Progress Update
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=2418
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 19:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Progress Update
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: Progress Update
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 17:42
|
Hi All, Just wanted to give a progress update on where we are on the release cycle. Things were slightly delayed by ThunderCat's unexpected trip to ER to have his foot stitched back together, having stood heavily on a large china cup whilst chasing a spider. I do truly wish I was making that up. New Building Releases are In Progress We expect to get the 20 New Buildings (with 25 new technologies) out over the next couple of days. 2 Buildings have already been released and the release pace should pick up from here on in. As we're releasing the required research technology onto live we're also updating the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/advance-notice-new-buildings_topic2401.html" rel="nofollow - new building list here with the values of what this building actually provides in terms of benefit. Moving Cities is En Route The Exodus technology and the ability to move cities (with penalties) are still scheduled for release shortly. Decoupling Food from the Taxation Slider Is Postponed, possibly Cancelled Whilst doing final testing for balance against real, ingame player cities over the weekend, we've run into some potentially highly exploitable issues that decoupling food would raise. Right now - and for the foreseeable future - decoupling food from the taxation slider is on hold, until we can navigate a way through the exploit this would open up. At this point I don't want to go into any further details on this possible exploit for fairly obvious reasons; our first task is to ascertain whether it's being used currently (in a much more limited form that would be massively exacerbated by decoupling food). It may not even be an exploit as the game stands right now - but it's certainly going to become one if we decouple food. At this point we don't know what form a workaround might take - or even if one is possible - but it's a fairly fundamental issue at the heart of it, that's going to require an awful lot more thought. We realise players may have made plans based on this change, however we must also preserve the game's integrity - and it's only fair that we let you know before we release Moving Cities. It would be worse for you to actually move and then have us decide not to decouple food. So we're sorry about this volte face, but it was unanticipated and - frankly - we're delighted it got identified before release. After release, it could have been a truly game-breaking disaster. The Rumourmill We've had angry Petitions from players asking us why we've cancelled the moving cities exodus expansion (we haven't, see above). We've also seen players in Global Chat talking about how excited they are about the release of naval units later this week (naval units are highly unlikely to happen *this year* let alone this week). We've received some quite abusive rants along the lines of "why are you working on 3D buildings when you promised x?" (because 3D-model-makers don't actually write algorithms for Faction AI). So we'd be grateful if players could stick to the facts of what has been announced officially in this forum, with the most recent mention or announcement taking precedence over any earlier incarnations. We love communicating, we love sharing our plans and thoughts with everyone, and we love that you feel so passionate about Illy that you take the time to let us know about the good, the bad and the indifferent (although some of the more sensitive members of the team would meekly request less swearing in Petitions, please!). Communication between us and you is what makes the game better. However, it only works if it's based on what's been announced rather than rumour. In short, if we haven't announced something, don't expect it. If we have announced something, do expect it - unless we announce otherwise. We know the most usual question is "when", and that the answer "soon" is frustrating. But it's better all-round than making an artificial deadline and then missing it. Nothing is 100% confirmed until released, and - even after release - is subject to the nerfbat and/or the buffbubble. What's Next After the new buildings are all out there, and exodus (moving cities) has been released, team TC is going to be working on ingame chat functions (private, invite-only, player-run etc) as well as a host of Alliance tidy-ups and social tools (such as friend lists, ingame notepads etc). Team SC is moving onto new spell schools alongside finishing up the release of Trade v2 (with new trade-specific buildings etc), military quests and faction AI. After those are done, one of us will take crafting, and the other pathfinding (pre-cursor to naval units). Smaller content releases (tournaments, mysteries) and bug fixing etc will continue to occur throughout. When? Soon. Best wishes, SC
|
Replies:
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 17:53
|
awww man... great work and stuff... keep it up.. kinda sad about the food thing.. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 17:56
|
Master Stormcrow, Thank you for the update. My builders are looking forward to new challenges. I am sad to hear that taxes will continue to effect my food production, and I look forward to this being altered so that I am not penalized for having a large army and a large city. - Geofrey |
Posted By: Babbens
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 17:59
| take your time, better safe than sorry |
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:11
Keeps me happy!   A large case of Red Bull (and small bottle of vodka) on route to help with the code writing!  ------------- Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either! "Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude |
GM Stormcrow wrote:Posted By: Sandtrail
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:19
|
That'll teach him to leave spiders alone. They are, after al, useful creatures. But still, I hope he will recover promptly. Oh, and thanks for the update on the updates. :D |
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:26
Just as a matter of interest is the spider okay after its ordeal? Does it need post-traumatic stress counselling? On a serious note I did something similar a few years back so hope TC gets back on his paws soon. ------------- Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either! "Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:29
|
Spiders?!! TC stays somewhere in Turalia I guess.. Get well soon TC!
