| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
HonoredMule 
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
 Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:55 |
|
You can all praise or pooh the Chancery as you like. I'll let you work out for yourselves where and how it may or may not be useful.
I know what I'm going to do...
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
 |
Sloter
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:39 |
|
it can have effect on food income or taxes.Also sovs that are good but somewhat far from city can now be claimed since they are cheaper.I see this building as way of saving up research points that in turn can enable player to chose if he wants to claim more sovs or to increase taxes without going negativ with research point.I will definatly make one in each city
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:11 |
|
SC, this building is now utterly useless, a waste of res.
if we could build sov 1 buildings, things would be different.
but like it is now, its just an eyesore and a waste of gold. a WASTE...
the brilliant idea was nerfed to a fancy and ultra expensive.. flag?
its so pointless...
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:11 |
Dear SC Thanks a lot for the reply. I fear that you have missed a point you have made before several times. Do the implementation of this new building pass the "fun factor test"? What does it add to the game? And please do not ask me to wait for some future implementation to see the point. I have waited a year for this "upgrade" that I really hope would change the game. If you insist on letting me include things to come I will only say one thing: "battle magic" 
|
|
|
|
Mister_No
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Split, Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 29
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:10 |
 GM Stormcrow wrote:
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).
|
If
I may suggest:
The court, courthouse, as soon as possible to
install in the code.
And after the courthouse, I suggest at least
one prison for every 150 squares. 
The people we are, we can
easily choose the judges.
Respect,
MisterNo
|
|
Neither the future is not what it used to be...
http://youtu.be/lVdTQ3OPtGY
|
|
Drejan
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:58 |
Sorry, i don't like the general idea of specialization on sovreignity. It add nothing to the gameplay that can't be added in a simpler way. If you want large sov.claims just reduce the cost of upkeep to 10*(range^2)*SovLevel. Add some upkeep for structures if needed. If you want to add estate into account let it be: (30-EstateLevel)*(range^2)*SovLevel. I think Estate right now is going to push sov.s to maybe 20 not more. |
|
intor
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:31 |
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
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
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
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:59 |
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.
|
|
|
|
surferdude
Wordsmith
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:53 |
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?
|
|
Tweet
07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes
