Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 21JUL11 - Mobiles, other
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed21JUL11 - Mobiles, other

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>
Author
Rupe View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: Ch
Status: Offline
Points: 39
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 23:35
Perhaps 10th cities were only ever meant to be for alliance leaders and paid for by alliance Tax
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 614
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 23:47
 
Originally posted by Rupe Rupe wrote:

Perhaps 10th cities were only ever meant to be for alliance leaders and paid for by alliance Tax


No, the 10th city was not meant for just alliance leaders and certainly not on the back of alliance members Wacko

Players have been running neg food for well over a year and now it's an issue?    I'm just shocked that suddenly out of the blue it is an exploit.   I echo Createure's comment, there was plenty of time to raise this issue as an exploit, not one year later after many have neg food thinking it was as the game was intended.   

For those who have posted about about getting additional food sov, you are assuming those sov squares are available near the city, for some in Middle Kingdom and Lan Larosh the new player placement took out a lot of sov squares (another issues raised with the Devs and still not addressed); if you a still stuck with a balanced resource city you are severely limited on the troops you can build.   Btw, you might want to check your math. 

As for the alternative of starting over on a new account or razing some of my cities, it's not an option for me, I have spent a lot of money on this game building up the account.    I'll say no more.

Edit: spelling


Edited by Starry - 22 Jul 2011 at 23:47
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 23:50
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:



42 with a level 13 library. Still lots of room to boost that up. Again, the taxes are so broken that sov is still useless. I could have 6 cities build stuff, 2 cities generate food and one city bringing in over 84,000 gold per hour. In a single that I would generate over 2M gold. So problem solved, you just buy your supplies on the market with your massive surplus of gold. The taxes currently hold no weight and do you really want players running around with armies large enough to wipe out entire small alliances? Not to mention they could sustain armies larger than anyone else while at the same time maintaining godly standards of diplo defense.

I understand that people are upset with the update and like I said, I'm running negative food myself but I don't see how letting this go unfixed is taking a step forward. A city simply should not be able to run on negative food with no food at no penalty. There is no balance in that.


I think you're vastly underestimating the value of sovereignty for things besides food boosting, and its associated cost in research.  I have a city that produces infantry faster than any 3 other cities combined thanks to sovereignty.  But that means consuming a fair bit of research on sovereignty claims and provides the hard limit and balance point that negative food might seem to avoid.  Even if I were running negative food there, I couldn't exceed about 50% tax without running negative research (and thus losing everything).

Running negative food is also not without its stiff penalties/tradeoffs already.  Such high taxation limits research which in turn limits sovereignty claims which (as described in the example above) substantially limits a city's potential in areas other than simple gold income.  A sensible approach to optimize account power/effectiveness while maintaining diversity is to run high tax on one city, high food on another, and high military on yet another (with other minor areas focused on the side).  I thought this was just the kind of "specialization" tactic the devs wanted to promote.
Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 23:51
But how many players have brought up the possibility of supporting massive armies using this? As far as I can tell I'm the first one to realize that you can do it or at the very least, the only one who brought it up. This is more about the excess gold and less about the large cities. I bet if someone got hit with 80,000 thieves and had literally EVERYTHING stolen with no way to defend against it or were being sieged by a single player with 150,000 troops defending people would quickly change their tune.

Besides, since when does an exploit going unnoticed for a year mean that it's suddenly no longer an exploit or no longer something that needs to be fixed?
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 23:54
I think you guys are missing the point here. No one is saying that this thing shouldn't be changed. However you look at this - if the devs say it is an exploit to be closed, it is an exploit - this is their game, and they design the game play.

What people are complaining about is the fact that this change gives some people (who built on all +7 food square) a large advantage and puts those people who only built on +5 plots a large disadvantage - The fact is we as a community were given no information about this and many veteran players have invested alot of time and money into the game while persuing a strategy that is now pronounced 'an explioit'.

This change will effectively turn Illy into a single strategy game (in terms of economy) - build on +7 food squares always, or you will not be able to support as big a population, you will not be able to support as big an army and you will not be able to keep as much military/adv.res sov squares.
Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 00:00
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

This change will effectively turn Illy into a single strategy game (in terms of economy) - build on +7 food squares always, or you will not be able to support as big a population, you will not be able to support as big an army and you will not be able to keep as much military/adv.res sov squares.