 |
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:43
|
Woot! City moving down from soon to imminent to shortly. To quote Tom Petty "The waiting is the hardest part" |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 18:59
I'm in tears here. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 20:56
|
Sorry to hear about TC's china ... incident. Take care of yourself. And thanks for the new buildings and the clarification of the upcoming stuff.
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 21:06
|
sympathies for TC, my cat chases spiders too, must make sure I dont leave crockery mine traps around. and thanks for the update, personnaly thought food decoupling would make large accounts too devistating anyway. cant wait for that AI release, but guess I will have to |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 21:50
If food decoupling doesn't take place is there any chance you'd consider deleveling our buildings to only 16 for a few weeks  and GM bashing?! that seems more than a little unfair.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 22:11
|
GM TC should have scouted that Giant Spider before attacking it. Total noob mistake! Seriously, I hope you heal quickly TC.
|
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:35
|
I know this is 'slightly' off subject, but some things are too irresistible to pass up... Apologies in advance TC Failed attack against Giant Spiders (NPCs)'s forces at Square 0|0 by GM ThunderCat's forces from Illyriad Central Feet come into their own when able to strike hostile forces at will, and from unexpected directions - and nowhere is this more feasible than on open carpets. Lightly armoured feet, however, prefer terrain where there's some cover available. Fighting defensively on open carpets, spiders draw strength from the ability to form and reform their lines of engagement depending on the direction of battle, and it is here where china porcelain excels.
------------- Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either! "Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: Gratch
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:37
Nicely done Manannan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:38
|
That. Is. AMAZING! ------------- Cake |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:54
| New buildings coming soon: Exterminator, and Cordwainer. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:57
| lmao, well done Mana! |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2011 at 23:59
| I like the Feet and China Cup in the report. Very nicely done, Mana. |
Posted By: bucky
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 00:13
|
great stuff, mana... and please heal fast but thoroughly, mister tc. ------------- "If you are the master be sometimes blind, if you are the servant be sometimes deaf." - R. Buckminster Fuller |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 00:34
 Though I suspect there's a needed Attacking Troops line for Unit: "Alcohol", Quantity: "Eleventy". |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 01:24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 07:59
| Try 'raiding' the spider next time TC - an all-out attack can be costly against unknown forces. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 12:06
| So as food is no longer being decoupled, is th enegative food exploit going to continue as an option??? |
Posted By: Testudo
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 12:18
This ist an important question: will this highly unfair exploit ever be stopped? |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 14:59
| When you deal with the alliance stuff... Please don't forget about the alliance forums. Many of us like using them, and a delete option for threads (at the very least) would be GREATLY appreciated. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 15:20
Yes, we are going to go back to the original plan and implement the following change: a) If you run negative on any basic resource (W, C, I, S & F) in your town and have none stockpiled, and b) Your city is above 50 population, then c) You will cease to collect any taxes and your gold reserves will be depleted We think this will largely (but not entirely) close the window on the most concerning aspects of this exploit, and this change will happen very soon. Further "city shutdown" penalties for entirely running out of basic resources will be implemented in the future.
