Consequences of negative res without stored res

Post Reply

Page <1 2 34

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Ander Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269	Posted: 28 Sep 2011 at 16:01
	Also someone could be running some constructions that might take a lot of time. It is possible that he did not realize that the completion of this building would lead to a negative income of a particular resource. The next time when he logs in, the building might already have been completed. If he has got some other buildings delevelled because of this it will be a big put off. Nobody should be punished so harshly for not 'doing his math' properly. Paused queues and 0 tax is enough to make a city useless. No one will deliberately run a city like that. Extra penalties could hurt only the absent minded. (or simple minded).

Torn Sky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 28 Apr 2010 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 402	Posted: 28 Sep 2011 at 19:42
	The benefit of running 0 food is maxxing taxes and productivity, by being able to build all lvl 20 production buildings a player is not forced to specialize and can produce adv res faster than a balanced city, the maxxed buildings also offer a higher tax income allowing a larger army or w/e. Stopping taxes, advance resource, military, diplo unit production, and research upon 0 food would be more than enough to dissuade a player from running negative food long or without a plan. Running out of the other basic resources should delvl Sov or Tier 2 buildings with the highest upkeep of the neg resource first until it is positive again.

Grisna Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Poster Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 14	Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 08:11
	As one more thought, whenever you have any resource rate be negative, you don't have to wait 24 hours from your last tax change, but you can only reduce your tax, not increase it.

Main Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Poster Joined: 27 Sep 2011 Status: Offline Points: 2	Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 14:40
	I'm not sure if any of the following falls under option a or b, but these are my thoughts. As a rational and self interested new player^[1], I will probably abuse this exploit for most of my new cities until I build them an army. I can cart in any gold for thieves or other minor expenses. Its viability seems unbalanced though. There aren't many long terms builds I can consider that would gain from this exploit, as even a city specialized around resources would find taxes useful eventually. If just to have more money to buy more resources or hire thieves to protect their inventory. As to, Ander's blight scenario; I agree high level cities would be punished harshly, but they already are. I also have no idea how long it would take to reduce a well stock piled high level city with blight, or whether most high level cities stockpile or maintain positive food growth in order to avoid this scenario. I would imagine they do or should already being doing this, if they expect blight. Temporarily deleveling a building instantly would be more appropriate, and wouldn't hurt newbies as much. The building would continue to function once there was enough food being produced or in the stockpile. Also related to Ander and the mentioned update, I don't think negative production of food should have any effect if there is a stock pile, and it seems excessive to stop all queues for such a scenario. - 1. I was up past my bedtime so I'm confused as to how many days it has been since I joined. Also, I think rational choice theory is terribad at explaining most human behavior, and so I shouldn't represent most newbies.

Deranzin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845	Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 11:39
	Hello, I am a new in the game, but imho the best solution is this. - In case of negative production, but an existing stockpile, there should not be any penalty other than a reduced building time in the queue, but definitely not an inability to build at all. This stands to reason as the population has the food and the resources to live and build, but they have the added strain of the negative economy. - In case of negative production, but a zero stockpile, it is obvious that one cannot pay the building cost, ergo he cannot build anything new. In case of gold running out I think that already there is an algorithm of losing troops. In case food runs out now, which is the whole point, imho the most reasonable idea is being able to put the city of an "orange alert" mode where you cannot build anything, you produce things with a time penalty, and, the main feature you can CLOSE down buildings you do not need, thus zeroing their food cost, while the "alert" lasts. - This way you avoid demolishing buildings in case of emergency, which is not really reasonable in reality (e.g. when a real town is in need, does it demolish its libraries .?. Nope, it just closes them down ). - Plus you also avoid deleveling buildings in case of emergency, which also does not really happen in reality. - When the emergency ends, the city can go out of the alert and the ability to close down buildings, goes away, along with any restrictions and everyone is happy (the possible attacker with the blights, and the defender as well). I have only been playing for a week, but that is my two cents on the matter. Have fun ! :-)

Albatross Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 11 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1118	Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 22:36
	What would happen in reality? If food runs out, people would eat less, the workforce would be less effective. In extreme cases of prolonged food shortage, the population would diminish. If we decouple the direct link between buildings and population, we would mimic reality, by having buildings that need a larger population to run at full capacity than exists in the city. I'd like to see production and other building benefits reduce in these situations, but the building needn't be de-levelled. Just like reality, a down-scaling company won't necessarily rebuild their factory smaller; they can occupy their existing premises at reduced capacity for a while. Indeed it would take more effort to demolish and rebuild than it would to do nothing. I haven't thought through the detail of this, but the big plus is that building benefit can be instantly reduced, without waiting for demolition. I particularly support the previous poster's suggested prioritisation of specific buildings that contribute the most negative change to 'zero-stock' resources.

Post Reply	Page <1 2 34
Tweet

Forum Jump

Forum Permissions View Drop Down

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum