| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
demdigs 
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 570
|
 Posted: 17 Jul 2012 at 23:21 |
|
will some of the resources be water based? or will it be entirely land based resources?
|
 |
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 00:07 |
no no more plots, but the idea to deal with this harvesting resource not trough new buildings but new researches, and be dealt in the marketplace/magetower/blacksmith/forge/whatever... o gosh, i understand the difficulties of trying to make it balanced and by balanced i mean have to forfeit certain things.. but not others, food costly buildings, please... all but that.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 01:07 |
|
Additional food costly buildings could be a good thing for some players, build larger populations, more taxes, more armies. I don't care one way or the other, just saying that there are two sides to it.
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 01:14 |
|
I've never seen so many people complain so much about the opportunity for added strategic depth.
|
|
N. Chadgod
Greenhorn
Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 01:19 |
|
I agree Aurordan. New buildings is a good thing, we need more variety with regards to city design and overall game play.
|
|
It's beyond fairytale, it's inconceivable!
|
|
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 570
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 01:23 |
|
I just hope that if there is more high cost in food buildings i hope that there is an option to gain more food buildings to help with the increased food costs
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 04:27 |
 Bonaparta wrote:
Silent/Steadfast wrote:
Nooo! Not more buildings! |
I totally agree! Some of us have spend a lot of time and resources to fine tune our cities and don't have any free building plots left. |
Totally disagree, demolishing buildings is fun. Figuring out what is not essential at the moment is also fun. I'm just building up something from scratch, after its demolition turned out to be a seriously bad idea. 
Bonaparta wrote:
What if that region is on the other side of the map? Some alliances are territory based, would that mean that some alliances just can't get obsidian? In my opinion that would be unfair. |
No, territorial alliances have huge advantages, e.g., sharing the bonus from one city full of geomancers. It is a good thing when they'll need more trade with far away players. Or whatever it takes to get what you want. 
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 04:43 |
Aurordan wrote:
I've never seen so many people complain so much about the opportunity for added strategic depth. |
Yeah, I agree.
Like Bonaparta, I have a bunch of towns optimized to produce snarling hordes of Orc suicide troop heroes. So, if there's going to be a new Flower Picker's Bower, then I'm not pulling down a Cav Parade Ground for that... but there will be players who don't want hordes of warriors, and they can go picking the flowers. If they're in my alliance, maybe they'll appreciate the protection offered by my troops, and will send me some flowers occasionally.
(Hmm. That didn't sound very "Orc". Anyway...)
It's the same with T2 magic buildings already. I can't spam troops and boost all my spells, so I pick what's important to me. In my case, I build army-boosters, not spell-boosters - that's just my choice. More buildings = more choice = good.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Mara Zira
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 05:31 |
To quote the article, "It’s a herb patch – a growing thing – so if you just take some, it will grow back, but if you take every last piece of the herb then you have destroyed the patch."
You can't really control how much is harvested even if you have an army on the patch because your Confed and NAP partners can harvest there, too. So it'll be fairly easy to accidentally over-harvest and then the patch is gone. Does another patch then appear elsewhere for a fixed number of herb patches for that type, or can they all disappear so that soon the buildings are useless and a game function (whatever the herb is used for) can no longer be done? I'm assuming it's like for the animals and that the herbs can't go extinct....?
|
|
Diomedes
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 208
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 08:27 |
What a load of fuss. RL is chaotic and tragic in many parts of the world; Illy is fun and full of adventure. The game changes, & we learn to adapt - thus it was and I trust it will ever be so. Bring it on, Oh Mighty Devs - I thoroughly enjoy exploring the challenges that you create for us. 
|
|
"Walk in the way of the good, for the righteous will dwell in the land"
|
|
Tweet
From the Dev Blog: Gathering