Absolutely, very much on the list. Regards, SC |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 15:25
Sounds interesting, many thanks SC |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 17:02
Nah, Creat. What he SHOULD have done is besieged the spider and kill it by firing the china cup at it with his catapult Mark 1 (arm)... |
Posted By: Rhea
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 18:44
|
It would be nice if somehow food production could be raised since they won't be decoupling it. Maybe another food building or more food sov. squares --or increase production output from the farms. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:03
| What happened with the account sitting changes? |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:06
Was wondering the same. That was a very good change that is needed ------------- 
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:11
|
I would push for a decoupling of basic resource produced from sovereign claims to occur so that the disparity between settling on a 5 farm square vs. a 7 farm square is lessened rather than enhanced by nearby food claims. As it stands currently, just settling on a 7 farm square settlement nets you ~2.5K more food per hour at 100% tax rate with no sovereignty claims over a 5 farm square settlement. Every plus ten bonus sovereignty claims adds another 465 food per hour disparity. I suggest that the sovereign square bonuses for basic resources (wood, clay, iron, stone and food) be a set amount based on the individual rating of the claimed square resources instead of linking the output amount based on a particular settlements output. This might encourage earlier sovereign claims to help boost resource production as it will be more economical in some instances. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:21
Interesting point. It would also tend to even out race-based disparities in sov production related to plot distribution. However, the devs have been preaching specialization and differentiation lately, so I'm not sure this is a goal of theirs. I haven't thought it through well enough to know whether that's a good thing or not.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 20:54
When they first mentioned new buildings, I was guessing that one of them would be some sort of "super flourmill" that would further enhance food output. Oh well. 
|
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:00
plot distribution in capital cities will be easily changed once we can move cities, since underlying won't follow us. still will need to place a second city, but players should be able to send settlers to where they want to live before (or after relocating capital) then move capital onto a "good" location that will give better resource plot allocation. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:02
|
I like TDs idea of super flourmill. No need to punish players that were farsighted enough to settle 7 farm spot.Illy is not comunist world where everyone has to be equal in terms of res production , namely food in this case.I would like to see some solution that would be fair for 5 farms city players but i would not liked to be forced to be equal with them.It was not hard for me to calculate that 7 farms are better for pop growt and army size when i settled my second city more then year ago, everyone was free to make same decision. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:12
|
The problem with a super flourmill is that it will only further enhance the disparity since it works on percentage increase. And with the new buildings it looks like the max population will likely be raised making a 7 farm settlement all the more necessary. Many of the veterans that started within the first month of the games release did not have "sovereign" etc. to guide their city placement choices. The ability to move cities is a step in the right direction but only as a band-aid.
|
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:33
What do you feel the decoupling of food from taxation would do? At larger populations, players have armies and so need to have taxes set higher than 0% (likely even higher than 25%) which means that decoupling would actually provide more available food regardless of being on a 7 plot or a 5 plot. Still obviously being on a spot with more available food allows for a higher overall population that can be supported, provided that our buildings can give us enough pop to max out. I'm wondering how much the decoupling will change the 'need' for all towns to be placed on a 7 food plot near a 15+ food plot. I know that decoupling has been put on hold due to problems, but it is still being planned. Also if building level cap is ever increased to say level 30, things may change as well. Then again, perhaps it will always be more beneficial to have a town placed on a 7-food plot... |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:38
|
Maybe best solution would be to offer some mystery/discovery (similar to statues)that could give lets say 25%-30% to food production but only to cities with 5 farms.Since that library thing mystery was limited only to players with library under lvl5 maybe something similar can be done to increase food production of 5 farm cities. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:46
|
I am against decoupling food from taxation. That would just mean you would run all towns at 100% tax for the most part without worry. Mind you, on a settlement of 7 farms you would only need a bonus of 50 to run at 26,995 pop; a bonus of 83 for 6 farms, and 129 bonus for 5 farms. This will allow a base of at least ~120K gold/hour upkeep for armies/diplomats. With the possible increase in max population it will do nothing to decrease the disparity between 5 and 7 food settlements. I am for decoupling food sovereign production from a percentage based on your settlement's production to a flat production rate based on the # of farms on the claimed square. (food also applying to any of the basic resources wood, clay, iron, stone). As in each building level on a 10 food square producing 100 food per hour...That is just an example, I haven't done any sort of calculations to figure out what would be a better output ration. It might make for more competition for those highest of high resource squares and also open up a reason to build in the hill country where more often then not are the dark areas on the strategic map. |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:46
| Its fairly obvious this has been a 2 month farce , that has done nothing but discourage players that play fair? |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:57
|
If idea is to even 7 farm cities with 5 farm when it comes to food production it would be unfair for that to be achieved by hurting players with 7 farm cities.Instrument should be given to those with 5 farm cities to increase their food production.I have chosen site for my cities carefuly considering both food sovs and 7 farms with idea to have taxes close to 100%.Why is that wrong?Why should i be forced to lower taxes or food production cos others are not happy with what they have done with their cities? Fair thing is to give them something to remedy that situation and not to discriminate players that made wiser decisions when settling.I like my large armies and my 90% taxes, why should i be forced to lower them and my food production cos others can not keep high taxes? |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:02
| It wouldn't even the production as a 7 farm city has an inherit advantage of 2.5K production per hour at 100% tax. It would however, keep the disparity from increasing by 465 production per hour per 10% food bonus claimed. |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:06
| if you understood the game ya wouldnt have tax at 100% unless ya was using one of the many loopholes? |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:09
If you understood the game, you would realize that with food sovereign claims, 100% tax rate is quite feasible to sustain and maintain 1K plus food growth. If you understood the game, you would realize that in order to do so you can't go hog wild with pop...hence why my capital is not the largest pop city. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:12
|
When i settled i also had that disparity in mind :) it is not anomaly.It was free for all to use, and i did.Nothing unfair about that.Just like some players settle near sovs that gives bonus to cow production, or speed to cavalry production.Are those also advantages that needs to be decoupled just because some has them and some dont? But i agree that 5 farms cities have problems with upkeep and gaining more pop needed for new cities,and that problem wont be solved by taking advantages from 7 farm cities, but with giving instruments to 5 farm cities to overcome it.Fault is not in 7 farm cities, for it was only one direction in game that some players took and others dont. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:17
| Selwyn i never use loopholes :) game offers enough for those who know how to use, and it is all legal. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:17
|
Sloter: many of the vets did not have that disparity even on the horizon when they settled their cities. Sovereignty was not even hinted at/implemented till many months into the game. They did not have the option of running models/calculations to best choose their initial cities placements till many months into the game. What I am suggesting maintains the 2.5K advantage of a 7 farm city over a 5 farm city without furthering the disparity with every bonus farm claimed.
|
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:22
| i know sloter :) is just funny to watch how people cry out , when everything dont go their way, it was obvious to many of us how important picking a good site was, many people didnt care and went with old loophole philosophy, now they squeal and shout in forums till they get something that suits them, the decoupling food from tax was a very good idea till some realised eventually, it made wise choices , even more wise |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:30
|
I am vet also from early 2010 and i figured it out even then with my second city, it was obvious without calculations.And many other vet players did the same.But
i can live with that decoupling.It is just weird reverse way of solving problem.Reducing income from those that used game tools fairly and to best capacity so that those who made worse choices can be more competative. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:35
|
Yes Selwyn that is why i think that my idea about mystery that rewards increase of base food production to certain % or even fix amount of 800 grain per lvl 20 farm in 5 farm cities and ONLY 5 farm cities might be good (few posts back) if i can be so "modest" to say that. It would not punish those who made good choice, but it would offer those that have food income problem to improve their situation and achieve same food production as 7 farm cities. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:37
| except there might be problem if they move their city after that to 7 farm location and get even more food.... best to let GM think of solution for all this food problem, they did good so far. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:40
|
Hi all, Yes, we will (mostly if not completely) close the loopholes as stated - and we do very much apologise for the sudden change of plan here but we really felt that closing one loophole only to open up a *much* larger one wasn't the way forward. Illy game balance is a delicate thing, and, as mentioned, I'm super-glad we spotted the (next) exploit before we made the change - regardless of how frustrating it is for everyone to suddenly put-on-hold hold (and probably abandon) a fair chunk of code we'd spent a long time discussing and writing. The "negative production and no storage city-tax-shutdown" is going to get priority treatment in the coming few days. It's not a complete solution, but it's many times better than where we currently are, and there are further aspects of the "city shutdown" that we will be implementing shortly. Again, apologies. SC |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:43
|
was obvious to me early on looking at game mechanics, importance of picking a good site, some agreed and saw logic of it , some didnt and said food wasnt important, look at my capital , i made mistake of listening to bad advice, then sussed it out and made 2nd city on a fairly good site |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:48
| caused a lot of problems SC , will have to delete about 9k population, and thats just me personally, dunno about all the people in alliance I advised :( WE was all playing fair and stuck to rules |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:51
So why not have an uhh.. ability ro function to allow players to essentially start over their cities with a levels thingado, you know, you did 108 total level upgrades in city A, choose 108 building level upgrades you'll do, whether it be for the same strat or a new one, may not have mad that clear ------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:53
Early on the game mechanics did not include food considerations for population limits because sovereignty was not implemented till several months into the game. Game mechanics have changed considerably for many of the veterans in the game and I see it as only fair that they get this opportunity to correct early decisions based on information that was not available to them or even hinted. I am glad that the GMs recognize this fact and have instituted a method to resolve the way in which game mechanics have changed since the beginning.
