Advance Notice: Changes to upkeep, resources etc
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2282
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 21:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Advance Notice: Changes to upkeep, resources etc
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: Advance Notice: Changes to upkeep, resources etc
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 03:34
|
Hi all, As part of our ongoing solution-finding to the problem outlined here on the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/21jul11-mobiles-other_topic2210.html" rel="nofollow - "Advance notice to changes regarding food" threadnaught, here's what we're currently intending. I strongly recommend that all interested parties spend some time looking at the ramifications of this change below. There are 4 inter-related elements, and we recommend reading all of them before commenting!
Best wishes, SC
|
Replies:
Posted By: Kafka
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 03:53
Ah, this is groovy!  ------------- One day I awoke from unsettling dreams to find myself transformed into a medium-sized Illyriad player |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 03:55
|
"Most of these specialist buildings (14 or so new ones right now, and a further 20+ to come). will require Wood, Clay, Iron & Stone upkeep (as well as food, like all buildings). The upkeep will be fairly substantial, depending on the building type. We mention this simply to say that - especially in conjunction with the changes mentioned above - a 7 food square is not necessarily the best option any more, depending entirely on what you want to do with your city or cities." I call "tease"!
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 03:56
|
Excellent! Can't wait to see the changes and thank you!
------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 04:04
|
i) If the city
you have chosen to move is your capital city, then your capital city
will change to your largest non-moving city. We will also be
introducing a mechanism to allow players to change their capital city at
will. Just out of curiosity, as above you move your capital and your largest city becomes your capital. Currently, if you have your capital razed with another town still in your possession that town becomes your Capital and can then take advantage of the relocation spell. Will this give you the ability to reset the relocation spell once you've used it simply by moving your capital? Specifically, to put a 7 farm city up in a mountain? :) |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 04:32
|
I like that TC just signed off as SC. Copy and paste anyone? Also, is the date still set for the 31st or has it been pushed back again due to the changes? -------------  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 05:05
| GM SC said that it's been pushed back, did not specify a date -- it still sounds like pretty soon. However, I believe the sitting rule still changes August 31. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 05:33
After thinking about this more, you must be planning on how changing resources are effected by taxes as well right? Because it seems like you can't go negative resources from taxes alone, you need sov to weight into that and thus it wouldn't really stop people from using the 100% taxes tactic, it would just mean they would get a little less out of it than if they were maxed out pop like before. ------------- |
GM ThunderCat wrote:Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 06:18
| Brids, new city buildings will now consume basic resources other than food -- so you can go negative based on the upkeep of city buildings, even without sov. |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 07:18
| I don't think the release date matters now, all players using the food "exploit" would have had enough time to balance things out, now they get 100% food production and any players using negative res for sov were always using an exploit, as the release notes said that sov would de-level so they should have know it to be a loophole and should not be considered. |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 07:23
|
> Moving to a new location in this way will have the same restrictions as the Tenaril's Spell of Ultimate Teleportating (ie must have all your units at home, cannot move to a location that is within 10 squares of another alliance etc). imho this has the potential to unbalance the game. First you will have players who will use relocating to set up attacks. Illy will become much more aggressive and much more like other browser based strategy games where players port into an area to attack. Admittedly this might be a good thing if you are looking to increase conflict and strife in-game. Though porting to increase conflict might increase activity and could be considered healthy in some way, it will certainly upset the natural growth that is occurring in the game and this is not healthy imho. Right now most of the older players and older cities are toward the center of the map. This allows new players to relocate out of harms way if they wish and move to the outside of the map where they can develop and game. With this older players can move with developed armies to the outside of the map. You would pit old players against new players with this to the disadvantage of all new players... |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 08:33
|
All that seems pretty good! and thanks for the city move that doesnt take the underlying terrain. |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 08:38
| Meagh, the game mechanics don't exactly reward picking on new players, smaller players/alliances may have to deal with larger alliances/players, but they're very unlikely to hinder your growth. Plus you'll find most of the community more than happy to protect new players anyway. |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 09:03
| Oh also GM's may I suggest that the basic resource upkeep of these buildings lean more towards using a lot of stone/clay rather than wood and iron, just to even things out a bit. |
Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 09:44
It would be nice to know what these new building are going to be before the ability to move a city goes live. Otherwise how are we to decide what is the correct tactic for individual cities
|
Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 09:45
| Also shouldn't water harvest fish? Food |
Posted By: Berylla
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 09:53
| After reading the first post carefully, I look forward to the change. It seems very lifelike in my oppinion, and that is part of why I enjoy this game so much. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 09:56
| I hope that it will be easier to get 10th city with new buildings that can offer new high pop constructions,perfect and fair changes.Everyone will be happy. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 15:06
|
hate the moving city stuff. there should be more penalties for moving...like inability to make adv res or units for a LONGER period of time |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 15:11
You don't think de-leveling all builds to level 12 isn't enough? I wouldn't consider moving most of my cities with a penalty like that... ------------- |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 15:26
i said that cause i have a fairly new town i will move asap it will be possible ...that town has just a few buildings + 12 like Com.Ground and market place... ... but yea, it will hurt a bit |
Posted By: Machiathustra
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 15:39
|
If I might suggest a fifth option which I think would be more fair to the players, How about if food shortages directly affect a building's production. I'll use a level 10 mage tower as an example. Consumption: 74 Mana Production: 134 Mana per mage: 134 / 74 = 1.81 With a food production of -7, players could set their mage tower consumption to 74-7 = 67 Which would give a mana production of 67 * 1.81 = 121 As food shortages occur, the system would autorandomly distribute the shortage throughout the city but the player could then go in and redistribute the shortage to their least important sectors. Maybe a more advanced system could be made to allow players to give their buildings a "food favour rating" (FFR) ie. 1-star buildings would be the first to be autorandomly deprecated by the system and 5-star buildings would be the last.
