05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
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=2902
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 10:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: 05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 18:36
|
RUNNING NEGATIVE BASIC RESOURCES WITHOUT SUPPLIES Who this will affect
ie this change only affects towns that are not just starting out in Illy, but have also completely run out of any one of the basic resources. What will happen to a town in this situation
Running a deficit production of other hourly resource types (gold, research and mana) will continue to function as before (ie units will abandon their posts, sovereignty will auto-cancel and spells will auto-cancel). We will be entirely unsympathetic to any petitions along the lines of "the system trashed my town" - running a basic resource deficit has now become extremely dangerous. However, we will look to put in some kind of warning system in the future if players are accidentally setting themselves up for a possible disaster. We are aware that:
tldr; Running negative resources is bad, m'kay? CLEARING UP INACTIVES Also on Wednesday the 7th of December we will be doing a bulk clean-out of a bunch of the inactive accounts. This clear-out will have a number of separate phases:
tldr; There'll still be inactives to farm if that's what floats your boat, but they should be better distributed and new players should be seeded in such a way that the center of the map isn't gridlocked. Regards, SC
|
Replies:
Posted By: shadow
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 18:45
Uh Oh! Finally here.....let's see who prepared for it 
|
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 18:47
| Noice! |
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 19:06
Excellent 
|
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 19:14
This is probably my favorite item on the list. Please tell me that it is "logged into" and not "has been sat" that is the qualifying factor here?
|
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 20:34
|
Can you please give us more info about the new seeding policy for newbie cities ? I am a little worried about it. As many other players, I moved or settled my cities away from the crowded zone, and it would be VERY annoying to see newbie cities popping near my cities, may be even very near, even aside... While now this is acceptable in the "newbie ring" because people can move away from there using the spell or exodus, it will be not acceptable in other zones where people patiently moved or settled following a plan. I am not sure the "solution" isn't worst than the problem... |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 20:53
| LOVE IT! THANK YOU! |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:00
Hi JimJams, Yes, I understand your concern here. Don't worry, it's not a change that should affect this. Currently we select one square, at random, from a list of 20 available "new player starter squares" sorted by "closest to the center of the map". We'll still select the candidate list by "closest to the center of the map", but we'll be selecting one square at random from an expanded set of 100 squares. Given that we'll be doing a "one-in, one-out" policy, the "newbie ring" should actually contract initially, and will only start to expand again once we have more players choosing to stay long-term with the game, rather choosing to leave. In short, the newbie ring should both contract and become less dense. Best, SC
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:03
|
I would also add that the only way of guaranteeing that no one can settle near you (as a newbie seed, or as a relocation/exodus/settler) is by claiming Level 1 (or greater) sovereignty on the squares you wish to prevent a player from settling at. The Chancery of Estates building helps this considerably, and I'm slightly surprised more people haven't explored the limits of this option! SC
|
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:04
| curious what will happen to accounts that have sitter, but where the original player has left the game for long time |
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:06
|
Thank you! This way should not be any problem. And by the way, is not a random newbie popping near me the problem, I could even adopt him/her, but looking the ring and thinking my nearby could became that way..... wow, do you feel me ? ;-) |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:09
Because the upkeep cost of the building is WAY to high considering the discount you get on the sovereignty cost. Up the discount to at least the double and lower the upkeep cost of the Estate. Edit: We have debated this before in this thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/07oct11-release-patchnotes_topic2569_post30355.html?KW=#30355" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/07oct11-release-patchnotes_topic2569_post30355.html?KW=#30355 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 21:43
Not completely agreeing with Faldrin on this, tho I must agree that the resource I run out of mainly is research points, which are finite (in the sense that you cant improve upon them beyond the lvl 20 library and the Allembine research discovery), and the sovereignty tiles really deplete the rp production rapidly - far quicker than making it able to properly take Chancery of estates into a practical balanced use. That is my experience anyway, other may differ. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 22:05
|
It could be better i agree but when combined with two geomancers retreat it offers more room to manipulate res income.For exmpl geomancers can boost food income and sovs can boost res for geomancers retreat or other buildings with basic res upkeep.There are many options.I am glad they did not make it too easy to use or it would not be interesting :) It should definatly not be easy to keep high pop cities (over 25-26k pop).It is good that some aspects of game depend on creativity and imagination of players rather then cash and prestige. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2011 at 23:31
|
One question for clarification: Does the negative resource rule affect any town of a player with 100 or more total population? Such as a player with a 1500 population town and a 500 population town who is now starting a third town? Even though the third town has less than 100 population, will it still be affected? Or does it not affect any town with under 100 population, regardless of the total population of the player? In asking this question, I'm not expressing any opinion about how this should work, just asking how it does work. Thanks!