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:55
I think the GM's resolution of moving your cities and taking a hit with all buildings being lowered to level 12, diplomats/miltary locked into city for 5 days addresses the concern quite adequately. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:55
|
You dont need to lose pop if you are activ you can cover negativ gold income with trades until GM sthink what is best way to handle this, and keep low taxes.I have minus 6k gold in capital p/h but i trade 1 milion gold per day in average to capital only.One advantage of larger players is that we can undersell advance res since we produce mass amount of them, and you can use that in this times when you have tax problems. |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:57
------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 22:59
| i think decoupling food from tax was a good solution, it seemed to calm you all down for a while also, puzzled as to why your all not all up in arms again ? |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 23:16
|
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 23:19
| /me dont get quoting 2 previous posts? |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 23:22
| i dont agree anymore with what devs did than i agree with your point of view? |
Posted By: lokifeyson
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 23:50
|
well thankfully i still settled my newest town on a farm anyway lol
-------------  |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 00:04
|
My goodness! I step away from Illy for a couple of hours to do some actual work and look at all the ... I dunno... excitement? I want to be sure I am following this whole "excitement". Please indulge me by starting at the beginning.
So the "exploit" that is currently in use is this: A fully developed city cranks up taxes and depletes food in order to support as many units as possible. Even going into the red on gold income and provide gold through other means than taxes. The current "penalty" for no food is that you can't order new research or buildings in your queues. Since the city is fully developed, this no real penalty. Hence the exploit. Do I understand the initial problem being addressed by the Devs? If so, I disagree with the sentiment that this exploit is somehow not playing fair. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 00:11
Hmmm.... this can really make a player vulnerable if attacked. I have had my storage emptied by armies before. Toss in some siege attacks to hit resource production (most likely targets of siege hits), and a player attacked could have his city suddenly shut-down. Now taxes are turned-off which means gold reserves are consumed rapidly supporting units. Yikes! And then the meanies hit with T2 thieves and steal gold. Double Yikes! Hmmm.... Makes city attacks even more lethal.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 00:30
Don't forget blockade. You'll also want to blockade so they can't get supplies from outside. Makes one appreciate the vault a lot more, for sure ... course it could get hit by a siege engine too. In all likelihood the siege will have not just hit resource production buildings but also other buildings, thus reducing the population, so if the city is reasonably balanced to begin with this will not be as bad as it might seem at first glance. Does argue for keeping a healthy margin of production if you're at war -- and for leveling down some high-population buildings before the siege begins, which I think I saw mentioned once in a guide to siege procedures. Am interested to hear more from people who have experienced (and inflicted) sieges in this regard.
|
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 00:55
Who is going to buy these resources, if alot of the vets have their gold tied up in sov to keep their food up or have low taxes to keep their food up, the newbies wont make enough gold to sustain many large players especially if they are undercutting each other and driving the prices down further. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 01:05
| I think gold has become a much more strategic asset. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 01:33
|
I could run on -6k gold in all of my cities for nearly a year. As long as it was temporary I don't think most vets would struggle all that much.