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 16:17
I have a town with just market and warehouse at 15 and everything else less than or upto 12. I am already wondering where to move this, but will wait and level other things up to 12 till the new buildings are released. EDIT: considering all the +ve food that is going to come out in my cities, I may not need to build farmyards for a long time now! :D
|
Posted By: Lolita Barrister
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 16:19
|
This is how I'm reading the changes; food is to be treated like all other basic resources and with new buildings, the importance of a 7 plot of X resource will depend on the town's focus as well as the race. As a result, moves might be required to ensure that THAT basic resource can support the town's focus. For example, a town focused on say, swords should be placed on a 7 iron plot near a high iron dolmen, and one focused on bows would want a 7 wood plot near a high wood dolmen? This I like, although, I haven't invested a lot of time building up stuff that might not work as it once did. Then again, I may be interpreting this all wrong. |
Posted By: Babbens
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 18:06
I think this is a very good idea! And it would be really nice to be able to lower the food consumption of buildings, when not so needed, and maxed it again when needed. |
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 19:23
The larger players are scattered all across the map we are not just in the middle, and porting into an area to attack would drop all the building to lvl 12 which means your pop will drop significantly from a developed city this will kill the tax income of the city and the ability to keep a huge army, so there will be some aggressiveness but im sure it wont be much more than it is now on another note will the new moving of the cities be like sending settlers, with X speed so it may take a few days to move on top of the 5 day waiting period or is it instant and the 5 days count as the relocating time before you can move another city though it would have been nice to know a little sooner so i wouldnt have sieged 1 of my 5 food towns to build a 7 food but its all good it was a small town anyway |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 19:32
|
I agree with Sloter. if new buildings, that will use the 4 basic ressources, also give the same pop as res prod buildings actually does, that would bring more depth: u can increase your pop with a mix of food and basic ressource. And then, 5 food cities can find theire old glory: as they have a high prod of basic ressources (5 of each instead of a limitation with one basic that has 3 mines for 7 food cities), they could have a high pop, but still less than 7 food ones i think, and most important is that they will be very specialised cities but still with a good gold production ( but of course, still less than 7 food cities). Maybe im not seeing all the consequences of that, but that would bring a new balance between 5 and 7 food cities, and that would also bring a large panel of strategies that i can't even describe. Also i agree with Rupe about having more lightings on what would be these new buildings and their costs, before we are able to move our cities... of course, only if thise move is a 1 time move... is it? |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 19:48
| I think the new building might be the "chancery of estates"(or whatsitsname), which makes sovereignty much more affordable in exhcange for basic resources. Nicenice - ty devs ^^ |
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 20:02
I have big questions before I even begin to analyze this. The developers haven't given us any way to evaluate the changes because they mostly depend on factors related to the new buildings. So I have to ask:
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 20:18
|
I think it makes sense to sit tight until the new buildings are released. The change to food/tax should eliminate the urgency that many large players were feeling in trying to get their food situation squared away. The drop to level 12 bldgs makes moving a large city a costly exercise. Though less costly than completely razing a city and rebuilding elsewhere as many players have done in the past. The 10 sqs restriction still can be difficult to overcome, too. |
Posted By: Rohk
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 22:36
| Just like the other people on here I am very excited to here about the additional buildings. Does this mean that we will get more building plots in the cities or building plots specifically to be used for these new buildings? |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 23:04
I believe it's been said that there will be no additional building plots so you'll have to decide what you want more and it will force more specialization on your cities. (don't quote me on that though) ------------- |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 23:14
|
An aside for the newer players to Illyriad: Don't waste time/energy/space asking questions/debating hypotheticls regards future releases. The Dev's will release information only when they are ready and see fit. Any Speculation is nothing more than hypothetical's based on hypothetical's and a waste of every-bodies time. So lets cease with questions and conjecture regards 'new-buildings' etc and focus on the information and release at hand, please. Apologies for the over-use of the '/' symbol and the term 'hypothetical's' (which spell check refuses to accept but I maintain). ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2011 at 23:52
|
@Llyorn, first of all, totally agree. If nothing else, a glance through past *future release* announcements and discussions will reveal that the dev's plans don't always go as expected. Now, about "hypothetical's"; the reason spellcheck doesn't recognize it is that the apostrophe indicates the possessive, and not the plural. So, "hypotheticals" would be accurate. Similarly, the accurate form of "every-bodies", since it is possessive, would be "everybody's". Cheers!
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 00:21
Just because I'm too lazy to search for the info I posted doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm nearly positive a GM stated what I said. Then again, even the GMs have been known to say one thing they change their mind. Still, I don't see why speculating is a bad thing, especially in a situation like the new buildings where you can't really "prepare" for them. ------------- |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 00:46
|
hypotheticals Nup. Still get the red under-line. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 00:58
|
Llyorn, ok lets look at this without considering the buildings for a moment. The idea of separating out food from taxes and stopping all tax income when you hit zero in anything seems excessively easy on players. The only things that currently cost basic resources are sovereign squares used for crafting bonus'. Nobody has any difficulties keeping anything but food positive with the current sov costs. Furthermore by separating out food production from taxes we open the door to bigger players running a 100% tax rate, and getting the FOOD benefit of running at only 25%. Thus allowing them to support MUCH bigger armies than would otherwise be possible in all cities. Even worse because players are able to run that 100% tax rate they can rack up significant funds of money to give them plenty of time for moving things around between their cities, or buying things on the market. So setting aside buildings I have to say this idea is 100% aweful. But . . . We can't actually say that because we DO know the buildings exist and they obviously form the keystone to these new changes. Until we get more data on them we can't consider anything else. There are a minimum of 14 buildings coming, with 34 total in the works. All of them will cost resources to build and maintain. Given about 23 total building slots in a city that means 60% of a city could be entirely the new buildings right off the bat, and eventually every single building built could be a T2 building. That is a total rework of the entire game. Until we see it, or get some answers why comment here at all? Without the data all we are doing is blowing hot air. All our considerations, all our reasoning, all or logic . . . is worthless without the answers to questions about these buildings. |
Posted By: bucky
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 01:52
SC has recently stated at least once in GC that no additional building slots will be added, with the possible exception of a harbor being added to those town contiguous to water, forcing choices on those who would specialize. ------------- "If you are the master be sometimes blind, if you are the servant be sometimes deaf." - R. Buckminster Fuller |
Posted By: McFarhquar
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 02:10
| When are these changes (particularly the food/tax change) going live? I'm sure I'm not the only one who needs to make development adjustments because of this. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 04:05
| Changes will occur sometime after August 31. |
Posted By: kitmub
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 04:13
i do alo remember something ike that from the past and based on the description about how the building would be it seems to be in town sovs building for the other news looks like i have to upgrade my res more now  ------------- just popping on and off abit crazy also 
|
Posted By: White Beard
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 04:58
|
having read all the post I have not found an answer. If you move a city do you loose the research that has been done for buildings that will be knocked down to lvl 12? What about troops, diplos and the amount of vans, will you keep the ones you have even if they are higher or the amount is higher then lvl 12?
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 05:07
|
Research would likely be kept and thus barracks/consulate level shouldn't effect your units (though the population de-leveling would likely offset your town balance and require reduction of those units) however I do wonder about the market, since market level is directly related to number of caravans...
------------- |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 07:42
|
Market level is not related to the number of caravans. As long as you have the market technologies, you could have 70 vans with maximum capacity. Caravan speed is 20+market level. So your caravans will be slower with a lower level market.
|
Posted By: lokifeyson
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 11:23
|
cool, i love progress :) -------------  |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 14:35
They must have changed that then. I think I had level 20 markets in most of my cities by then... ------------- |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 15:45
More gold available, in total, I think. Apparently created from somebody paying your population salaries? I still have a huge problem understanding how taxing all the population can have a percentage effect on ONLY Wood, Clay, Iron, Stone, Mana and Research. In particular, the output of advanced resources, such as livestock and armour is unaffected, and if I understand correctly also the output increase from boost buildings such as the sawmill since percentage modifications are additive and not multiplicative. I predict that people will run some cities at 100% tax with very little or no base resource buildings, while producing large amounts of advanced resources and gold. Other cities can then produce resources and ship in to maintain advanced resource production. (With no basic resource production, the effect of taxes on base resources would be 100% of 0 equals 0, so no need to cover that.) This would be every bit as much an exploit as the now corrected negative food exploit, because it allows obtaining huge taxes without a corresponding decrease in production. I suggest to replace the cost to the city of being taxed from calculated as percentage of different things by allowing a philosophers stone approach(new building?), where a set mix of resources are transformed into a unit of gold. Say, 1Wood, 1Clay, 1Iron, 1Stone, 1Mana and 1Research per hour thransforms into 10 gold per hour. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 15:50
|
Something that has caused a lively debate in our alliance is: How will the move happen precisely. Will it be a settler moving slowly across the map (essentially riscing another player having occupied the tile and loosing the whole city upon arrival) or as a teleport - instant travel, which only makes sense as long as pathfinding is not yet introduced? We cant really figure out how it will happen, anyone have any insight in this? |
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 15:59
I don't see how that would be an exploit, the city with 100% taxes loses out on basic resource production and the ability to use Sov to there full potential unless resources are sent from another city to cover the shortfall. It takes an effort on the players part to make it work and your taking resources away from another town possibly hurting its growth also.
