| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:25 |
Babbens wrote:
Seeing that RTW was mentioned, I dare to suggest this: in one of the Caesar city builders (I believe #3), there was this neat feature allowing to prioratize buildings and structures. This way, when there was a shortage of plebs, the first to suffer were the least important ones (as set by the player). Just substitute plebs with food, with conseguent downgrade of the concerned building/structure.
|
Something along those lines might be possible - we would still, however, have to have a "default" behaviour for players who hadn't specified their prioritisation; and that default behaviour would have to be the one we went with initially (rather than building a new "prioritisation" interface, which would definitely delay the closure of the loophole, which we're not keen to do).
Regards,
SC
|
 |
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:21 |
Seeing that RTW was mentioned, I dare to suggest this: in one of the Caesar city builders (I believe #3), there was this neat feature allowing to prioratize buildings and structures. This way, when there was a shortage of plebs, the first to suffer were the least important ones (as set by the player). Just substitute plebs with food, with conseguent downgrade of the concerned building/structure.
|
 |
Raritor
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:13 |
|
If your city has no food your people will starve to death, so pop will decrease. I fully support the idea of start autodemolishing buildings after a period of time,
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:07 |
I suggest doing some thing that is simple and easy to explain. Not collecting taxes meets this criterion.
On the other hand, de-leveling buildings does have the feature that it would eventually "correct" the food imbalance on its own. If de-leveling buildings is implemented, I suggest that the most recent building to be upgraded be the one that is de-leveled. If the imbalance is other than in food, the most recent building to be de-leveled that ALSO consumes that resource should be the one to be de-leveled. This could get very complex if someone runs out of multiple resources at the same time, so maybe it should always just be the most recent building.
The reason that I propose de-leveling the most recent building to be constructed is that it's easy to understand and explain.
There should be a notification for building de-leveling in the same way there is a notification for building completion.
It doesn't really matter to me which way you close the exploit, as long as it's closed.
|
 |
tallica
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 20:43 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
There's dev time scheduled in to fix this exploit imminently.
The question is whether we spend that time on fix a) or fix b)
If fix b) is better than fix a) we'll do that instead.
SC |
do you guys have a schedule posted somewhere of what you're working on? Or a -new- list of items that are on your plate? it would be nice to see what's coming at us (both big and small). Needless to say, you guys are doing an awesome job and we all are loving the game and work put into it!
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 19:55 |
There's dev time scheduled in to fix this exploit imminently.
The question is whether we spend that time on fix a) or fix b)
If fix b) is better than fix a) we'll do that instead.
SC
|
 |
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 19:50 |
|
Its become quite tiresome with the promise to do something about this exploit, but then any changes being delayed for what seems months. If we are to discuss options, will the rather basic decision to block the exploit be implemented as a temporary solution. Or does it just mean more delays?
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 17:31 |
Hi all,
I've moved these posts over from the thread in which they started, please continue the discussion here.
Regards,
SC
Edited by GM Stormcrow - 27 Sep 2011 at 17:35
|
 |
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 16:32 |
Nesse wrote:
Or just don't allow buildings to be reduced lower than, say, level 10, by this mechanism. And start with high level, and make the levelling down take much longer than demolishion does. And probably make it cost a bit to stop it, such as the "fraction demolished"... |
Why should the deleveling take alot longer than demolizing ?
And I would rather have a level 18 saddlemaker go down in level than my level 20 flourmill :P
|
|
|
 |
Nesse
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406
|
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 15:57 |
|
Or just don't allow buildings to be reduced lower than, say, level 10, by this mechanism. And start with high level, and make the levelling down take much longer than demolishion does. And probably make it cost a bit to stop it, such as the "fraction demolished"...
|
 |