Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Charging for Hubspace
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Charging for Hubspace
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Captain Kindly View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Location: Fremorn
Status: Offline
Points: 276 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Kindly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 13:29
How about having to send your own guards there? For example a number of diplos attached to a commander, or even a merchant.

Make the number of guards needed depending on the amount of goods you have there. The upkeep for said units will be your 'tax'.
Back to Top
Albatross View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albatross Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 13:27
The trick is finding something simple and understandable.

Here's a mechanism that's not quite simple enough:
  1. For quantities over:
    • 2m basic,
    • 500k advanced and basic harvestables, and
    • 25k others
    ...require that a holding fee be paid, by quantity, from Hub-stored gold.

  2. "Keep up payments, or we'll bin it"

  3. Monthly bidding for large amounts of space above these quantities seems like an additional dimension. Hubs have a defined limit for this.
Back to Top
Corwin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Location: Farshards
Status: Offline
Points: 310 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Corwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 08:49
I like the idea of diploing trade hubs, but I don't see how that could work in a balanced way. imo it's a bit silly we can store limitless amounts of gold and resources save in a single hub without paying for it and without any risk of losing some of it.

 For diploing towns I would say: let only the amount of thieves takes stuff that pass the towns defense. If you have 1000 attack and the towns defense is 500 only the 500 that pass the defense should do damage. 
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 08:35
The random total failure mechanic was lame, in my opinion. I would go for diplo casualties, but would they be one way (suffered by the attacker only) or two way? Runes already provide a minor deterrent.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 07:52
I'm not sure that theft mechanics are very well balanced now.  The lack of a random total failure with loss of all units tends to promote creation of very large thief armies.  The most appropriate balance to that, imo, would be the completion of the proposed change where some units on each side might be lost in diplo battles, similar to the way military mechanics work.

Failing the implementation of the rest of that intended change, safe hub storage is a reasonable balance to lack of catastrophic failure to act as a counterbalance (as opposed to everyone having to build massive thief armies merely to protect some level of resources).

Without either some disincentive to using large groups of thieves (such as catastrophic failure) or a safe storage alternative, the thief mechanics become similar to SimCity disasters -- unpredictable, impossible to defend against, and disruptive.  To me, that's unfun.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 07:17
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I disagree with the premise that hub storage makes things essentially imbalanced.
Free, safe hub storage is a reasonable counterbalance to the current diplomatic unit mechanics.
New players who need safe storage can build vaults.
to clarify, your position is that the diplomatic unit mechanics were unbalanced before the introduction of trade hubs? Or that they were unbalanced between the time trade hubs were introduced and the removal of the arbitrary chance of failure?


Edited by Angrim - 10 Aug 2014 at 07:30
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abstractdream Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 04:15
Originally posted by Albatross Albatross wrote:

Another way of assigning a cost to Hub storage might be to introduce some risk of stock loss....
* Actual theft from Hubs by players (suggest small quantities only, otherwise we'd have 30k+ missions emptying them)
* "A sheepish quartermaster ... notes that you only seem to have X in storage, where records indicate that you should have Y"

There could be a "Security Guard" research that would allow the building of a Guard's Quarters. This would cut down on the loss, with the amounts based on the level of the building. It would require more commitment from trade oriented players and the rest of us would just have to take the loss (or build a Guard's Quarters).

On the other hand, no. Never mind.
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 04:03
Perhaps it could vary based on how much the faction likes you?
Back to Top
Arctic55 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 379 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arctic55 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 03:36
I dislike this idea. End of discussion.
Back to Top
Llannedd View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 139 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Llannedd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2014 at 02:38
From a purely commercial point of view, imposing additional penalties on players is probably not a wise business decision. It certainly won't help in attracting new players, and would undoubtedly cause at least some existing players to leave the game, particularly if they were already "borderline" in terms of staying (straws and camels' backs come to mind).

The devs would be wiser to focus on positive content to make the game more interesting, rather than looking for ways to make it more frustrating.


Edited by Llannedd - 10 Aug 2014 at 02:39
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.