It would be just as "exploitative" as the other, players building towns that are based completely on resource production instead of pop to max gold/hr income |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 17:13
Obtaining "taxes" without something actually being consumed, reduced or .. well, taxed, seems to me to be an exploit. What I do not like is that the reduction in productivity is completely unrelated to the increase in gold "taxation". If only the staff in the resource producing buildings are used in calculating the tax base, sure that is fine, but you would get as much taxes from moving population to other types of buildings that are not actually taxed. Because the taxations negative effects is in percentage of only some of the resources produced. The root problem is that the cause and effect of taxation is not calculated consistently. |
Posted By: McFarhquar
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 17:35
I'm not sure I agree. While advanced resource production isn't directly effected by tax rate, it's still limited by basic resource availability. You can make up resource shortages by shipping in from other cities, but *those* cities have to have surplus resources to ship, which means that they can't max out their tax rate. Likewise, you could buy basic res off the market, but doing that means giving up the extra gold you got from the higher taxes. In short, I think what you're calling an expolit is in fact one example of the behavior the devs want. Having one city specilize in advanced resource production and gold, while another city feeds it raw resources, is exactly the kind of scenario they've been talking about.
|
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 18:03
So what you want is all productions to be tied in with taxes? Thats all well good but it just means a person will have to gradually increase their tax rate while their troops accumulate it still wont stop a person from having 100% tax rate and a massive army just slow it down a bit, and if the person has enough gold stored they could just run 0% till they have enough troops then swap to 100%tax |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 18:50
|
I don't seem to get across here. :) I'll give two examples: Case 1) Two identical cities, 1000 population, 1000 production of all base resources and food: Cost per gold obtained in taxes is 1/4th of each resource. Case 2) Two different cities, both 1000 population, one with 2000 production of each base resources, one with 2000 production of food: Cost per gold obtained in taxes from the resource city is 1/2 of each resource, while the cost per gold obtained in the food city is zero. Conclusion: Although case 2 has the disadvantage of having to transport resources, the advantage of being able to run one of the towns at 100% taxation and the other at zero is not proportional to a "specialisation synergy" - it is completely out of proportion! If the cities in case 1 was to reach the same tax income (by 50% in both or any combination adding up to that), it would cost 250 per hour of each resource. The proposed set-up has the very strange effect that it pays more to tax towns that produce less of the resources that are actually used to "produce" the tax gold, because such a town would have spent more time upgrading other and more population intensive buildings. |
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 20:04
|
I find this line of thought baffling. Money is a fiction used as a method to redistribute and trade resources produced. Why would printing less money in any way effect your production? It happens in the game world because it's good for game balance. In the real world taxes help to take money out of banks and savings funds and get it working again within the economy facilitating trade. In particular this works because the governments in question buy things using money, rather than taking resources through direct ownership of the means of production such as farmlands or factories. In other sorts of economy the bureaucracy might be funded by collecting rents in the form of goods and services, or duties in the form of produced goods. Which equates to the fact that you personally can sell advanced goods on the market, to make the money you use to "pay" your soldiers. In the game we technically don't need taxes at all, economically speaking, because money isn't a status symbol, and people aren't tempted to think they "own" the money or that they "earned it", they aren't likely to hoard it, or to try to pass it on to offspring, or do other things that diverts the governments money from doing it's job within the economy and leaves people with a false sense of ownership over the nations lands, materials, or services. You can prove this underlying fact of ownership in how modern economies value their currency based on GNP and prestige. The value of a governments money is based on the goods it owns in the form of independent factories, mines, and farmlands, and upon the quality of distribution of those goods through services and institutions it owns and regulates within it's economy. All wealth comes from the land, owned by the government. This hard truth is, unfortunately, often masked by the polite fiction of individual property in most modern economies, but at bottom it's how things always work. A people owns the land and works it to produce goods, services, and a military force. Which they trade or leverage against other power blocks for whatever those blocks might have which they want or need. If they are successful in those trades and power plays their people gain access to more wealth and the standard of living for the nation rises, monumental works get produced, and we see a "golden age" of growth and progress, perhaps even swallowing up the foreign power block into our economy. Which leads to the basic problem currently facing the EU, they tried to merge the currency, and the ownership of everything, while trying to maintain separate jurisdiction over how that money was regulated and what it was allowable to do with it, or to gain/create the wealth backing it. Fail . . . and now they are faced with either making a real government, bandaging the kludge, or disolving the economy and it's money. |
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 20:19
|