|
Posted By: Silent/Steadfast
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 01:20
|
YEAH! At the newbie policy, NOOOO! At the negative resources. ------------- "Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM) "SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM) |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 02:20
|
what happens if your last building was a farm, flourmill or the equivelent of negative res!!!
Are there going to be any changes to the population required for a new town? My biggest problem with this change has always been that those with 10 towns who used the "exploit" to get there have an unfair advantage I would really like to see all basic production, (and those associated with basic production) removed from this new rule. and secondly make basic resource consumption count towards population required for a new city |
Posted By: sofsirwj
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 02:22
|
Wondering, if I spend much long time to destroy an inactive nearby player ago. [ send thieves and cast blights(from the new rule of Negative Resources applied), set leveling barrack the top priority and do military research first, building siege army things and so on. ] then i find he's gone by this miracle...  |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 03:41
| Oh also if I have say negative wood then would any sov building de-level first or could a T2 building be de-levelled if it was built more recently |
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 04:44
Read carefully.
Please correct me if I'm wrong SC
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 04:51
| Daufer, all buildings consume food (well, nearly all, with the exception of low-level farms and low-level flour mill). So all buildings could be affected if food were the resource that ran short, including resource production buildings. |
Posted By: Cuddlefuzz
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:33
As we have seen (repeatedly), players/alliances would rather metagame here in the forums than put valuable gold/research points on the line.
|
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:40
Eh, true, this is what I get for reading and commenting when short on sleep.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:47
Research Points: 35 gold* Gold: 1 gold Metagaming on the forums: Completely free Seems like metagaming would be the most cost-effective approach, as long as we are willing to metagame with words rather than armies. When people do start to solve this sort of issue with armies, that's a lot of armies that could be substituted for sov costs. It's not going to be pretty. *based on current price of 700 gold per book, calculating books as equalling 20 research points rather than 25
|
Posted By: Cuddlefuzz
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 06:24
I don't disagree at all. Just keep a good memory and note when players/alliances who have used the forums as gaming tool deride and complain about metagaming from others. As I have said before, I personally don't believe metagaming in and of itself is a bad thing. Not everyone feels the same, and a subset of those engage in metagaming themselves (that's called hypocrisy).
|
Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 13:30
|
Does that mean that legendary city would get almost completely razed in an instance, if someone sets taxes to 25% and some of the latest builds were farms and flourmill? That seems a bit harsh as it takes many months to build such city. Some unlucky person might run negative food large towns right now and is not online for few days. When he logs on he will have small villages... Such player might leave the game... I predict global population drop for more then 10% after the patch comes into effect.
