| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Faldrin 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
 Posted: 01 Oct 2011 at 10:22 |
Where did the sovereignty building go ? It seems like it will be 24 out of 20 like SC said in chat a few weeks ago. 
|
|
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 18:18 |
OK, for clarification.
Levelling up or levelling down the Geomancers Retreat *does* now change the effectiveness of the bonus on the target city, and the changed bonus goes into effect immediately.
You don't need to recast the spell for this change to occur for the Geomancers Retreat.
The target city gets a Notification that the power of the Geomancy spell has now changed, and what it has changed to, which is important as it helps explain to the target city why their resource level has now changed even when they didn't necessarily perform any action.
The resource summary now shows the bonus provided by the Geomancy spell to 2 decimal places, and the bonus provided by the spell's caster (including the bonus provided by the Geomancers Retreat) is reflected in the text on both the Active Spell page for both the caster and recipient (if different) as well as on the Cast Spell page for the caster.
Upgrading or downgrading the Runemasters Grounding building, however, do definitely require a Rune recast to take effect. This is because Rune charges may have been depleted in the meantime, and we don't want to allow insta-completes of Runemasters Ground upgrades as a way of instantly recharging Runes, and thereby bypassing the expiration cooldown.
This is all now live. Any issues, please Petition ingame.
Regards,
SC
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 18:03 |
|
I'm pretty sure the last 4 yeses were a boolean mask on the prior 4.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 17:41 |
 GM Stormcrow wrote:
Createure wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
the answer will become "No, no, yes, yes"  |
Wouldn't that be "No, yes, yes, yes" ?
|
Um. Yes, yes, yes, yes (in answer to your perfectly correct correction!)
Thanks Createure,
SC |
Yes, isn't that a yes, yes, no, yes, yes, no... yes? Or is that a yes, no, yes, yes, yes, yes... yes? Perhaps you should invert the two middle yeses... Or make the median answer a no, yes? ;)
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 17:24 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
Createure wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
the answer will become "No, no, yes, yes" |
Wouldn't that be "No, yes, yes, yes" ?
|
Um. Yes, yes, yes, yes (in answer to your perfectly correct correction!)
Thanks Createure,
SC |
Does that mean if the building level changes -/+ the spell effectiveness changes automatically or will you still need to recast as you increase building level to gain the new +bonus and it automatically -bonuses if the building level drops? Also will the spell upkeep increase with the building levels?
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 17:09 |
|
when your cities get larger you'll see the benefit in specializing armies, i've had 40k upkeep worth of troops in a city so 600 gold/hr saved per building lvl for me is a decent trade off, or the ability to build 600g/hr more troops w/o going negative is nice :)
|
|
dspn23
Forum Warrior
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 213
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 15:57 |
those buildings should be 2.5% discount on upweek for troops etc. with a maximum of 50% but instead of a huge upweek would be less than it plus a huge basic res upweek. 1.5% is not pounded don't realy think it might be usefull unless it is only 1 kind of units at all and a massive amount of them
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 15:38 |
Createure wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
the answer will become "No, no, yes, yes" |
Wouldn't that be "No, yes, yes, yes" ?
|
Um. Yes, yes, yes, yes (in answer to your perfectly correct correction!)
Thanks Createure,
SC
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 09:13 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
the answer will become "No, no, yes, yes" |
Wouldn't that be "No, yes, yes, yes" ?
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 05:21 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
the answer will become "No, no, yes, yes" |
That is wonderful!  Thanks SC!
|
|
Tweet
Advance Notice: New Buildings