Getting away from the weird talk about taxation as if it were some real and significant thing separate from the fiction of money printed or minted by a government . . . The argument about producing no resources breaks down in game terms because the new buildings all require resources per hour to run. So you can't simply build a town with no resource production and set the tax rate to 100% . . . not if your running any T2 buildings at all, or claiming any crafting sov at all. So you crank your tax rate to 100% and build no production buildings at all, or have no production with those buildings due to intense losses as those resources are gobbled up by the bureaucracy. This limits your crafting sovereignty which means you produce advanced goods more slowly than you would in a production based town. Even at level twenty your not going to get a cow in less than seven minutes without sov. Furthermore you can't build or support any of the 14-34 new structures that are coming out many of which may have significant impact on the game. Also what are you using that money FOR? Pretty much the answer is troops. If fortifications are added in then your town is now less defended, and your troops are worth less when fighting a more skilled player who has put up fortifications. To some extent we already see this trend with the defensive bonus' you gain from claiming sov, but it can be taken extremely far. After all in Illy we aren't defending a huge country, but a confederation of greek style city states, and simply bypassing the fortress won't work when the fortress IS the country your besieging. In such a tactical situation he who builds the biggest walls around the most food, water, and resources . . . wins. Who here imagines charging cavalry down narrow city streets over pits of spikes, murder holes, passed arrow slits, and perhaps over a moat? Nobody. Good, since that's an absolutely awful idea. Instead you'd send in your swordsmen and hope like bleep that they could survive the strong defenses and not get lost and ambushed on someone else's home ground. |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 21:59
Thank you for adding to the discussion, JohnChance. I do agree that the "taxes" and "gold" of the game differ a fair bit from what happens in real life. But that wasn't really my point, what I am saying is that the inherent instability that the devs did call an exploit is still there, though you have to look for it slightly differently. At least as I see this - by using an extreme setting for "taxes" you can get an unintended advantage since the drawback built into the design breaks down. Before, food need was what you could get away from, now it is "only" resource need. But at the same time, the importance of resources is said to be increased.
But I would have a base resource producing town nearby, pumping in base resources. Maybe several, as many as the gold from the 100%-tax town can sustain big enough armies for. Thus, there would not be any lack of resources, and in particular not the little wood it takes to produce cows. It is not quite the same scenario as the exploit of having negative-food towns producing gold and keeping large armies, but still I don't think that is an intended game mechanism. You are right, though, in that a 100%tax-town could not keep many sov squares, because research would be reduced to 25% by the "taxation". It might not be worth the hazzle to keep a library at all, depending on what the new buildings will be doing. |
Posted By: McFarhquar
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 22:28
But if you're using several cities to feed res into your gold farm, then you can't just look at that one town and say it's an exploit. You have to look at the aggregate production of all the cities in the system. I f you have one gold farm and 2 cities feeding it resources, how does combined production of those 3 cities compare to the combined production of 3 cities with less extreme setups? My gut feeling is you're not going to be seeing any great advantage, and it's going to be up to each player to look at his or her setup, what res plots/sov spots they have available, and what their own development goals are to optimize their layout, and I don't think we're going to end up seeing a single "best" layout that's universally adopted.
|
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2011 at 23:52
|
Exactly, no matter how much you move resources around you only have so many, and the new buildings, like the crafting sov, use up basic resources like clay, wood, iron, or stone. So if you aren't producing those resources then you can't support those buildings, or the sov that makes production efficient. Also armies may get a major nerf if fortifications come into serious play. Right now someone summed illy up as "How many friends you have and how many troops you have", but that goes out the window if those massed troops have to fight a real battle and storm a real fortress where the defenders are given huge advantage. At that point you need to infiltrate the defenses, sabatage them, assassinate the leaders, and then fight a battle using massive amounts of troops to really take the structure. We have to remember that this is supposed to be a sandbox game not a war game. So if right now everything fuels war and conflict, then we should expect war and conflict WILL get nerfed. |
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 03:58
| I would love the whole moving cities at will but dropping the building level is stupid. Im in a very crowded spot in the middle kingdom with two other huge players. The map looks like a field of blue and yellow with 3 green dots. I have two other cities way outside that area. |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 07:26
This is the problem with this game, it has the potential to be far better than games like evony because it allows new players to build up in peace but those restrictions are enforced by the community even when Vets attack each other. It Is supposed to be a war game as well as a sandbox game, therefore if the game is to evolve in a way to account for war like players, as well as sandbox players we need something to draw the fights outside our town. Much like a permanent tournament. I love the diplomacy of this game, but at the same time, even that would be improved if I felt there was a real threat of war, which would hurt both sides to an extent so should be avoided, but won't destroy months of work. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/conflict-without-loosing-players_topic2284.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/conflict-without-loosing-players_topic2284.html
|
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 07:49
|
isn't war covered under the term sandbox? people can do whatever they want in a sandbox game :) |
Posted By: White Beard
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 11:52
I agree with you, that is to many levels to loose and it will be very hard for non prestige players to make that back up. While I can see teh point of having a penalty this is way to much of one. And we do not know the hidden ( lost research , lost troop levels etc ) cost yet.
|
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 12:31
Level 12 seem very fair for a permanent solution. Please recall that you did allready had the chance to move your cities and if you are a new players you have that possibility still.
