Implemented - Effect of Upgrading on existing queues

Print Page | Close Window

Effect of Upgrading on existing queues

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Implemented
Forum Description: Suggestions which have been implemented or resolved.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=193
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 09:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Effect of Upgrading on existing queues

Posted By: Larry
Subject: Effect of Upgrading on existing queues
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 12:35

Currently, if I set a queue of items (say cows) for a building (common ground) to produce, and then proceed to upgrade the building, the upgrades do not affect the existing queue. It still takes precisely as long as it did before the upgrade.

Is this the intended mechanic? Seems to make more sense that upgrading a building ought to shorten the existing queues, its not like there is a lvl1 version of the building still sitting around while the lvl7 got built elsewhere.

Replies:

Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 11:09

Hi Larry,

Yes, this is the intended mechanic. The effects of a building are only applied when the item it produces are queued up initially.

It's more of a balance thing than a logic thing, admittedly, especially with the proposed removal of the "instabuild" prestige spend option.

Best,

GM Stormcrow

Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 06:25

It would be much more palatable if cancellations were supported, whether it be research, construction, resource production, unit recruitment, or missions recently launched. Most other games support most or all of the above, and the lack here is a bit surprising and inconvenient.

I can't see how allowing cancellations and restarts would upset balance, especially when wanting to do so typically indicate either a blunder in lack of planning or a simple wish to keep operations busy while away. And just to clarify, in the case of multi-unit queues, one would expect cancellation not to affect units of work (say livestock) already completed (not that it could really be done any other way).

I would fire the blacksmith who refused to staff the new wing of his smithy until all current work orders were completed. That's just bad management. Geek

Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 06:50

Hmm. It is a very fair point...

If we did implement cancellation, I agree that "produced stuff to date" should still have been produced (and the way the logic works it is actually produced and moved into eg the Unit Pool when it hits the individual item production time), but what do we think on items such as research or buildings? Do we return some of the construction/research lost due to the cancellation? On a pro-rata basis? Someone else suggested this elsewhere, but I'm damned if I can find the thread now (Stormcrow's search-fu is weak, today).

Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 09:30

Maybe just cancellation for things queued beyond the first production/research/build as they are not yet in progress?

The current item is "being worked on" and obviously the workshop is geared up for that rate of production; where as 2nd/3rd etc are just future plans?

Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 13:42

Cancellation still to be finalised, but:

UPGRADING PRODUCTION BUILDINGS TO AFFECT CURRENT ORDERS

When you upgrade a building after setting a long production order in progress, the upgrade should alter the time to produce the remaining orders

has just been added to the topic98_post828.html#828 - current dev list .

Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 15:44

It did later occur to me in connection to this that queuing stuff not actually desired is handy for sidestepping incoming attacks and thieves. I don't personally have a problem with this. This is in line with my earlier statements to the effect that there should be such substantial benefits to being around and paying attention, and that such things help restore the viability of competing without buying prestige. People with less money often also have more time to commit...it's a balancing factor for most. Also, in real-world sense, being aware that something is going down usually causes people to react in precisely this manner to precisely this effect. Move your valuables, and the thieves break in for nothing. That's exactly the sort of thing we do, individually and in larger scale operations.

However, if it were considered a problem anyway, one could always penalize cancellation with partial return of resources. In many of the fair situations one would often be happy to throw away the spent resources entirely, just for the chance to produce more quickly or keep it out of the hands of enemies. Going back to real-world analogy: how would one be completely unable even to say, "I don't care about any of this, just throw it all out and start something else."

Other benefits to canceling ability would be the opportunity to change your mind about what it is you actually want produced. Have incoming diplomats? Think they are thieves? Cancel your scouts to build more thieves in time to help catch them. Such ability again rewards in-game activity and attention, but doesn't require elimination of the cost-benefit tradeoff.