How is that any different from what people are doing now? As I said, I haven't seen a single person mention the idea of building massive armies and running them on negative food. Everyone was grabbing food sovs and 7 square spots to sustain a higher population without running negative food longer before I brought this exploit to the attention of the devs. Besides, you can still run on negative food just as I said, you need a city or two to supply it with food to stop it from running it. It just means you can't effectively run on -14,000 food anymore.

Edit: I should add that this seems like a great time for people to start mentioning alternatives on how to fix this issue. I can't really think of any other way of doing it without severely changing the way taxes work.


Edited by Brids17 - 23 Jul 2011 at 00:03
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 00:12
Quote How is that any different from what people are doing now?

As HM has illustrated above - currently there is a wide diversity in city strategies - and veteran players will utilise a mixture of different cities to maximise their overall troop production. The devs have already stated several times how they were looking to promote a variety of strategies and specialisation. This change destroys alot of potential for specialisation in economy.

HMs post above discussed every so better than I could exactly how there is still balance in the game, and pinch points, without messing up many veteran players' accounts by changing the rules.

Birds, you mention how it is wrong that players should be able to support huge armies?

Well I have 2 points for you.

1. This change does not prevent huge armies - they are still easily possible through shipment of gold from other cities or players - huge armies never have been possible and sustainable through the use of only 1 city, but have always required many cities/accounts to support them, with negative food or not.

2. I can find a quote from SC approving of the idea of 'huge armies' gleefully when someone raised the idea in a thread months ago.

Quote Besides, you can still run on negative food just as I said, you need a city or two to supply it with food to stop it from running it. It just means you can't effectively run on -14,000 food anymore.
Yes you can supply a negative food city with food from other cities if this change goes ahead. This DOESN'T mean that you have solved the problem, the amount of food you produce across all cities still directly dictates the max. amount of income you can have and hence the size of armies you can support - which still means that have 100% +7 food account is the ONLY strategy.


Edited by Createure - 23 Jul 2011 at 00:17
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 00:12
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

Originally posted by Starry Starry wrote:



So by moving the slider to 100% what was your research at per hour?    Sovereignty costs research per hour, if you don't enough research per hour, you lose your sov squares or at least a portion of them.   For many with large troops who play the military side, sovereignty squares are vital to building, maintaining and expanding armies and related resources; some of us actually use the non-food sov squares and feel they are very important.  It's a delicate balance between increasing taxes and having enough research points per hour to support your sov squares.      I don't see why a player should have to drop sov squares due to this new rule.   It's a step back, a big one.     Implementing this new rule quickly will penalize many players, prohibit any future growth and frankly, will cost the game players.


And by using that mechanic, you need no food sov what-so-ever, so can simply build recruitment sov, and if you have completed the statue mystery you can claim alot of it, more than doubling troop prod.

Similtaneously you can have 90k gold with about 14k population (and I'm sure its alot more with 20k pop) enabling you to maintain a massive army and re-recruit loses extremely quickly.  This is a vast advantage which completely unbalances the game.

However, it does make the 10th city unimaginable, and also makes the 9th city pretty much out of reach for those of us who have not acheived it.  So those that have been using this mechanic for long enough to get that 9th city are already at a big advantage to others.  Even if it means them having to delete a number of adv resource production structures and increase their sov claims solely for food, so that they can maintain a descent size army.

This is what I will have to do myself even with just 8 cities.

I hope some extra food prod will be possible soon, and not soon(TM).

Yet I still support this decision.




Please explain your math on 90K gold with 14K pop.  I always thought that at 100% tax your gross income is calculated as 4*pop which in this case would = 56K gold.


Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 00:17
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

1. This change does not prevent huge armies - they are still easily possible through shipment of gold from other cities or players - huge armies never have been possible and sustainable through the use of only 1 city, but have always required many cities/accounts to support them, with negative food or not.


How is that any different from shipping for to cities to support a high population? You contradicted yourself. The point is that you would have to spend something to maintain something. Currently you don't have to spend anything to maintain something.

As a side note, perhaps with this change the devs should make food work like gold in that there's no cap on food. This would make it easier to run on negative food but still mean it would be costly and require constant micromanagement to maintain it.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 00:19
Also I think a more important point is:

How could negative food have not been an exploit before but is an exploit now when the dev team was already aware of the issue and introduced game mechanics to provide a disadvantage to cities with negative food (not being allowed to start any research or production).

Why did they write this code for part of the game that they were clearly aware of that is now suddenly "an Exploit"?


Edited by Createure - 23 Jul 2011 at 00:23
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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