One can argue that they should have waited with the move until the factions was in place or even path finding but I like the fact that in this game your desicions have consequences. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 13:22
|
It would be nice if each player could have one movable camp which is not counted as regular settlement. These camps can be limited on level 10 structures for instance, or specialised for certain activity. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 14:18
| Is there any rough timeline for this, even if it was give or take 1 month it would be nice to know at what sort of time we should be prepared for this. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 15:09
many people might run their cities at 100% tax because of the way basic resources become useless after a point of time. But a base resource mine returns the invested resources back within a few days. It takes many weeks to build up a big city and the resources you have spent on mines would have returned many fold by the time your city is built. Trying to build up a city keeping a low resource rate is not economical. A city with less resource rate loose less by increasing the tax, but it is not much of an advantage. Again out of the 14 or 34 new buildings coming, atleast a few of them has to be very attractive. who knows, we might try to run at 5% tax for that extra resources! |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 15:27
I think the idea is that it's to give an alternative to sieging your city and rebuilding it from the ground up. So the move should only be used if your city location is in such a bad spot that you had either thought about sieging it previously or the loss of buildings would be worth the gain from moving. Edit: Woo! 500th post. =D ------------- |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 16:40
Yes - except that move brought the underlying terrain with it meaning no opportunity to drop cities on 7 farm squares. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that close to 100% of the moves people will make will end up doing that this time around. Also, given that the costs are exponential for build levels I think Lvl 15 would be fairer. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 18:51
|
I agree both are supposed to be possible, but right now that's not the case. As a player I can't play a purely peaceful and economic game because everything I build is directed at building troops. If I produce basic resources they exist to build building . . . which make advanced resources for soldiers, or fuel sov to make advanced resources to build soldiers/spies, or increase tax rate by size so I can build even more soldiers/spies . . . There is no single item I could be making that helps exert power and influence in this game in a peaceful manner. It all comes down to building or helping to build troops. I can't build goods to help build fortifications to make your troops worthless. I can't build special resources that go to building wonders of some sort . . . or buildings such as granaries, or workshops to upgrade from scratch to moldboard plows to help my farms produce more food . . . Or luxury goods that somehow impact the happiness of my cities so I produce advanced goods faster. Or advanced goods that go to help build up outposts, defensive forts, roads, trading posts etc . . . on my sovereign squares. Everything we do, peaceful or not is in preparation for war. Right now it isn't a war game and a sandbox game, it's just a war game, there is no other path than war or preparation for war. No other goal, and if the war never comes . . . as destructive as ILLY wars are . . . then what have you been building and playing for? Nothing at the moment as there is little else you could have been spending your time on. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 19:35
These days, it seems that hostilities are more along the lines of "peacekeeping" rather than alliance vs. alliance war. Having participated in more than my share of alliance vs. alliance wars in Illy, these are large, complex undertakings that usually result in 1 or more players leaving Illy after seeing months of effort sieged to digital dust. Also, these units are very useful for tournaments. I remain unconvinced that Illy is a "War Game." It is a Strategy Game. But since there are no Victory Conditions, it does not look like a War Game to me. So, John Chance, which alliance do you want WE alliance to go to war against? :)
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 19:44
I also disagree with this common misconception that Illy War is total war. Just because the last world war in Illy was pretty much total doesn't mean it has to be total war. I, for one, would espouse the community adopting war that isn't total. War that, when won, results in the victor being compensated and the loser being punished, but not necessarily totally. I think this is something that can only be accomplished through community pressure and if such a war happened and ended without the complete annihilation of the loser, then I think we would see more activity on the war front on an ongoing basis as opposed to this perception that any war will result in a complete wiping out of one side's cities. Just my 2 cents. |
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 20:08
|
@Eric Dirk "...if the game is to evolve in a way to account for war like players, as well as sandbox players we need something to draw the fights outside our town. Much like a permanent tournament." I totally agree. Since so many of the inter-personal escalations seem to just be name-calling and "upholding one's honor", it would be great to have a way of challenging another player to a duel.
