|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 6789> |
| Author | ||
Rill 
Postmaster General 
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
 Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 23:31 |
|
|
One question for clarification: Does the negative resource rule affect any town of a player with 100 or more total population? Such as a player with a 1500 population town and a 500 population town who is now starting a third town? Even though the third town has less than 100 population, will it still be affected? Or does it not affect any town with under 100 population, regardless of the total population of the player?
In asking this question, I'm not expressing any opinion about how this should work, just asking how it does work. Thanks!
Edited by Rill - 06 Dec 2011 at 00:24 |
||
 |
||
|
Sloter
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 14 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 304 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 22:05 |
|
|
It could be better i agree but when combined with two geomancers retreat it offers more room to manipulate res income.For exmpl geomancers can boost food income and sovs can boost res for geomancers retreat or other buildings with basic res upkeep.There are many options.I am glad they did not make it too easy to use or it would not be interesting :) It should definatly not be easy to keep high pop cities (over 25-26k pop).It is good that some aspects of game depend on creativity and imagination of players rather then cash and prestige.
|
||
|
||
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster 
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 821 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:43 |
|
Not completely agreeing with Faldrin on this, tho I must agree that the resource I run out of mainly is research points, which are finite (in the sense that you cant improve upon them beyond the lvl 20 library and the Allembine research discovery), and the sovereignty tiles really deplete the rp production rapidly - far quicker than making it able to properly take Chancery of estates into a practical balanced use. That is my experience anyway, other may differ. |
||
|
||
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010 Status: Offline Points: 239 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:09 |
|
Because the upkeep cost of the building is WAY to high considering the discount you get on the sovereignty cost. Up the discount to at least the double and lower the upkeep cost of the Estate. Edit: We have debated this before in this thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/07oct11-release-patchnotes_topic2569_post30355.html?KW=#30355 Edited by Faldrin - 05 Dec 2011 at 21:16 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 496 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:06 |
|
|
Thank you! This way should not be any problem.
And by the way, is not a random newbie popping near me the problem, I could even adopt him/her, but looking the ring and thinking my nearby could became that way..... wow, do you feel me ? ;-) |
||
|
||
|
Binky the Berserker
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Jul 2011 Status: Offline Points: 257 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:04 |
|
|
curious what will happen to accounts that have sitter, but where the original player has left the game for long time
|
||
|
||
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:03 |
|
|
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
Edited by GM Stormcrow - 05 Dec 2011 at 21:05 |
||
|
||
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:00 |
|
Hi JimJams, Yes, I understand your concern here. Don't worry, it's not a change that should affect this. Currently we select one square, at random, from a list of 20 available "new player starter squares" sorted by "closest to the center of the map". We'll still select the candidate list by "closest to the center of the map", but we'll be selecting one square at random from an expanded set of 100 squares. Given that we'll be doing a "one-in, one-out" policy, the "newbie ring" should actually contract initially, and will only start to expand again once we have more players choosing to stay long-term with the game, rather choosing to leave. In short, the newbie ring should both contract and become less dense. Best, SC
|
||
|
||
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 821 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 20:53 |
|
|
LOVE IT! THANK YOU!
|
||
|
||
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 496 |
Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 20:34 |
|
|
Can you please give us more info about the new seeding policy for newbie cities ?
I am a little worried about it. As many other players, I moved or settled my cities away from the crowded zone, and it would be VERY annoying to see newbie cities popping near my cities, may be even very near, even aside... While now this is acceptable in the "newbie ring" because people can move away from there using the spell or exodus, it will be not acceptable in other zones where people patiently moved or settled following a plan. I am not sure the "solution" isn't worst than the problem... |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 6789> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
Topic Options
Faldrin wrote: