| Author |
|
Cuddlefuzz 
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 47
|
 Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 06:24 |
 Rill wrote:
Seems like metagaming would be the most cost-effective approach, as long as we are willing to metagame with words rather than armies. |
I don't disagree at all.
Just keep a good memory and note when players/alliances who have used the forums as gaming tool deride and complain about metagaming from others.
As I have said before, I personally don't believe metagaming in and of itself is a bad thing. Not everyone feels the same, and a subset of those engage in metagaming themselves (that's called hypocrisy).
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:47 |
Cuddlefuzz wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
I would also add that the only way of guaranteeing that no one can settle near you (as a newbie seed, or as a relocation/exodus/settler) is by claiming Level 1 (or greater) sovereignty on the squares you wish to prevent a player from settling at.
The Chancery of Estates building helps this considerably, and I'm slightly surprised more people haven't explored the limits of this option!
SC
|
As we have seen (repeatedly), players/alliances would rather metagame here in the forums than put valuable gold/research points on the line. |
Research Points: 35 gold* Gold: 1 gold
Metagaming on the forums: Completely free
Seems like metagaming would be the most cost-effective approach, as long as we are willing to metagame with words rather than armies. When people do start to solve this sort of issue with armies, that's a lot of armies that could be substituted for sov costs. It's not going to be pretty.
*based on current price of 700 gold per book, calculating books as equalling 20 research points rather than 25
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:40 |
Rill wrote:
Daufer, all buildings consume food (well, nearly all, with the exception of low-level farms and low-level flour mill). So all buildings could be affected if food were the resource that ran short, including resource production buildings. |
Eh, true, this is what I get for reading and commenting when short on sleep.
|
|
Cuddlefuzz
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 47
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:33 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
I would also add that the only way of guaranteeing that no one can settle near you (as a newbie seed, or as a relocation/exodus/settler) is by claiming Level 1 (or greater) sovereignty on the squares you wish to prevent a player from settling at.
The Chancery of Estates building helps this considerably, and I'm slightly surprised more people haven't explored the limits of this option!
SC
|
As we have seen (repeatedly), players/alliances would rather metagame here in the forums than put valuable gold/research points on the line.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 04:51 |
|
Daufer, all buildings consume food (well, nearly all, with the exception of low-level farms and low-level flour mill). So all buildings could be affected if food were the resource that ran short, including resource production buildings.
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 04:44 |
Erik Dirk wrote:
what happens if your last building was a farm, flourmill or the equivelent of negative res!!!I would really like to see all basic production, (and those associated with basic production) removed from this new rule
|
Read carefully.
GM Stormcrow wrote:
What will happen to a town in this situation- The buildings that are consuming the goods that you have run out of will fall into disrepair.
|
Only buildings which actually consume resources would be deleveled, which means none of the resource production buildings would be affected. None of them consume resources. Only the new Tier 2 buildings and sov buildings which produce advanced resources or units would be affected by the rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong SC
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 03:41 |
|
Oh also if I have say negative wood then would any sov building de-level first or could a T2 building be de-levelled if it was built more recently
|
|
sofsirwj
New Poster
Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Location: China
Status: Offline
Points: 5
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 02:22 |
Wondering, if I spend much long time to destroy an inactive nearby player ago. [ send thieves and cast blights(from the new rule of Negative Resources applied), set leveling barrack the top priority and do military research first, building siege army things and so on. ]
then i find he's gone by this miracle...  |
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 02:20 |
what happens if your last building was a farm, flourmill or the equivelent of negative res!!!
Are there going to be any changes to the population required for a new town? My biggest problem with this change has always been that those with 10 towns who used the "exploit" to get there have an unfair advantage
I would really like to see all basic production, (and those associated with basic production) removed from this new rule. and secondly make basic resource consumption count towards population required for a new city
|
|
Silent/Steadfast
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Pacific County
Status: Offline
Points: 553
|
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 01:20 |
YEAH! At the newbie policy, NOOOO! At the negative resources.
|
|
"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)
|
|
Tweet
05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
Topic Options