-------------  |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 04:05
The exploit the GMs are talking about. as I understand, deals only with food. If you go negative in taxes your entire military and diplomatic corps walks out on you. However, you can max pop your city out, running ridiculously negative on food maintaining 100% tax all the time. This leaves you with an income of roughly 125K per hour. With food at 0 stored and running a negative food per hour income, the only penalty was that you could not queue up any more builds or any more advanced resources. At max pop or near max pop, the inability to queue more buildings is not a penalty since you will not be planning on building anything anyway. To get around the penalty for the advanced resources you need only ship yourself enough food to sustain a positive storage of food while you queue up the advanced resources you wish to produced. Once queued, you will still crank out whatever is in the queue as you let your food fall back to 0. This has been fixed or will be fixed in the future by whenever one of your basic resources reaches a negative amount your taxes will not be adjusted to a level that you are producing a postive amount of that resources. Further, the GM's are saying that during your 0/negative levels of basic resources you will neither collect taxes nor will you produce any advanced resources. Yes, as I understand the exploit, I do not feel it is fair. I have no problem with any of these fixes as I have never taken advantage of this exploit nor do I know anyone that has. I will add that since April I have made between 30-50M selling food so I have my suspicions of players that might have been using this means to sustain their empires. With that said, my argument has been to fix the huge disparity between 5 farm cities and 7 farm cities. I do not agree with decoupling food from taxes because it basically allows you to do the above legitemately if you have built your cities on a 7 farm square. As I've mentioned several times: it would take a mere 50% increase to food to run a 7 farm city at max pop(26995) at 100% maintaining a food income of 1K. This only enhances, in my opinion, the disparity between a 5 farm city and 7 farm city since you need over 129% to to maintain a max pop city on a 5 farm square. My position regarding the food decoupling is that tieing resource income to a percentage of your settlement's base production only enhances this disparity. It forces players, in order to maintain competiveness, to settle only on 7 farm squares. For every percent increase you claim for a 5 farm city the same percent increase will net a 140% bonus production to a 7 farm city. This goes against the Developers professed ideal of encouraging diversity. My idea to bring the disparity between 5 farm cities and 7 farm cities more inline would be have the basic resource soveriegn buildings produce a flat rate. Mind you, it isn't perfect either, but it would benefit newer players more since the initial claims would net a higher percent of their initial resource income provided they specialized their research fully down that tree. Further, it will open up more of the map to viable settlement. One has only to look at the strategic map and zoom into all the empty spots to see that 95% of the large empty space is hill/mountain/forest. A 7 farm city would still maintain a 2.5K food per hour food income advantage over a like 5 farm city; however, the disparity would not increase by 465 food per hour for every 10% bonus that each city claims for their sovereign squares. I hope that clarifies my stance on these changes.
|
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 13:58
|
I have one suggestion that I feel really HAS to be implemented if the GM's don't decouple food and that is that new cities should now be based on more than population, but city size which is a function of total population + 1/4 resources consumed by buildings, and perhaps limit max cities to 10. This way we only have to balance potential gold income V.s crafting/special building potential rather than the much more inbalanced balancing the potential for more cities Vs crafting potential |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 14:10
|
Oh and in regards to Anjires post (no not troll acusations) I think giving food a flat rate for sov is a very good idea and may make my last post unneccessary, but perhaps make it so that you recieve a bonus based on average building level rather than total pruduction, so that new players cant just neglect farms in favor of gold income
. I'm not sure about changing the workings of the other basic resource sov tho.
