| Author |
|
Rill 
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
 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.
|
 |
Cuddlefuzz
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 47 |
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:33 |
 GM Stormcrow wrote:
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
|
As we have seen (repeatedly), players/alliances would rather metagame here in the forums than put valuable gold/research points on the line.
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332 |
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:40 |
Rill wrote:
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. |
Eh, true, this is what I get for reading and commenting when short on sleep.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 05:47 |
Cuddlefuzz wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
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
|
As we have seen (repeatedly), players/alliances would rather metagame here in the forums than put valuable gold/research points on the line.
|
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
|
|
Cuddlefuzz
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 47 |
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 06:24 |
Rill wrote:
Seems like metagaming would be the most cost-effective approach, as long as we are willing to metagame with words rather than armies. |
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).
|
|
Bonaparta
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541 |
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.
|
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821 |
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.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
Posted: 06 Dec 2011 at 15:31 |
Bonaparta wrote:
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.
|
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)
|
|
dragon of wrath
New Poster
Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Location: bedford
Status: Offline
Points: 6 |
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 .
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 |
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
|
|
Tweet
05DEC11 - Advance Notice: Negative Resources
Topic Options