Very nice. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 23:38
|
I must say, this is an awesome update and would bring many new factors to the current oplitical structure of the realm at large. The ONE point i feel i HAVE to complain about is the fact that there are ONLY large seas at the southern edge of the map. Why only there? Can we not have other large seas which will require naval power to be exerted in that part of the map as well? Such as the north west and north east corners? I know that changing the map as drastically as that at this point would prob be impossible, but i feel i needed to voice my concern over this point regardless. Also, it's a bit late and only now decided to post, so i havent read the last several pages of the thread, and thus i don't know if this issue has been adressed. So i apologise if i bring up an old subjest. Smoking Gnu Advisor of Dlords |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 23:39
|
Great work so far SC and all the team, can i check with 1 point, when will people who want to move be allowed to move their cities as they may have located some places on the map now but if this move is a way off these squares may well be taken by either new players or settlers. I new factions are still to come but i know some people may wish to move before this comes into play. Cheers
|
Posted By: some random guy
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 00:54
|
biomes open up many possibilities. one that I see is the use of different types of cities. here are 2 suggestions: trade camps: low cost for moving, small defense bonus for wall, trade based buildings (new cities would open up new building types for certain city types) Harbors: can only be built and moved along rivers, ship based production. these city types could let more maneuverability into trading. ------------- Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo.... |
Posted By: some random guy
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 00:55
|
sorry about the Â'S ------------- Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo.... |
Posted By: Laccy
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 11:25
|
Most exciting. Thanks for bringing it all forward. On a very unimportant note of pedantry, Wooded Quarry. Looking at these squares, I note that they tend to favour stone resources, at the expense of wood resource. Going on the name alone, I would expect these squares to indeed favour stone, but not at the expense of wood resource, food resource maybe? Laccy |
Posted By: photojoe
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 20:32
So, if the cost of a move is going to be related to the size of a city is it best for me to not found any more cities and stop growing in anticipation of a move?
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 21:18
Hi photojoe, You may have missed the datestamp on the post above; but this free move for all cities ended a while back (it was largely for the topography and biome changes). Every player can still move their capital (first) city once, using the Relocation option from the castle screen. Regards, SC |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 04:57
|
Dev's - I have been looking for a new/updated list for the following information you have in this post (below). Does such a list exist? Could such a list be generated? I simply wish to know what 7 food sovs are available to players. I have compiled a list of 9 different tiles that offer 7 food, but I am not sure if I have missed some or not. Is there any hope of an updated list for the highest (7) resource plots or any chance that this list is somewhere else out there and I have missed seeing it? (^_^) pwease... pwetty pwetty pwease... *shoo Elmer Fudd - this is my form post!*
-------------
|
Posted By: invictusa
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 07:17
http://sites.google.com/site/theillypedia/plot-types" rel="nofollow - https://sites.google.com/site/theillypedia/plot-types not sure how up to date this is
------------- ...and miles to go before I sleep. |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 07:26
|
ooh getting warmer. thanks!
-------------
|
Posted By: Rhea
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 02:57
|
I have yet to find a 7 food square in the mountains -- are there or will there be any?? |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 03:03
| you have to make your own by settling a 7-food square, Exodusing your capital and Tenariling your new capital (former second city) to a mountain. |
Posted By: Silent/Steadfast
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 03:04
|
There are some, left by players who use the exodus-then-tenaril trick and then leave. ------------- "Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM) "SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM) |
Posted By: Marquesta
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 03:08
|
Stead, it actually changes the plots on the square? I was under the impression that it was just a superficial thing, that if you moved your city, it reverted back to what it was...
------------- ~~Marquesta Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them... |
Posted By: Silent/Steadfast
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 03:11
|
I'll verify it once illy is back up. ------------- "Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM) "SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM) |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 03:30
| I know of one that was supposedly created that way, but the player was deleted (did not exodus off it, the town just disappeared). |