| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
HonoredMule 
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
 Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 19:54 |
Hey a definite maybe! That's heartening! I recognize of course that as the overall game system matures and more plans reach an "already well-mapped-out future" stage, the cost-benefit ratio for even good suggestions from outside the dev loop become decreasingly attractive. I appreciate hearing that player suggestions are still being seriously considered and more importantly still offer attainable possibilities from the fresh perspective department. 
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 20:04 |
 HonoredMule wrote:
I recognize of course that as the overall game system matures and more plans reach an "already well-mapped-out future" stage, the cost-benefit ratio for even good suggestions from outside the dev loop become decreasingly attractive.
|
Oftentimes the simplest ideas (such as yours) might achieve the overall effect we want faster and more efficiently than all the other changes we have in the pipeline put together. I think the general difference is that it's specifically an overall gameplay/economy change. Whilst we've definitely learnt that baby steps are the key when it comes
to adjusting and tweaking an integrated, organic system that most often
behaves irrationally, I think it's more a question of how far we wish to stack the effects (ie each individual item's impact on the economic whole is greater than the sum of the parts). I do think your concept is very sound, but we may need to do some mulling and modelling once some of the other imminent changes make their impact and more numbers are to hand. Regards, SC
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 20:16 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
Oftentimes the simplest ideas (such as yours) |
Sheesh Catty SC, nobody puts Mule in the corner!
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 21:37 |
Ah, but simple has very positive connotation in this context. Simple is elegant--like a sleek black dress (on a girl). 
|
|
Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 416
|
Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 01:24 |
Wait! Read this one!
First, my disclaimer: I don't understand.
Now I will offer my opinion. If the game were to tell me how much in taxes I owe, I should be able to do whatever it took, within reason, to pay that amount. I would decide which resource to change production rates with, and tweak those that were still producing at the needed rate. I would raise the taxes on different areas of my production. If I need iron and stone, then I would tax wood and clay. The amount of tax would depend on my population, but the resources taxed would be up to me. Then, the gold set aside for the taxes would go to the Head King In Charge, who would use the money to pay for building and upkeep for roads throughout Illy. There may even be Illy sponsored barbeques on occassion. I thought this up all by myself! Thank you and good night.
|
|
I am a Machine.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 08:27 |
|
as you explained verry well, more tax/less advanced ressoures is more logic than more tax/less basic ressources.
the first point i wanted to talk about is that i dont really think it would be usefull to restrict the continuous production of soldiers. because the important is the proportion of difference of power between a player and an other one. and for me, this system would just reduce the general amount of soldiers produced, but the difference of power between all the players will stay the same... this system wont advantage little or big populated players, comparated to the actual system.
also i think about the implementation of this system:
.as after the system is implemented, people will regen their armies more slowly, players who had a big army before the implementation would have a big military advantage on players who had a little army (cause they just lost a battle or whatever). so putting this system would ask to reset every soldiers and advanced ressources of every player to be fair with everyone, i guess.
.for players who already have verry specialized cities, like me, this may ask to totally reorganise each city, and this could be long and disavantageous. i mostly talk about the link between taxation and the basic ressource upkeep of sovereign structures. talking about this you must define if mana and research production would be affected by the taxe rate the same way as today. if it is modified, this could be a big change for players like me who has just enough research production in a city to support its sovereignty.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 01 Mar 2011 at 08:40
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 15:19 |
In the cases you exemplify, Mandarin31, wouldn't you be "ok" with your current configuration and only want to change to accommodate new possibilities? I.e. you could claim more sovereignty if research is no longer affected by tax. I think the range of military strengths would increase and more according to a player's focus rather than his developmental progress. The reasons being thus: - Military requires gold, but people may choose to spend gold elsewhere, especially if they're making just enough gold income (at the cost of equipment) to support their focus. An obvious alternative focus is claiming large tracts of sovereign land to produce equipment much faster, which means you don't want to turn around and hurt equipment production for your standing army.
- Military production is actually not hurt by this system...only equipment production. This means if you focus on equipment, you can produce an army quickly, but if you don't, needing an army fast means heavy trading and hemorrhaging gold. In theory, trading troops would work the same way but be even more expensive, especially due to the time-sensitive nature of trading resources that take upkeep.
- Slow equipment production also means that if you're peaceful for a long time, maybe you're even more prepared in the form of having a good standing army and big stockpiles of equipment to replace it quickly. The fact that we're slowing middle-stage production opens, in my opinion, the maximum possible range of opportunities to creatively restore output or profit from others wanting to restore output.
Admittedly, the trade of troops is a future factor with the greatest possibility to damage or marginalize the benefit of this change. I think that will be the more disruptive change.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 16:00 |
HonoredMule wrote:
Ah, but simple has very positive connotation in this context. Simple is elegant--like a sleek black dress (on a girl). |
You can ignore him. Simplicity is excellent.
AND... he won't get the analogy... dingos don't wear dresses... ;)
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 16:20 |
|
Sheesh. I steal ONE baby....
|
|
Tweet
Taxation tweak suggestion