Print Page | Close Window

07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2569
Printed Date: 21 Sep 2019 at 23:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: 07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:05
Hi All,

  • CHANCERY OF ESTATES
    This building has now been released onto live.  It provides a 2% cost reduction in the cost (both research and gold) of claiming Level 1 Sovereignty, per level of the Chancery of Estates building.

    The 2% Cost reduction only applies to Level 1 Sovereignty costs, but if you go beyond Level 1 Sovereignty on a square, the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted.

    You may build multiple copies of this building, which reduce their effectiveness by half with each additional building.

    The five existing Sovereign technologies that related to the number of squares you could claim (Serfs through Subjects) have been changed to now refer to the number of Sovereign Structures you may build from a particular town.  This remains capped at 20 Sovereign Structures.

    Five new technologies (Socage through Serjeanty) have been introduced that specifically deal with the number of sovereign squares you can claim from a particular town.

    Every town that had the Serfs technology has been granted the new Socage technology automatically (that allows up to 20 Sovereign squares to be claimed) - which is only fair, given that we've changed the purpose of the old technologies. 

  • GLOBAL CHAT
    Sieges against <= 10 pop towns are no longer reported to chat.

    An Alliance declaring multiple wars will only alert 3 times per hour to global chat, however there alerts will still be reported in the following two new chat commands:
    /news
    /news24
    which are now available and give the last 2 hours of news and the last 24hrs of news directly to your chat window, respectively.

  • ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIPS EDIT PAGE
    Now says Accept & Reject rather than Accept & Accept as the two options (!)

    Alliances can now offer peace to more than one alliance at a time (!)

  • GEOMANCERS RETREAT UPGRADE NOTIFICATION
    Upgrading a Geomancers Retreat no longer identifies an incorrect spell (sometimes a Blight!) as suddenly receiving a bonus.  This was a display-only issue but has been resolved.

  • DEMOLISH BUILDING PAGE MAKEOVER
    It now looks tidier.

    Drop down list is now categorised into groups (Town, Resource, Wall).

    Drop down list is now sorted alphabetically then by level.

    When a building is added to demolition queue it is will be the default item selected for next click rather than jumping back to top of list, so it's now easier to demolish multiple levels of the same building without having to reset the drop down every time.

    Items added to demolition queue now display underneath the demolition button with timer and progess bar.

    Prestige insta-demolish options have been added to page.

  • EXODUS & MOVING CITY RULES
    Dropped (suspended) players are no longer counted in the 10-square exclusion list, so you can now move into their areas

    You can now move onto a square that you have claimed Sovereignty Level 5 on, regardless of whether another player or alliance is within 10 squares of the location.

    A blockade or siege that has landed (and/or set up) will hold the city from using Exodus.

    Incoming units will not prevent a city move (unless they are a returning Sally Forth or a capturing/razing army).

    Reinforcements already in the town will prevent a city move.

    You cannot sally forth for 5 days after moving your city, or move your city for 5 days after moving your city. 

    Incoming sieges and blockades that had not arrived before the city chooses to move away will be changed to attacks on the square that they we going to set-up on, and return immediately after. The sieging or blockading army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail when the city moves.

    Incoming reinforcements to the city will be changed to occupations of the square. The reinforcing army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail that the city has moved.  This may lead to some interesting strategies and considerations for both the attacker and defender. 

    Long city moves caused a slight error, this has now been resolved.

Regards,

SC



Replies:
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:13
cool Cool
keep it up!

-------------

my words on this forum are from me alone.
DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle


Posted By: shadow
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:30
Gotta love new buildings!! Looks like exodus is turning into a defensive move as well now...good show.  


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:31
Quote Now says Accept & Reject rather than Accept & Accept as the two options (!)

How did that type even get by in the first place?


-------------


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:33
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


  • DEMOLISH BUILDING PAGE MAKEOVER
    ...
Halelujah! Big smile


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: shadow
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:06
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

  

  • Incoming sieges and blockades that had not arrived before the city chooses to move away will be changed to attacks on the square that they we going to set-up on, and return immediately after. The sieging or blockading army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail when the city moves.

