Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Moving Cities - a heads up 16SEP10
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMoving Cities - a heads up 16SEP10

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 12>
Author
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 21:07
Originally posted by lep lep wrote:

More options, more depth, more complexity... as long as that complexity is logical; like needing to find a ford point in a river or where someone has built a bridge or build boats. All these things are logical to wanting to cross a river so adding them is great.

Caravan changes as long as logical again are an excellent idea. It's currently absolutely bizarre that 1 caravan can carry 1000 siege blocks and the same caravan can carry 1000 bows which in turn seem to take as much space as 1000 coins. As long as the complications are logical then they will be fine for the vast majority of players.

A game I could play for years happily without knowing all the features and options is fantastic to me and it looks like you might have just that here in the making.

Please don't go overboard in the explanations and guides, leave that to the forums for players to post when they find out the intricate details.

Makes the game a much more wondrous journey of discovery.


+1
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 22:38
All i can say is...


AWESOMENESS
Back to Top
KarL Aegis View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 22:42
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

If you don't want to go through the hassle of loading troops into boats because it's too complicated, then don't settle on an island and your problem is solved.


Is it though? You'd need a boat to cross a river would you not? Our alliance is potentially about to go to war with an alliance on the other side of the map, if units couldn't cross rivers would we not need multiple boats to get our armies there? And please don't suggest that we could always "go around" them.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

We're definitely not going to dumb the game down.  If that's what people are after I can point them to many other games out there that are extremely simple to play.  It's not what Illyriad is about; we're about options and depth, which aren't necessarily the same as complexity.


Options and depth are fine but when those options and depth start penalizing players there's a problem. Take the caravan update that was talked about a while ago. It was mentioned that they'd all have different carrying carrying capacities, different speeds, limitations on what they could carry and gold costs. That's potentially going to over complicate something simple. If you want to add depth, fine, make some caravans carry more but move slower and others carry less and go faster. Make the new caravans cost gold and the old ones cost nothing. There, depth and options.

However when you add in gold costs on all caravans and carrying limitations, it gets to be too much. I'd have to assess how much of what resource I'd need to be able to move, do I want to be able to move a lot of livestock or weapons? Gold or resources? How many caravans am I going to need in total? For each resource?  Are my taxes going to need to be raise to make these caravans? Do I need to kill off my troops or diplomats or get rid of one of my sov squares to afford them? If I raise my taxes will my food go negative? Will it kill my production? I could go all day with this.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

We do, however, certainly agree that the tutorial and the help files need vast amounts of work - and we also agree that there are many game features that could be made simpler and less repetitive to perform (and more intuitive through changes to the User Interface) and there are plans in place to do all these things.


I'm glad to hear, there's a lot of things in this game that it seems no one knows the answer to.
All of this sounds like a good thing. It almost seems like your complaining.... but I can see its all a complement Wink
I am not amused.
Back to Top
GM Stormcrow View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 22:47
Originally posted by Beengalas Beengalas wrote:

I don't know if I missed it, but will the faction have pockets of power so to speak? Will there be an area of, say 25x25 that is habited by one faction and another next to it. Or will they have one or few amount of places?

(if they have small pockets of power)Also, will one be able to destroy or, for a time, disable a part of a faction? Say that me and my friends want to help the dwarfs in the area cleaning out that closeby section of filthy and ravaging goblins, and we succeed, what will happens? May the dwarf faction perhaps expand a little, or will they be static? Or maybe the goblin king will send and huge army to defend his little outpost making it temporary supercastle, or what might happen? So many possibilities! :)

Hi Beenglas,

Yes, very much so.

Factions will have main hubs (their alliance capital hub, so to speak) which will be their main trade point, and will be there main base of operations.  These hubs will be invulnerable (to stop a faction being entirely wiped out).  But the faction hub will grow and the faction will spawn additional cities of their own nearby. 

You can find more detail on some of our plans for factions here.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

I think you need to change that 9/14 restriction.   The restriction on city ownership ought to coincide with the date you bring out the teleport spell.   There's no good reason to penalize people wanting to settle/siege whatever between now and then.

In terms of sov - I hope that rescinding sov is simply part of the teleport spell.  trying to get sov 5 down to zero is going to seriously cut into the 4 weeks available to move.

I have other thoughts, but they probably fit better in the suggestions forum so I'll post them there.

I'm not sure what 9/14 means in this context... can you clarify which restriction you mean?

On the sov front, that's a good idea - we'll just have the sov auto-cancel when you teleport, and I'll amend the main post to reflect this.

Originally posted by bartimeus bartimeus wrote:

This looks like promessing upgrades, but I don't understand something; why would you make allhostile faction. whats the point? who would bother settling there?
I suppose you could give a meaning to these faction if the council of illiriad ocasionnaly organises crusade against them, to gain artifact (I'm just brainstorming here).

Well, there'll be very few all-hostile factions.  A good example of one such faction that fits this category is, perhaps, the Undead.  Or The Netherworld Demons.  But there will be very few of these factions, and they will be very sparsely and carefully placed.

And yes, they will fit in with plans for quests and storyarcs - as well as being the source of rare item drops for crafting.  But this is looking a long way ahead.

Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:


Is it though? You'd need a boat to cross a river would you not? Our alliance is potentially about to go to war with an alliance on the other side of the map, if units couldn't cross rivers would we not need multiple boats to get our armies there? And please don't suggest that we could always "go around" them.

On the island front, yes you would need water transport if you or your target were based on an Island.  As far as your specific example goes, there will be bridges and fords provided by some of the factions, and these will interconnect all the mainland areas.  We're not planning on cutting any areas off from players in their entirety (from land-based movement), except islands and further continents - which will require water transport.  But who knows? Perhaps some nice faction will organise ferry transport for you, invisibly in the background, for a small fee - so you won't even notice the requirement to use a boat except for the additional time it takes your units to get there whilst they wait in a port for the boat to arrive?

Regarding your caravan example - we've subsequently decided that different types of caravans for carrying different things is an over-complication.  However, we already have carrying capacity and speed ingame, and we already have gold upkeep - so the only change we're really proposing is different volumes for different carried items, and changing caravan carrying capacity to be volume-based rather than unit-based.

So long as the user interface to move things into caravans on a volume basis rather than a unit basis is very simple, the only real change is that we're adding gold upkeep to caravans; which I don't think is too complicated. 

Your comments about how you go about raising that gold: "Are my taxes going to need to be raise to make these caravans? Do I need to kill off my troops or diplomats or get rid of one of my sov squares to afford them? If I raise my taxes will my food go negative? Will it kill my production?" are questions you have to go through every time you need gold. 

I *love* these questions because they make me say to the game design team: "Brilliant job, guys - you've given this player multiple choices about how he or she can achieve a goal and they have to think through the ramifications of their decisions and prioritise what's important to them; thank the heavens we haven't produced a run-of-the-mill 'do X to get Y' game."

I'd also urge you not to judge things as over-complex before you've seen the implementation. Oftentimes the explanation of the concept sounds more complicated than it actually manifests itself ingame.

Originally posted by lep lep wrote:


Please don't go overboard in the explanations and guides, leave that to the forums for players to post when they find out the intricate details.

Makes the game a much more wondrous journey of discovery.

That was certainly our original interpretation, lep - but we do recognise that a lot of the concepts and procedures ingame aren't adequately documented anywhere that's easy or handy - and we have a project for context sensitive help pages ingame to explain the basics of how to do certain tasks that aren't currently particularly obvious unless you search the forums.

Thanks all for the comments - they're all very useful.

Best,

SC


Edited by GM Stormcrow - 16 Sep 2010 at 22:50
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 23:24
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:



Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

I think you need to change that 9/14 restriction.   The restriction on city ownership ought to coincide with the date you bring out the teleport spell.   There's no good reason to penalize people wanting to settle/siege whatever between now and then.

In terms of sov - I hope that rescinding sov is simply part of the teleport spell.  trying to get sov 5 down to zero is going to seriously cut into the 4 weeks available to move.

I have other thoughts, but they probably fit better in the suggestions forum so I'll post them there.

I'm not sure what 9/14 means in this context... can you clarify which restriction you mean?

On the sov front, that's a good idea - we'll just have the sov auto-cancel when you teleport, and I'll amend the main post to reflect this.



Sorry - too much time in the US.  I'm referring to the September 14th restriction for owning a city in order for it to be eligible for teleport.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 23:49
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


*snip*


Sorry - too much time in the US.  I'm referring to the September 14th restriction for owning a city in order for it to be eligible for teleport.


Got a point, my 3rd city has been put on hold till the new changes come in.
Back to Top
McFarhquar View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 00:25
Originally posted by Zangi Zangi wrote:

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


*snip*


Sorry - too much time in the US.  I'm referring to the September 14th restriction for owning a city in order for it to be eligible for teleport.


Got a point, my 3rd city has been put on hold till the new changes come in.

At the very least, the cutoff needs to be when this announcement was posted, and preferably with an extra day or two tacked on for people who sent settlers off before the announcement that won't arrive until after the cutoff
Back to Top
col0005 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 01:17
I totally agree with extending the cut off period. What Birds17 said about "why should I suffer because you decide to place a hostile faction next to my city" would certainly apply for new settlement. I may have decided that I'm happy where I am, however when factions are released I discover that the nearest faction is specifically hostile to my race then the new settlment I have just built should be able to be moved.
 
With the not landing barges at night would perhaps a 6 hr time loop be appropriate so day would be from 1-6 and 12-18 o'clock?
 
Also we all know that there are going to be major updates in the future and we should consider this if we decide to move our cities. but would it be possible tto make it slightly cheaper to move after major updates that are likely to handicap some players. Eg you can now move your lvl 20 forge but the move is likely to take 48 hrs during which time no construction can take place and gold revenue or resource production is halted. (Food consumed however is provided by hunting/foraging)
Back to Top
Shrapnel View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 01:20
With the changes spoken about in this thread, will any of it change the TownsData XML file?  Just wondering because I just built a tool using it.  Doesn't matter because I built the tool knowing the XML might change.  I did it more for the learning experience, but I'm just curious because it is useful for the time being.
Back to Top
Divine Redemption View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 01:41
How many cities on one account can be moved for free to any location?  Is it only one free move for one city or every city on one account...

Thanks,

Divine
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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