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 14:34
Another way of accomplishing this would be to restrict Sovereign research of the basic resource to an average level of all such basic resource buildings or based on the level of the associated advanced building for the basic research. This would restrict newer players to level I, II buildings while they worked on getting their resources up and running. Example for food: I would suggest for every average level of 3 you can research the next Sov Level Based on the average level of farms, 0, 2, 2 , 5, 5, 7, 7 = 28/7 = average level of 4. This would allow you to build/research Level 1 farms. You'd need to advance to average of 6 to build/research level II, 9 for III, 12 for IV, and 15 for V. If doing the associated advanced building instead, you'd have upgrade the flourmill to level 3.6.9.12.15 to be able to build a level I, II, III, IV, V farm on a sovereign claim. I would be more in favor of this latter set up. (Research would have to be looked out since many players have all the tech researched already so it will probably need to be a requirement based on the advanced building level) As far as the actual amount a flat rate would apply, I would think it to be somewhere between 5-10 per resource amount per level of building. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:19
| Another solution would be, when then clay/wood/stone/iron upkeep of the new buildings would be counted as population, too. So a 7 stone square would do equal benefits as a 7 food square => more diversity... |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:21
Yes, TD, but--- You need to have a very large stockpile of gold and food in your city if you plan on withstanding a major siege for a long time... That strikes me as being really realistic! And you shouldn't be able to get a ton of resupply through a large siege either... So I think these are quite in line with reality, no? |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:25
The problem with that is, a 5-farm city with maxed out farms can currently get 100 food (1% of 10,070) from a 5 farm sovereignty tile per level of sovereignty. If this is to be changed to 5-10 per resource, they would get 25-50 food per level. More starvation! They would have to give atleast 20 per resource amount per level of building so as not to disrupt the current situation. If that is the case, people would start claiming sovereignty for other basic resources as well. This would make sovereignty an attractive option for smaller towns too.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:27
I think the Heart of Darkness really brings this game in line with reality. ;) Ummm... are we trying to make this game realistic or fun? |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:50
You've never seen a Heart of Darkness before? ;) I'm all for magic, but in the absence of said magic, doesn't it make sense to be as realistic as possible? If you want to drop a magical resource teleportation spell I'd have no issues per se, but shouldn't we aim to stick to realism in the absence of magic? (or am I being too anal?) |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 16:24
Thanks Ander for pointing this out. I agree that the output of a flat rate should be in line with what we can already obtain with the current sovereignty mechanics.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 16:50
|
Regarding realism...Illy is no more of a realistic simulation than Chess is. In terms of "major siege", I was actually contemplating dragging T2 siege through a target using the Attack Stratagem rather than the Siege Stratagem.
|
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 19:46
|
How about ... replace taxes with the philosophers stone? Make it possible to convert an amount of resources to gold - obviously applying mana and research in the process. Would remove any possiblity for "exploits" by running food or other resources negative to get high tax incomes.
|
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 20:12
that would be an exploit by itself  |
Posted By: Selwyn
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 21:30
| what about the newer players that followed all the rules and made good decisions as to picking locations? do you want to penalize them? was bad enough they were all left in limbo for months and were misled by devs announcements ? seems like a lot of newer players paying high price to keep ya all happy :( |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 23:54
How??? Its the more advanced accounts that will loose out the most, however I feel that leveling the playing field as they are doing is the best thing. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 00:00
+1 Perhaps Selwyn can clarify how he feels the new players are being penalized or will be penalized by these changes.
|
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 09:56
|
By the way what is actually happening? to me it sounds like the GM's are going to change it to what they were going to do before, iron out the glitches in what they were going to do then change it yet again? If it's going to be changed again how about instead telling us what the ultimate system will be and put a gold income cap on cities to fix the food exploit now? certainly not a perfect fix but far better than implementing 2 different income/food/tax systems
|
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 10:17
| food exploit IS gonna stop. |
Posted By: John5420
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 05:17
|
Moving Cities is En Route The Exodus technology and the ability to move cities (with penalties) are still scheduled for release shortly. Can anyone define shortly?
|
Posted By: White Beard
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 05:24
| shortly is between soon and postponed I believe |
Posted By: Grisna
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 05:53
I would think shortly is actually between now and soon. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 17:34
|
Posts related to the consequences of running negative resources without having any buffer stored has been http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic2480.html" rel="nofollow - moved here , please continue the discussion there! Regards, SC
|
Posted By: Stumpff
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 03:50
I think you all are doing an excellent job with the changes and also with the exodus! I agree with the penalties for moving a city, if there were none, there would be plenty of room for abuse. As far as decoupling the food from the tax, i can see where you would have issues with that! So basically i guess this is just positive feed back, You are doing a fine job with the changes and the pace is good also. BTW was that an NPC spider? lol Thanks for all of your hard work in making illy what it is today!
|
Posted By: TreeBeard
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 19:24
keep up the good work  Im waiting patiently for the "Naval Units" to arrive,since I have a city next to a river  Can't wait to see what is in store for us next
 |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 19:32
next?
-------------  my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Iduna
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 21:49
|
can't wait for the military quests, I hope they will be based on player pop aswell, giving larger armies more difficult targets. Oh well, we'll see. Sofar loving all the updates !! ------------- those with no fear are wreckless |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 23:20
|
Military Quests huh? I thought we'd all completely forgotten quests even existed! Should be interesting - I like the little stories that go with quests. ^^ |