    Incoming reinforcements to the city will be changed to occupations of the square. The reinforcing army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail that the city has moved.  This may lead to some interesting strategies and considerations for both the attacker and defender. 



I wonder SC, if this will be changed with Tenaril's Spell of Ultimate Teleportation as well at some point? At the present, all units follow the city.


Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:31
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Quote Now says Accept & Reject rather than Accept & Accept as the two options (!)

How did that type even get by in the first place?
We have a dedicated bug department, full of very keen people who enjoy their jobs far too much...

Or something like that... Tongue


-------------


Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:33
Originally posted by shawdow shawdow wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

  

  • Incoming sieges and blockades that had not arrived before the city chooses to move away will be changed to attacks on the square that they we going to set-up on, and return immediately after. The sieging or blockading army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail when the city moves.

    Incoming reinforcements to the city will be changed to occupations of the square. The reinforcing army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail that the city has moved.  This may lead to some interesting strategies and considerations for both the attacker and defender. 



I wonder SC, if this will be changed with Tenaril's Spell of Ultimate Teleportation as well at some point? At the present, all units follow the city.
Incoming diplomats and armies will prevent a city moving using the spell - due to a distruption in the magical vibe...

-------------


Posted By: Mara Zira
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 22:14
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


  • CHANCERY OF ESTATES
    The 2% Cost reduction only applies to Level 1 Sovereignty costs, but if you go beyond Level 1 Sovereignty on a square, the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted.

    The five existing Sovereign technologies that related to the number of squares you could claim (Serfs through Subjects) have been changed to now refer to the number of Sovereign Structures you may build from a particular town.  This remains capped at 20 Sovereign Structures.
Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100 squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures on 20 of those squares. Correct?

I'm not sure I follow the "the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted" part, though. So with one Chancery building, a level I claim at 1 distance would be 6 research points and 60 gold. Level II would be 16 research points and 160 gold, Level III would be 26 research points and 260 gold, Level IV would be 36 research points and 360 gold, and Level V would be 46 research points and 460 gold (instead of 50 research points and 500 gold)? Or what?

Thank you.


Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 22:21
Originally posted by Mara Zira Mara Zira wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


  • CHANCERY OF ESTATES
    The 2% Cost reduction only applies to Level 1 Sovereignty costs, but if you go beyond Level 1 Sovereignty on a square, the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted.

    The five existing Sovereign technologies that related to the number of squares you could claim (Serfs through Subjects) have been changed to now refer to the number of Sovereign Structures you may build from a particular town.  This remains capped at 20 Sovereign Structures.
Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100 squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures on 20 of those squares. Correct?

I'm not sure I follow the "the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted" part, though. So with one Chancery building, a level I claim at 1 distance would be 6 research points and 60 gold. Level II would be 16 research points and 160 gold, Level III would be 26 research points and 260 gold, Level IV would be 36 research points and 360 gold, and Level V would be 46 research points and 460 gold (instead of 50 research points and 500 gold)? Or what?

Thank you.
Correct - The Chancery of Estates is more for land claim rather than production advantage.

-------------


Posted By: John5420
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 05:05
Any one else getting this error :

Unable to claim this Sovereignty!

You are currently claiming Sovereignty on 6 Sovereign Squares, and your current Sovereign skill level only allows you to claim Sovereignty on 6 squares.

6 Sovereign Squares is not even an option any more 

Sigh must be bugged from the automatic grandfather upgrades 


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:50
I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.  

-------------


Posted By: intor
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 07:20
Originally posted by Faldrin Faldrin wrote:

I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.  

Maybe once pathfinding is implemented, sov squares could cause attrition to non-allied armies. This could be in the form of unit stat penalties, including movement speed. The deeper inside unfriendly territory, the greater the penalty (though it should still be relatively small, like 2%-5%, not 50%-60%).


Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:40
Also in-case it hadn't been realised as well as preventing other players from settling on a square Sovereignty also shows on the Alliance and Strategic maps as squares belonging to that alliance.

-------------


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:51
Ahh I didn't know that, thx TC. It'd be good if we could view more alliances' areas of influence on the strategic map at once though.

Having said that - I think think the chancery basic res upkeep is very high - considering that (at the moment) there appears to be very little real gain to be had from owning sov on a large tract of level 1 claims - given that sov structures are still limited to 20.

If anything - I reckon level 1 claims shoul be used to raise gold income not decrease it... if you want to put an element of 'realness' in I guess you'd say that cities with influence over the largest surrounding areas woul generally be the richest ones.

This would also give people a reason to fight over land.


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:36
I would like to propose the following: The removal of range in the cost of level 1 sovereignty and the building just in general lowering the cost of sovereignty. Then the price reduction of 40% will be reasonable.
The result: We will have something to fight over beside our towns.


-------------


Posted By: surferdude
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:53
Originally posted by Mara Zira Mara Zira wrote:

Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100 squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures on 20 of those squares.
So an Alliance with 100 people each having 10 cities could claim (at max) 100,000 squares? That's huge! O_o

From now on if someone says "Get your city off my land" - if they aren't claiming Sov that surely isn't valid?


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:59
Originally posted by surferdude surferdude wrote:

So an Alliance with 100 people each having 10 cities could claim (at max) 100,000 squares? That's huge! O_o

From now on if someone says "Get your city off my land" - if they aren't claiming Sov that surely isn't valid?


It would be HUGE and FUN but the cost of claiming 100 squares will be WAY to high to make it HUGE and FUN.


-------------


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:26
Thinking in the new way ("City specialisation") rather than the old way ("I want every city to be a powerhouse of everything") is the key to understanding all of the new buildings, including the Chancery of Estates.

If you choose to specialise just one of your ten cities in Sovereignty, you can support on a positive resource and research balance well over 100 squares of L1 sovereignty.  The city can, of course dual and triple-purpose itself, as the support of units, spells etc are not so contingent on research points - and gold is still reasonably abundant.

If a number of the largest players in the alliance specialise a city in sovereignty, an alliance can very much carve out its own chunk of the map of Illyriad, presenting a public claim to territory and preventing people from settling, moving (via Exodus or Tenarils) nearby.

Further benefits will (in the near future) be available, such as getting toponymy rights over the territory in their possession.  Also, as and when specialist harvestable resource types are introduced this will further provide an economic incentive for claiming sovereignty at L1 over parts of the map (and the potential for inter-player/alliance friction that this will help catalyse).

I would suggest that people should a) think laterally, and b) clear-out the mindset that every city needs to be an identical copy of every other city and embrace "city specialisation", and c) run some numbers.  We believe the Chancery of Estates is - as it is - an incredibly useful building right now, and will become even more so in the future.  If, however, you don't value claiming your "neck of the woods" very much, then this building isn't really designed for you.  Not every specialist building is going to appeal to everyone!

Regards,

SC


Posted By: intor
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:31
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

If anything - I reckon level 1 claims shoul be used to raise gold income not decrease it... if you want to put an element of 'realness' in I guess you'd say that cities with influence over the largest surrounding areas woul generally be the richest ones.

This would also give people a reason to fight over land.

I'm in favor of this. Something like 10 or 25 gold / hour for each sov I square. The RP cost might have to be changed as well.

(EDIT: Wrote this before SC posted his reply. Should be disregarded now.)

Another approach could be to base the gold income on the highest number of the basic resources of the square, as well as the production bonus, if any.

For example, Sharp Crags (Small mountain) would give a slightly bigger income from its 6 iron (which is its highest basic), over a Plains with 5 as its highest basic. The 3% sword of the mountains would also increase the gold income, whereas the lack of a bonus on the Plains would not. This would make some squares more valuable than others (especially dolmens).