I suppose full tournaments with archery and fencing and such wouldn't be far behind... |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 21:14
|
Everyone should remember that the 8 tournament "flag" squares are available for private jousting matches. Those squares have all NAPs/Confeds disabled so the jousting can take place regardless of alliance diplomacy stance. Also, alliances may make agreements to limited scale battles: first to land a bombardment on the enemy wins, etc. However, I have seen few (any?) alliance vs. alliance wars that did not result lost cities and lost players.
|
Posted By: JohnChance
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 21:21
|
The_dude, Actually I'd hate to go to war, because war is so terrible. I built the units and train them as you say, to be a deterrant, but when I analyze everything out I'm not sure what buildings I have that exist for an ultimately PEACEFUL purpose, or what trade goods I produce that aren't eventually going to be used in a military troop, or a hostile diplomatic unit. The entire economy seems to be centered on bulding and losing troops. Even some of the upcoming changes seem centered on that, with factions providing a new place for you to lose troops either by being attacked or by attacking them. I'd really like to see more things that WE can do peacefully. I could include quests here, but ultimately the quest system is just a resource exchange system where you click twice and somehow end up with rank points for it . . . That's why I predict that war and military are due to see a nerfing, because any focus on things that don't ultimate contribute to building, maintaining, etc . . . hostile units would move away from attack and defense (deterrent is a form of defense) being the centerpoint of the game. PS - My post was in original response to this post:
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 21:54
That's why we need Rill's Famous Nuts! My nuts will be useful as a store of value and a mechanism of trade, in addition to being a handsome addition to the mantle at Christmas! I'm laughing, but I think the idea of craftable objects that players can make and sell that will add value in economic or aesthetic ways is a great idea!
|
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 22 Aug 2011 at 22:44
I went down another avenue with that until I read your profile. Carry on. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 03:31
Mind... Gutter.... Separate! ;) |
Posted By: Kafka
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 03:33
|
haha! I had this daydream of crafting a famous cheese that boosts the morale of troops and increases the loyalty of your people and could make you rich! Of course, that would mean that loyalty and troop morale would have to become variables of the game mechanics, and also turf specific goods, like Champagne, would become variables. i know all that is too complex, but i can still daydream. ------------- One day I awoke from unsettling dreams to find myself transformed into a medium-sized Illyriad player |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 04:59
|
I'm not really sure the de-leveling of buildings is entirely necessary as the 5 day wait to use any troops/units, plus the travel time of the settler already effectively inhibits moving cities as an offensive stratergy, however in perspective of actions have consequences i'm happy with the devs choice as an initial release. However I'd expect that in the theme of specialisation, when they get the chance that they would actually implement nomadic cities as a research and build choice. Changes could include. No walls, siege units, siege workshop can be built. Thieves/ assassins/ sabutors are considered dishonourable so these diplos can't attack, however are twice as effective in defence. Farms become hunting tents which produce food normally, however after a month production linerly decreases as the game in the area is depleated. (nomadic cities are actually forced to move) (note normal farms cannot be built in nomadic cities. Cattle and horses are central to a nomadic community therefore buildings like tannery, common ground fletcher, spearmaker, etc remain at level 20 as do hunting tents, however moving a blacksmith for example is an impracticality.This sort of game change would add a lot more depth to city design and would be fantastic, but the limitations would prevent exploitation in setting up a siege.
The frequent moving of the city would also inhibit sov claims, so would require further considerations in city layout.
In terms of the old tournament squares I don't think that these are sufficient to satisfy a need for conflict. holding these squares have no strategic value, strategic points may be war for the sake of greater military prowess but it's still much better than fighting over a square for no reason at all.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 12:34
| Thank you dev-team for looking into this so careful and presenting us with such a dynamic solution. I'm very glad you guys took the time to try and address our concerns in this area of Illyriad's mechanics. I look forward to trying out the changes once they arrive. |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 13:23
|
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 13:32
|
Totally true TC, I said that only from a game balance point of view, however some things would be easier to move than others, a level 20 hunting tent would more likely involve better tools to skin the animals and training of hunters, where as moving a level 20 farm would be ummm... impossible because i imagine part of improving the farm would be in removing rocks from the soil... |
Posted By: Aneirin
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 14:06
|
Can't see how nomadic cities is going to enhance the game.
I can see how the novelty of being able to move a precious city is going to appeal to many in the short term but in the long term it renders the world map and all it's features meaningless.
I think it devalues any strategic enjoyment in the game. Any serious gamer would realise that a game has to have a strategic purpose rather than endless gadjet up grades and quick fixes designed just keep people happy until the novelty wears off.
Personally I would rather have seen the lore of Illyriad developed with add ons, mysteries and/or campaign involving npc (or dev controlled units) on the one hand and the various alliances of the community on the other. Erik Dirk has come with an idea that might suit a "Campaign" type initiative where talks of conflict taking place over a series of squares. I think the game needs to establish a "strategic purpose" or set of purposes loosley linked to the game lore.
