 G0DsDestroyer wrote:
Dont know if it's been talked about or considered or whatever, but have you guys considered using a Rome Total War kinda approach? Meaning that building levels will be destroyed when the food is negative/ the peasants are angry at their rich overlords.
|
Very, very interesting.
We had considered this as an idea, but thought that it would be massively unpopular with everyone, so shelved the idea...
But the (albeit small, so far) support might cause a rethink.
Thinking out loud here, so forgive whatever follows!
I think we'd have to provide a "small player exemption" from such a rule so as not to penalise those genuinely building cities but who find themselves a bit short through mis-planning etc. But what would constitute a small player? 100 pop? 250 pop? 500 pop?
And if the rule is applied, in what order would we level buildings downs? Last-built-upgrade is the one that levels down first?
The current idea (cutting off taxes) provides some breathing space for people who have cash reserves, but they then start losing troops if they run out of gold.
This suggestion (leveling down buildings) would balance food (at the expense of resources expended on the building) but would also reduce taxation (less population = less taxes), so might be a double-whammy of sorts.
The other thing to consider here is that it's not just food anymore. We don't want (with the new buildings consuming W, C, I & S) people to simply run negative W, C, I & S and still support the new "consuming" buildings - so they'd have to also level down in some order (if they were built but negative), even if food was positive.
Again, there's a discussion there about what levels down first (by default) - sovereignty (any sov structures that consume non-food base res) or buildings that consume non-food base res...?
This thread is the wrong place to have this discussion, but I'd be very happy if someone opened a thread on the Suggestions forum and linked it from here - and I'd be especially happy if lots of players participated in the discussion!
Whilst we're super-busy on fixing the marketplace meltdown atm, and there's a bunch of other stuff to be released, we will be fixing this neg-res loophole very shortly, come hell or high water. And if there's a more elegant solution that people are happy with, then we're all ears!
Very, very interesting- ty for mentioning it!
SC
Tweet
Consequences of negative res without stored res
Topic Options