Some restrictions on this might be that only sov squares connected to the city through other sov squares would give the bonus, and that only sov squares without any improvements on them would work this way.

The first restriction should prevent players from having isolated pockets of sov at only the more valuable squares (they still might, but would not gain any gold out of it). It should also discourage players from connecting such pockets to the city with only a 1 square wide line of sov, as they could then be easily cut off by an enemy.


Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:58
Sorry, i don't like the general idea of specialization on sovreignity. It add nothing to the gameplay that can't be added in a simpler way. 
If you want large sov.claims just reduce the cost of upkeep to 10*(range^2)*SovLevel.
Add some upkeep for structures if needed.
If you want to add estate into account let it be:
(30-EstateLevel)*(range^2)*SovLevel.

I think Estate right now is going to push sov.s to maybe 20 not more.


Posted By: Mister_No
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:10
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:



Further benefits will (in the near future) be available, such as getting toponymy rights over the territory in their possession.  Also, as and when specialist harvestable resource types are introduced this will further provide an economic incentive for claiming sovereignty at L1 over parts of the map (and the potential for inter-player/alliance friction that this will help catalyse).



If I may suggest:

The court, courthouse, as soon as possible to install in the code.
And after the courthouse, I suggest at least one prison for every 150 squares. Wink 

The people we are, we can easily choose the judges.


Respect, MisterNo



-------------
Neither the future is not what it used to be...

http://youtu.be/lVdTQ3OPtGY


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:11
Dear SC

Thanks a lot for the reply. I fear that you have missed a point you have made before several times. Do the implementation of this new building pass the "fun factor test"?

What does it add to the game?

And please do not ask me to wait for some future implementation to see the point. I have waited a year for this "upgrade" that I really hope would change the game.

If you insist on letting me include things to come I will only say one thing: "battle magic" Embarrassed


-------------


Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:11
SC, this building is now utterly useless, a waste of res.
if we could build sov 1 buildings, things would be different.
but like it is now, its just an eyesore and a waste of gold. a WASTE...
the brilliant idea was nerfed to a fancy and ultra expensive.. flag?
its so pointless...



-------------

my words on this forum are from me alone.
DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle


Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:39
it can have effect on food income or taxes.Also sovs that are good but somewhat far from city can now be claimed since they are cheaper.I see this building as way of saving up research points that in turn can enable player to chose if he wants to claim more sovs or to increase taxes without going negativ with research point.I will definatly make one in each city


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 17:55
You can all praise or pooh the Chancery as you like.  I'll let you work out for yourselves where and how it may or may not be useful.

I know what I'm going to do...


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 19:00
I agree with Kilo - Chancery allows an expensive flag.

Having said that - I've seen the fuss that some people put up about owning land in the past - so I can see alot of people enjoying having this 'land claim' type approach with some of their cities.

I guess you have to remember, if you haven't got the force or friends to back up your claim, your claim is pretty much worthless. Wink


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 19:06
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:


I guess you have to remember, if you haven't got the force or friends to back up your claim, your claim is pretty much worthless. Wink


That I have pointed out several times !!!

Let the distance to the claim be the factor that decides if you can hold on to it from a defence point of view not a very high gold/research cost.


-------------


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 23:13
Originally posted by Faldrin Faldrin wrote:


And please do not ask me to wait for some future implementation to see the point. I have waited a year for this "upgrade" that I really hope would change the game.
Crikey!

Given that we only thought of the Chancery of Estates about 4 months ago (shortly before it was accidentally released onto live briefly), perhaps you could be more specific on which "upgrade" you've been waiting a year for as it relates to sovereignty?

I really don't mind people being "nay-sayers" by any means, but it's useful to know what exactly you're saying "nay" about, because I'm at a loss! Wink

Also, I suspect the "think laterally" comment has been wrongly dismissed by most of the recent posters, perhaps with the notable exception of HM.  This building is *much* more than a "flag on a square", but it's a sandbox game and so it's up to you guys to figure out what you can do with it.  I'm sure you'll come up with ideas and applications that we haven't even considered.