Nomadic cities seems like just another short term thrill to keep us all interested? Our needs are BIGGER!
|
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 14:16
Moving cities and nomadic cities are different dynamics; also nomadic cities didn't get a soon (tm) estimate so I think you are safe  |
Posted By: GM Gryphon
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 16:48
Aneirin-- We believe that the ability to move cities will actually increase the strategic enjoyment of the game. Players will now have the ability to move cities that are in locations they don't want them to be in any more to focus on populating more strategic areas, clustering with their alliance, grabbing a key potential port location, moving near to a trade hub, etc. All of these reasons to move will only make the player's new location that much more valuable to them, more likely to be defended and have a greater strategic value. We are also constantly adding content. In fact, there are mysteries out there today that nobody has solved yet. And more will follow. What we don't want to do is make the game a linear track (solve mystery A, get the golden key, then go unlock the secret castle, rescue the princess and get the mystery, etc....) It's a sandbox game, not Zelda. As such, while we create content, it needs to be something that players can experiment with and not the focus of the gaming experience. We want players to create their own content in the form of alliances, wars, diplomatic treaties, land conflicts, trade pacts, etc. And enabling the players to locate their cities where they choose is a big part of that. And I'm sorry if you think that that is a short term thrill. I'd be surprised if the majority of the player base agree with you. |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2011 at 17:53
|
Shakespeare's Richard III, 1594:
-------------
|
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 09:50
Who gives a S*** what you have to say. You dont even play the game. Or if you do you hide under an alias. Pretty cowardly. Either way your perennial whingeing and moaning whilst contributing nothing continues to illustrate your general complete lack of maturity. You're a reverse market indicator (when you say buy its probably a good time to sell). You whingeing means the Devs are on the right track. Im guessing they'd actually seriously question themselves if you applauded them or showed even an ounce of gratitude. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Aneirin
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 11:21
As Aneirin I am forum member, the same as anyone else and I am entitiled to state my opinon ,even if I get it wrong now and again, without being the recipient of abuse and (censored) personalised insults from you.
Elsewhere I have announced that I have given up my two accounts and have repeatedly asked the devs to close this forum account. They have not as yet, but I suspect they will very soon.
In this game I have been neither a coward nor a whinger. I have spoken out against what I saw as bullying and intimidatory tactics of others, including your self, knowing that it would likely result in a siege of my cities. That is not cowardice.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 15:16
"Reverse Market Indicator"--- Absolutely PRICELESS!!! I stand in awe of Lyly's ability to use financial terminology in such an exquisitely and adroitly cutting fashion! He gets the Verbal Scalpel Award for the month!!!  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 16:29
|
Verbal Scalpel Award. That sounds so prestigious for all the right reasons. Want. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 16:49
I know. The perennial cross of the troll: Persecution by dictatorial forces for simply exercising one's right to free speech. Save me. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Aneirin
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 19:33
O boy Kumo, HM and little Lawn of Stench have all come out to play and trash the thread by attacking me instead of staying on topic. The Three Pooflingers of Harmless?  Well I suppose I'll respond by sinking to their level by showing them how I love and respect them in my final parting shot Bye all. Have fun |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 19:42
The full title is "Verbal Scalpel Award-- The award of excellence in literary evisceration"... ;) |
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2011 at 21:35
When will this be going live, is there a set date or will it be soon(tm)?
When moving a city in this manner will it pick up and travel like a settler or will it be an instant move like the spell? |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 03:04
Very, very soon. However, the new buildings still need to be fully balanced and released before the next point, as we don't want players lurching from one balance point, to another and then to another - that is outside their choice alone:
If you look too hard, no doubt you will be unfortunate enough to discover it in time.... alas...
|
Posted By: White Beard
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 03:36
|
Why have the huge penalty if the travel moving speed of a city is very slow? There is really no need for that as the city will not be doing it's normal outside activities. My earlier question about the research above lvl 12 has not been answered. What happens to all this research, will we loose it and have to research it all again? What happens to troops diplos that are all above lvl12, will they be lost? What about the vans that are above lvl 15 do we keep them or do we have to do the research and build them again? thank you for your reply on these questions
|
Posted By: nvp33
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 04:05
|
Since having your city reduced to 1 lvl 1 building doesn't remove any tech, I doubt that reducing the buildings to lvl 12 will affect your tech. As for your caravans, if they die of I can imagine you will have to rebuild your marketplace to get them back, but other than that I don't think they will die off because your market place looses a few lvls. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 04:21
| Number of caravans is controlled by technology, not by market level. Levelling up the market allows one to research technologies, but once they are researched the ability to have more caravans, and the caravans, continues. |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 04:28
|
Posted By: Leungarific
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2011 at 04:29
Quite frankly LOJ, I'm all for supporting you, most of the time. However, if the devs thought fit to answer Aneirin's queries, I fail to see why you must intrude upon it, and especially with such crudeness and hate, more suited to the Politics and Bitter Sea sections? As GM Gryphon said, (paraphrasing here), it is unlikely that most of Illyriad's community would agree with Aneirin's suggestions anyway, so why try and derail the topic with "Omg look, a troll! Must disregard the viability of anything said by and to him in the thread, and instead must insult it and keep it busy until the sun rises as backup!"? Please, my friend. Let this discussion be about the changes and suggestions for further changes, not a generic vendetta against Aneirin. ~awkward silence~ On the note of the changes, I had a question of my own. Will the resource boosting buildings (Mills, Kiln, Stonemason, etc) also be demolished to the same level as the resource plots, or do those retain their original level? |