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 13:40
|
Its all about keeping your cities balanced, and "unbalancing" them one at the time so that you can support the deficit while it is running. I can testify that this is possible, either through very careful tweaking, or even better, with the help of a great alliance. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 15:31
Bonaparta-- It would be unfair if the GMs hadn't given us two months warning to stop doing it (or was it three months?, I forget) |
Posted By: dragon of wrath
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 16:16
|
Kumomoto is right everyone was told that they would be stopping the neg imbalance and to sort out there cities before a fix came in.If you haven't done it yet then the price will have to be paid. Like the inactives urban clearance . |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 17:11
|
A clarification on two points. 1. Resource production buildings (farmyards, clay pits etc) will be put to the very bottom of the level-down list, as will resource bonus buildings (flourmills etc). These buildings will only fall into disrepair and level down if there is no other building option. 2. Deleting accounts with more than 4 months without login This will not include accounts that have sitters who have logged in more recently. We are still, however, going to implement the sitter changes we discussed a while back. Regards, SC
|
Posted By: dspn23
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 20:00
|
well i am runing a deficit and just discover this is going to be implemented TOMOROW that will mean the end of my city if i don't log in realy much times i would apreciate if we could have a few more days (3 or 4) before changes get in once there are people taht will cach news the worst way i sugest a img to every player saying it will be implemented in (3D 20H 44M 12S) that way and would be a page where it was a clock saying the time.
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 20:20
This seemed relevant.
|
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 22:50
Not true, under the old planed changes there was only the potential economic loss if you ran out of resources, rather than partial destruction. Therefore it was economically more beneficial to run one large town at 100% tax(constantly importing food) and a smaller at 0% rather than both at 50%, even if income was reduced to 0 every now and again when a shipment is late. However given that now a late shipment could mean partial destruction I doubt many players would take the risk. (note what I described above isn't an "exploit" but is using the game mechanics in a way that was intended) and so harshly punishing players who wished to supply large towns with trade and missed one shipment AND given no notice seems a but unfair. (please note I found out about this yesterday and haven't been badly affected however im sure there will be others who wished to utilise this more legitimate method but have't logged in for a couple of days)
|
Posted By: shadow
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 15:19
| I agree with Kumo. Plenty of time to prepare, this was no "surprise" post. The GM's even gave us more "tools" to make sure everyone could get in the green. When it was 1st announced, there was no Chancery to help with sov. cost or architects office to hurry builds along. It's my opinion that if you were still taking advantage of the negative food, then you obviously didn't care about the repercussions they were to bring. 2-3 months notice ( closer to 3) is ample time to prepare. Now people are coming out complaining they can't run 100% tax with -10k food production while the majority of Illy took heed and balanced their towns. This should have taken place shortly after being first announced, the extra time should be seen as a gift! If you don't want to lose buildings, drop your taxes and let your army take the hit. If not, then i guess you will take GM posts more seriously next time. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 18:16
|
Question: If you run negative productions on basic ressources because of a high use of sov buildings (giving bonus for Adv. ressources and/or unit production time), will they be leveled down as for city's buildings? And if yes, which would be deleveled first between City's buildings and sov buildings? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 20:07
Hi Mandarins31, Sovereignty structures that consume resources first, then town buildings. The system will entirely abandon sovereignty on the square if you run a negative on W, C, I or S without storage. Regards, SC
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:12
|
Have all the towns that will be removed in the clean-up now been removed? With any further removals subject to one-in, one out? This affects those of us participating in the Christmas Challenge, since two of our targets have disappeared. We'd like to know if any more are going to leave imminently. Thanks much!
|
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:45
Although, the current queue of accounts to abandon is empty, as any accounts that met any of the criteria have been removed.
|
Posted By: Biggsy
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:47
|
Okay... i'm a little confused, i have been away for a few days and my food has gone from being something like +129 (so essentially in the green) to now being -30 .... I don't quite understand why that is, my warehouse was not 'full' can someone please clarify whats happened ... in layman's terms please -Jay DRUID |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:53
As explained here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6-environment-seasons-lunar-phases_topic119.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6-environment-seasons-lunar-phases_topic119.html Autumn was +5% food, Winter has no food bonus. HTH
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:53
Winter?