Regards,

SC




Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 23:37
/me plans to claim sov in a path around King Sigurd's castle and charge a toll for all newb caravans on the way out ... as soon as pathfinding is introduced

Wink


Posted By: Celebcalen
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 23:42
aut viam inveniam aut faciam


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 23:51
"Think laterally....."

OKaaaaay....

PIXEL ART on the strategic overview using sov claims? Big smile


Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 00:22
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

"Think laterally....."

OKaaaaay....

PIXEL ART on the strategic overview using sov claims? Big smile

100% pure win


-------------

my words on this forum are from me alone.
DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle


Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 01:15
Everything can be used with "the think laterally" mindset, bugs included, i just think there are better and clearer way to implement something like that. You should not think on what you can do, you should think if this is what your project was aiming for and i just feel like this is the wrong way to implement claims, territories and pathfinding. Remember what games ispired Illyriad.




Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 03:00
Hi Drejan,

Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Everything can be used with "the think laterally" mindset, bugs included, i just think there are better and clearer way to implement something like that.
Then outline these ways, bearing in mind that sandbox games promote lateral thinking and that is one of our design objectives.
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

 You should not think on what you can do, you should think if this is what your project was aiming for...
Yes, we do and have.  The release of Chancery of Estates was what we were aiming for, and is what we feel we have achieved.
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

... and i just feel like this is the wrong way to implement claims, territories and pathfinding. 
Then tell us what way you think implementing claims, territories and pathfinding would be better, but still functioning within the stated player-specific design goals of "city specialisation", as well as the overall objectives of "not wanting every new player to claim a good chunk of 'The Middle Kingdom' as their own".  Balance your argument globally (within the playerbase and alliances working in concert) as well as locally (within the context of having 10 towns to play with for differing objectives).

Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Remember what games ispired Illyriad.
We do, always; but that doesn't mean we follow them slavishly.

Protip for commenting on dev announcement threads:

DO: Outline in a carefully proposed, rationally stated, coherent argument what you think we could do differently, and why you think it's better.  Put this idea in the Suggestions & Game Enhancements subforum, rather than the announcement thread.  If the idea is generally sound, better than the current way of doing things, balanced both globally and locally, achievable technically as well as within our resourcing plans - then we'll not only listen to it but we'll implement it, unless there's a very good reason not to based on something we might know about that you might not (future plans etc).

DON'T: Speak in riddles and "nay-say" simply because the purpose of a new building didn't meet your imagined expectations.

Regards,

SC


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 06:15
Dear SC

Thanks again for replying and going into the debate with the "nay" sayers Ouch

I do not picture myself as a "nay" sayer and here is the post I was referring to when I say been waiting for a year:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/cost-of-sovereignty_topic986.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/cost-of-sovereignty_topic986.html

When I say the cost is to high is it not that I will not build it in some cities. I just don't see it will give massive boost to land claiming I had hoped for.


-------------


Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 11:11
Stormcrow, from your reply i understand you take this personally and you should not, mine is not a flame, sorry if you feel offended, going on the defensive is not good, feedbacks are so valuable.
You've an active suggestion forum full of ideas (most companies would pay for something like that) would be great if you interact as much as you can with it.
I liked almost every patch you did, if i post on this is becouse i feel my reply can help this wonderfull game in some way.
For claim gameplay from Estate for example i do not like the idea of a grid of single squares claimed every 10-15 squares i would like much much more to see an area of influence, maybe this is my "imagined expectation" but that's why you should consider it, this is a feedback. You are free to ignore it at your will.





Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 12:12
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Stormcrow, from your reply i understand you take this personally and you should not
That's a pretty inflamatory statement in itself IMO - he did not find your comments offensive or personal in any way - he just took the time to dissect your post and engage with you personally. How many other online games do you know where the CEO makes this kind of effort?
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

mine is not a flame, sorry if you feel offended
You can be 100% certain that SC did not regard your post as a flame - and did not feel offended. He simply took the time to respond to you and give you tips on how to provide more useful feed-back in the future.


