Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Progress Update
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProgress Update

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:27
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

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?


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? Big smile
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:25
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

 
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.  


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.
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:21
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

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

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.


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?

Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post 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...
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 14:34
Originally posted by Erik Dirk Erik Dirk wrote:

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 10*average building level so that new players cant just neglect farms in favor of gold income, or say 10 * flourmill level.
I'm not sure about changing the workings of the other basic resource sov tho.

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.  





Back to Top
Erik Dirk View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Erik Dirk - 21 Sep 2011 at 14:20
Back to Top
Erik Dirk View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 04:05
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

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.



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.  
Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 01:05
I think gold has become a much more strategic asset.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.