| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
The Duke
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 21:18 |
|
Not only do they want to avoid automation but they have said repeatedly that they dont want prestige accounts to hold an overbearing amount of advantage over other non-prestige players. Also as stated previously- if you keep your cities stable instead of exploiting the negative food and negative gold then this isnt a problem. Specialize your cities so they dont go in the negative- and then your cities can all work together supplying w.e it is you need- not every city needs to be maxed out
|
|
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives."
|
 |
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 19:26 |
Its been said before that the devs want to avoid automation,though if that opinion still stands idk, just increasing the number of vans again  would help alleviate the problem(depending on how negative you are)
|
 |
Shuey707
Greenhorn
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 10:40 |
|
Such a deal should have a prestige requirement. Not only does it encourage a player to keep active (Spending money on the game), but it also forces them to renew their prestige account to keep the automation. Automation without cost allows for inactivity.
Also have to think about simplicity here. Adding a prestige button to a timed caravan is easier than implementing trade routes, gold/hr costs, etc. If Illyriad had a large dev team this wouldn't be an issue.
|
 |
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 10:35 |
|
Trade routes that should be renewed every week or so could be one option for example.
|
 |
nvp33
Wordsmith
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 124
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 10:31 |
|
The problem with a fully automated caravan system is that it leaves a player entirely free to not log into Illyriad (more or less anyways) and what keeps these kinds of games going and profitable is players logging in often. So a non prestige cost option for automation, although not exactly catastrophic, wouldn't be a very good idea. The idea I suggested called for an intercommerce traderoute, designed to let players who are at the sovereignty lvl, activate it when they are busy with other "stuff" in life, like exams or vacation and such, but pay for it so it's not always active, prompting ppl to stay active in the game whenever they aren't busy with important RL stuff. I like your idea, it's not that, I just don't think the devs are gonna go for it.
Edited by nvp33 - 16 Aug 2011 at 10:36
|
 |
intor
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 09:49 |
If you're going to add something like that, why not go all out and have a system of Trade Routes? It could work like this: - You could establish a trade route between 2 cities. - Trade routes would have a base upkeep cost simply for existing (even if no caravans are assigned to them), and perhaps a one time cost to establishing them. - The upkeep cost would be based on the distance between the cities, and you could choose what portion of the upkeep either of the cities pays (more on that later). - Each caravan assigned to a trade route would add to the upkeep cost. - Only the owner of each city could specify how many goods are to be transported out of their city and to the other. The amount would be specified as daily or hourly. - Each resource would be given a priority, which would decide which ones are more likely to be brought along if more resources are waiting then the caravans can carry. - You could select whether caravans should wait until they can take their 25% / 50% / 75% / 100% capacity. A 0% option should also exist. It would mean the caravan would leave, even if it does so empty. - A caravan assigned to a trade route would be unavailable for other purposes, and if unassigned while it's moving, it still wouldn't become available again until it finishes its current order. - By default, any changes to the agreed amounts of goods to be moved would have to be approved by both parties before taking effect, though there should be an option to auto-approve changes. [Perhaps a new Trade tech?]
The upkeep (values are just for the sake of example): - The upkeep could be the distance between cities = gold/h (rounded up). [Once pathfinding is implemented, together with roads, I imagine each tile will have a movement difficulty value or something like that. This could then be used instead of the current straight line distance for upkeep cost.] - Each caravan assigned to the route could add (distance/4) gold/h upkeep rounded, with a minimum value of 1. (1 gold / hour / caravan for those very short, 5.96 squares or less, trade routes.) - Perhaps it should be possible to have caravan groups. The caravans in a group would each cost less upkeep, depending on the number of caravans in that group. The more caravans, the lower upkeep. The downside would be that they would only move together, which could sometimes mean tying up a lot of capacity for nothing. - Each city would declare how much of the upkeep cost it will pay. No city could specify that it will pay below 50%, but if for instance city A specifies that it will pay 70% of the upkeep, then city B could accept those terms, thus only paying 30%. - Perhaps upkeep could also be modified by the total caravan capacity assigned to the trade route?
Edit: - For trade routes between cities of the same player, the upkeep cost could be halved.
(There should be a benefit to doing things manually // Cost to automation. Whichever way you prefer to look at it. :P )
Edited by intor - 16 Aug 2011 at 09:53
|
 |
Shuey707
Greenhorn
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 06:27 |
liberty6 wrote:
i disagree with your idea. you could avoid that in the first place by having stable cities (e.g. taxes adjusted to meet needs higher for income lower for production). second claiming several (3-9) sovereignty will do that if you have your city specialize in 1 or 2 sovs you wont have that problem. and third don't claim sovs more than 2 squares away because maintenance increases by 100 gold per square (if you do 2 sqaures claim 1 sovereignty). if you keep yourself in the red you reap what you sow. as i said above stable cities would avoid most problems.
|
People do go red in gold or food for various reasons, including war-time military production or simply aiming for that 9th or 10th city. Some prefer this method of game-play along with simply shipping gold and food from "feeder cities" to the ones in the red. However this style of play requires logging in often enough to keep the flow of supplies up. This proposed idea would have automated caravan departures and arrivals that you can set up timers for and that use a certain amount of prestige for per week or day. Setting up such deals would allow you to go on vacation without worrying about a sitter forgetting your account, or allowing you to not have to log in every day or two to ship that food order from City D to City A. This saves your military, sovereignty, and building queues from untimely demise This could also be used to send shipments to newer players on a schedule so that they don't have to ask... its already on the way. Makes them think you're psychic. This is a great idea for the training alliances like ITG or T?. -Shuey
Edited by Shuey707 - 16 Aug 2011 at 06:43
|
 |
liberty6
Wordsmith
Joined: 04 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 131
|
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 at 05:05 |
|
i disagree with your idea. you could avoid that in the first place by having stable cities (e.g. taxes adjusted to meet needs higher for income lower for production). second claiming several (3-9) sovereignty will do that if you have your city specialize in 1 or 2 sovs you wont have that problem. and third don't claim sovs more than 2 squares away because maintenance increases by 100 gold per square (if you do 2 sqaures claim 1 sovereignty). if you keep yourself in the red you reap what you sow. as i said above stable cities would avoid most problems.
|
|
whats happened to the world? if intelegent life came to earth is RL would they consider us intelligent or not? probably not!!!!
|
 |
nvp33
Wordsmith
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 124
|
Posted: 15 Aug 2011 at 21:24 |
|
Was talking to Shuey707 about his soveregnty and he complained about maxxing cities but not being able to affoard the "cool" sovereignty, only the food sovereignty. I asked if he couldn't just make a "super" money city and "super" food city to pay for the other cities so they could get the "cool" sovereignty. To which he commented, "sure and then you don't log in for a day or two and then you loose half your sovereignty and most of your armies, didn't that happen to you at one time as well nvp33"
Then it all came back to me, the horror, the undescribeable horror. Oh!! the pain of those memories surrounding my leaving Illyriad comming flooding bac. Of standing triumphant, shoulder by shoulder with all those who fought and helped win the war against TMM, only to log out for a critical few hours and return and see that I had forgotten to send out my caravans and had now lost most of my sovereignty and the majority of the armies it had taken me a little over a month to build. This was a major reason for me leaving I gotta say, there were a lot of other factors, but this truly played in. Shuey707 and I wondered if it wouldn't be possible to set up an automated caravan system which send out money and food and whatever else you wanted oncve a day or week or something like that, payed for by prestige somehow ofc. This would prevent people from suddenly loosing months of work due to an oversight.
What do you think?
|
 |