Posted By: Promasean
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 14:33
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Hi All,

  • EXODUS & MOVING CITY RULES


    You can now move onto a square that you have claimed Sovereignty Level 5 on, regardless of whether another player or alliance is within 10 squares of the location.

Regards,

SC

Please clarify, does this mean players city A can claim a lv5 sov for same players city B to move into or does city A have to claim their own lv5 sov?

Thanks,
Prom


Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 15:28
Originally posted by Promasean Promasean wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Hi All,

  • EXODUS & MOVING CITY RULES


    You can now move onto a square that you have claimed Sovereignty Level 5 on, regardless of whether another player or alliance is within 10 squares of the location.

Regards,

SC

Please clarify, does this mean players city A can claim a lv5 sov for same players city B to move into or does city A have to claim their own lv5 sov?
Player level Sovereignty

-------------


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 17:01
Originally posted by Faldrin Faldrin wrote:

Dear SC

Thanks again for replying and going into the debate with the "nay" sayers Ouch

I do not picture myself as a "nay" sayer and here is the post I was referring to when I say been waiting for a year:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/cost-of-sovereignty_topic986.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/cost-of-sovereignty_topic986.html

When I say the cost is to high is it not that I will not build it in some cities. I just don't see it will give massive boost to land claiming I had hoped for.
Hi Faldrin,

Whilst that's an interesting post about the cost of sovereignty you mention, it doesn't have any comment in it from the dev team saying whether we agree or disagree with it.

Posting a suggestion in the suggestions forum and then waiting for it to be implemented isn't how it works - there will be a lot of people waiting for eternity if they assume that by making a post about a topic then it automatically goes into the development schedule!

Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Stormcrow, from your reply i understand you take this personally and you should not, mine is not a flame, sorry if you feel offended, going on the defensive is not good, feedbacks are so valuable.
You've an active suggestion forum full of ideas (most companies would pay for something like that) would be great if you interact as much as you can with it.
I liked almost every patch you did, if i post on this is becouse i feel my reply can help this wonderfull game in some way.
For claim gameplay from Estate for example i do not like the idea of a grid of single squares claimed every 10-15 squares i would like much much more to see an area of influence, maybe this is my "imagined expectation" but that's why you should consider it, this is a feedback. You are free to ignore it at your will.

I'm sorry if it came across that I took it personally, Drejan - I didn't and don't.

We've said time and again that we're not precious about where ideas come from - if they're good ideas then we'll implement them.

The point I'm trying to make though is that saying you don't like something isn't enough - and that's precisely what I mean by "nay-sayer".  

Say you don't like it, but also say why you don't like it, what you would like better instead and why the new way would work better for everyone!  As I think we've shown quite clearly, we do listen and we do implement ideas that are improvements on the current way of doing things.

Regards,

SC


Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 18:31
Thanks again for replying.

I never thought you had taken "idea" and would implement it. I just hoped the sovereignty building would do more in ways of lowering cost of sovereignty than I think it will. This leaves me short of a new battlefield for my troops.



-------------


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 20:12
The possibility of claiming upto 150 squares of sovereignty, it reminds me of civilization - where a city's "cultural boundary" could expand many squares around it, but it can use structures on only 20 tiles. The rest of the tiles are just areas of influence, and often areas with strategic resources. 

The chancery building is just a hint that the land around you is valuable. Though many of the new buildings would look like mere number crunching, they are not just that. The 'numbers' decide only when to build something. On a holistic level they change the way people play. 





Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 01:41
GM Stormcrow fixed this question.  Thanks GM Stormcrow!!


Posted By: Cookieman
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2011 at 11:05
I have a question that may be in the wrong thread. Does the whole sov lvl 5 override thingy apply to the spell move as well or is it something that is only ment for the exodus move?


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2011 at 11:28
It is only for Exodus Cookie.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net