|
Posted By: Biggsy
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 21:57
|
so if i deduct the 5% modifier for it being 'autumn' i'm going to drop from being +129 to -30?? Jeewhiz thats a little extream |
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2011 at 23:30
Did you look at the base production, without the bonuses from flour mill, sov, prestige, season? |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 00:53
Again can no one see that the short notice could unfairly punish those who planned to supply with caravans? (ie run negative but but hopefully always have something stored) The new rules are very different from auto reduced tax which was originally planed
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 01:03
That hasn't changed. You can still run negative as long as you keep resources of that type in the city. The result of running out if different but ultimately it's still something you can do if you so choose. They can only give so much warning, eventually they have to move forward and actually put it in place and no matter how much warning they give they will always catch someone off guard. -------------  |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 01:12
| Birds that is true, and I haven't been badly affected, but say I didn't check the forums for a week and recently forgot a shipment. If I woke up one morning to find I had lost 40% of my gold income that's no biggie, just send a caravan from one of my smaller cities. If I wake up and find say 15 buildings de-leveled that is more of a problem. |
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 01:26
|
Good, bout time you guys get around to this, I've been raising my pop high to see exactly what would happen when you introduced the new update. A few questions though: This wont affect my any of my currently stored advanced resources in any way(unless my warehouse is demolished) correct? And you're saying that all the buildings that needed to be removed to get food positive will be instantly demolished in any city that has negative food? Is there going to be an increase in food production, more food produced per farm? And My taxes aren't going to be changed by the system either correct? I apologize if any of these questions have been answer in previous pages, my internet is so bad at the moment that I'm lucky if this gets posted. ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 02:24
|
An update. The inactives clear out has happened, and we'll monitor the situation to see if further measure are required. The code for negative resource handling has not yet gone live - we hit a last-second, final-test-round live-code-base hiccup that we're working through at the moment. This change should go live later today (GMT time). Regards, SC
|
Posted By: RatuJone
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 05:27
 GM Stormcrow wrote:CLEARING UP INACTIVES Great! |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 10:49
|
Further to G0Ds point: I would like to suggest that Warehouse/Storehouse should also be added to the list of 'low prioriety delevelling' structures alongside farms/basic res production if they aren't already. Also thank you for this patch! It should inject a fresh breath of life into the Illy economy and overall account building strategy for everyone in the long-run. |
Posted By: Promasean
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 12:37
|
The penalties are far too severe for running out of gold. It hurts the gameplay and is not reasonable. I was so concerned about fixing the food situation I had due to the rule change I let one of my cities go negative on gold. It was only under for about an hour and 10 minutes. I lost 400 diplo units, over 1200 troops and all but one sov square. It will cost several million gold and well over a month to replace this stuff. All for being about 10k gold short. It would add significantly to the gameplay if there was a central world bank that would automatically loan you gold, at usurers rates of course, and give you x days to pay it back before the repo man started taking stuff from you. Rates could be based on credit ratings. The more you have to use it the higher the interest rate should be. If you go to this well too many times then you have an increasing chance to not get the loan and suffer the consequences immediately. In general the penalties in this game are far too severe. Total losses from diplo attacks and now the penalties for going negative on gold. This should really be adjusted. Have penalties yes, but don't wipe out months of work for slight missteps. Make the punishment fit the crime. Prom
|
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 13:27
|
I don't think the penalties are too severe. I think the peknalties are way too fast, though. I can understand that the army starts deserting if they don't get paid. But all of them deserting at the same instant that the gold touch zero shows really bad middle management. Just sweet talk the soldiers that have been working for you all their lives and they'll stay on another month... Let the penalties stay, but make it take time. |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 14:01
|
TBH I agree that the current mechanic is quite harsh on people that make mistakes - but it is also the same for everyone and it has been around for a long time. If anything a harsh rule set motivates people to play to a more strategically sound standard. Really I'd prefer to see the dev team being free to work on new development now that one of the main old ghouls in the existing game mechanics is today being vanquished. I have my fingers and toes crossed that the patch today arrives relatively bug/petition-free - it would be good to see the end of this today and not have the after-effects dragging on over xmas. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 14:01
That's a very complicated fix for something that could have been avoided had you shipped more gold to your city. ------------- |
Posted By: Olek
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 14:08
|
I first heard about this change months ago, not so much in this incarnation, but I knew it was coming, I've even asked a few questions on the forums about it, so there has been plenty of time to get your stuff sorted out, plenty of time to stock up on short resources, or sacking troops that you cannot afford to pay, other than being absent from the game, but even in this case the Devs can not be held responsible for your not keeping up on events. I think it's a great idea, it's much more realistic, though it is something that should have been introduced from the start, I just hope we don't lose too many players because their kingdoms fall apart. I also agree with G0DsDestroyer, (not just because he's my boss), the Storehouse & Warehouse should be added to the low priority list when laying off workers, the shops would close down before the business that store their goods go under, added to this you have the potential to have resources vanish into thin air.
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 21:14
| Can we just get on with this long overdue fix please? |
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 23:16
lol Scott, wait your turn! No budging or complaining!
------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2011 at 23:32
This. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 02:02
Indeed. Still working on getting it live. So many unexpected (but perfectly legitimate) circumstances to work around, and we're battling with them atm. We're still looking at hours, not days, for go-live. Regards, SC
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 11:47
|
Awesome to hear. Indeed it is the complexity that is part of why we love Illy that also makes implementing glitch-free patches on the fly so time-consuming... I'm sure SC knows this far better than we can imagine. ;) |
Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 18:40
How do you define inactive? One month? |
inactive Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 19:51
|
The rules for removing based on inactivity: ACCOUNT AUTO-ABANDONMENT section here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/15sep11-new-tech-gfx-improved-sharing_topic2394.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/15sep11-new-tech-gfx-improved-sharing_topic2394.html
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 19:53
Decided to run a little test... sent my food away and dropped income down to -13 food p/h:
Nice. Seems things are pretty much live.  |
||||||||||||
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 20:22
There. That's better. |
||||||||||||
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 20:25
| ^^^^ nice, Kumomoto. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 21:10
|
i have some bugs reports: In one of my cities where i lost all of my buildings (as expected) Paddock and common ground where razed and changed to empty plots. i cant build them again because they of course arent on the building list. Also, im currently building again the library, but it directly builds up to lvl 3 |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 21:23
Thanks for letting us know. This is now resolved and won't happen going forward. On the library issue, can you open a Petition? tyvm in advance, SC
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 21:24
|
Please see the Release Notes, here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/09dec11-release-notes-apopalypse-now_topic2924.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/09dec11-release-notes-apopalypse-now_topic2924.html
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 21:31
|
Solved indeed. Thanks SC. About the library, seems to be an exotic bug: other razed buildings rebuild fine, and lvls after lvl 3 library works fine also. will open a petition for that anyway. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2011 at 22:14
| I dunno if I would have complained about the paddock and common ground thing ... could have made for an interesting specialty city, lol. But funny bug! |
Posted By: Maeglin
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 01:46
|
It seems like an in-game message would be in order for changes to the game rules. I was quite surprised to login today and discover that the movement of caravans was significant to generate 22 in-game messages, while the loss of 2000 population at Anheddiad Newydd was only significant enough to generate one. In addition, warning of this was not significant enough to have caused a message to be sent. Additionally, I found it interesting that the result was for 2/3rds of the town to either leave or starve instantly instead of refusing to pay the ridiculous 100% tax that I'd levied on them. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 04:01
|
Setting taxes to 0% fails to guarantee a net positive gain on all resources and therefore wouldn't fully correct the exploit. It would be nice if this were attempted first (possibly limited to the same change cooldown as manual tax changes). However, these rather programmatically complex measures would still have to be implemented as well. Perhaps the mechanism can be yet expanded to first attempt this less destructive correction first, but I rather like that if I'm competing against players who run cities with benefits from deficit-balanced economies, at least they'll have to carefully and diligently micromanage shipments and be in constant danger of disruption with serious consequences. I don't much care for seeing level of obsession out-competing good planning and economic strategy. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 04:23
Hey! level of obsession is all some of us have!  |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 05:07
Illy is a sandbox. Each to their own. TD
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 06:05
This thread is in fact a three day warning about the changes and exactly what they would entail. (Also, I know what would happen to 2/3 of my town if they stopped paying their taxes, and it doesn't involve starvation or escape
) |
Posted By: Maeglin
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 06:33
There is an in-game message system where important announcements could be spread, but that wasn't used. There is a newpaper where important information could be provided, but that wasn't used. I've heard (today) that it was mentioned by the devs in global chat previously, but I've been on a fair amount the last few days and never saw a thing. Admittedly, there was a several month notice on the forums (remember, food was going to stop being affected by tax rate and then the devs changed their minds) and then there was a several day notice on the forums (which really isn't that much notice given how long we've been promised factions and trade v2 without seeing anything). I'm just surprised that the devs would choose to implement a feature that would cause the population of Illy to fall by over a million villagers without making sure everyone had multiple chances to hear the announcement and a significant period to prepare for it. Even if the devs had used every notification method possible, someone could have gone away for a few days with a lvl 19 and lvl 20 building queued and returned before the queue was scheduled to be empty to find their city in ruins. |
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 09:51
|
Okay, so there was no IGM.... but if I were a person who had been taking advantage of the exploit (which I'm not nearly big enough to be), I'd either have taken heed of Stormcrow's repeated warnings (not just once 3 months ago, but intermittently since), or I'd be checking constantly on the forums to make sure I didn't miss the boat. I just don't see how you can lay this at the feet of the DEVs. I've never seen a technical change announced on the Herald either; it is a newspaper, designed to flesh out the story and culture, and is completely separate from the game mechanics.
|
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 10:51
|
Re Clearing Up Inactives - Inactive cities are really useful for alliance training, and are also useful for player-organized mini-tournaments - e.g. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/a-christmas-challenge_topic2819.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/a-christmas-challenge_topic2819.html Would it be possible, oh great and mighty GMs, to "lock" towns with incoming attacks (if only Blockades and Sieges) so that they are not selected for deletion? We've had 3 targets vanish during the Christmas Challenge, and it's causing quite a lot of frustration! ------------- "A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 11:12
Not to mention amusement. Mona Lisa's armies are so fierce that just the sight of them blockading has caused two entire cities to pack up and vanish! Not sure who was responsible for scaring away the third city -- it wasn't us! Thanks Kurdruk for your hard work on the challenge, sorry that this has made it more difficult for you. nCrow has been affected as much as any participating alliance by this, and I can say it hasn't diminished the great enjoyment we're experiencing in this challenge. Maybe there could be a system where players inform the developers when designated targets were going to be "in play" for a particular purpose? And those cities could be exempt from being disappeared by coding? Perhaps a last "check to make sure it's not one of these cities" list? Any such requests would be subject to the devs' approval and not to be used for personal gain, of course. Hopefully people would respect the process and only use it for activities such as this.
|
Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 12:38
Doe this actually mean that I can theoretically rase my paddock and build another building at that spot? Thanks |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 13:56
No Janosch. As SC just said - it was a bug which has now been resolved.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 14:01
I never understood why we HAD to have a paddock and common grounds even if we didn't want one. I only build horses in two of my cities...
I like how you guys covered your donkey in the actual message itself too. ------------- |
Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 14:40
| Thanks Creature and Rill for your answeres! |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2011 at 23:30
Setting 0% would've been an exploit if that was what was told in first negative ressource advanced notice, that was implemented: "negative ressources only causes not to produce gold anymore". But with the destrction of buildings, everything is covered and there is no more possible exploit about that. So now, you can be sure you'll face players that follows the same game mechanic rules you follow ;) |
Posted By: sofsirwj
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2012 at 16:31