| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
KillerPoodle 
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
 Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 23:11 |
 Kumomoto wrote:
Folks-- We are being forced to choose strategies. One thing that has seemed clear to me from what the GMs have been saying is that they are going to continue to force people to specialize their cities and gameplay. You won't be able to do everything in every city. Allowing people to partially staff a building falls into the lets have our cake and eat it too category. If you want to drop the food requirement, demo the building. You have a mechanism for it today, so use it.
I think this and some of the other upcoming functionality that GM TC and GM SC have told us is coming will force tough decisions on us as to what a particular city is going to specialize in, but, in the long run, that's a good thing! We don't want homogeneity in all our cities like we've had. I think it's much more interesting to have one city be an uber mage city, one a military, another focused on diplos and maybe another as a naval powerhouse. If every city could do everything (as has been the case to date), it would be a much more boring world, imo...
|
That's great except that each player has so few cities and power projection at a distance is so hard that it encourages you to simply cluster all your cities together (so you can get the benefit from the specialization) rather than spread them out around the map. Clustering together reduces potential for conflict and ends up with a boring game again.
So it's once again penalizing those who try to explore the map and be adventurous (on a related note,
Devs, how much longer do we have to wait until water does something useful rather than just crippling sov potential on the cities that are close to rivers and oceans).
I've said many times that the current setup limiting cities to 10 (and after theses changes practically 9) is poor design causing more problems with interactive/conflict driven game play than it fixes. This just highlights yet another one of those issues.
|
 |
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824 |
Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 23:49 |
|
I wouldn't mind the possibility to house more then 10 citys, though I would assume when people start hitting max cities at a 20 or 30 limit, they start asking for more. At the current moment I see no reason people would want to spread around the map, there is no real benefit except the odd unique npc or factions, but then you would just group your citys together near that faction or biome.
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158 |
Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 01:45 |
A very good point KP, even without specialisation your are always going to be better off to have one or two very larg population cities with 100% tax being fed by smaller towns with 0% tax, than to have all twons on say 50% tax.
However we are still yet to see what factions have to offer, If T3 units come out but say an orc requires a discovery that can only come from an ogre/troll wulpor quest, then it may be worthwhile to settle all these areas to get all discoveries. (ofcourse you'd want these discoveries to apply to all towns or else there'd be little point)
Trade V2 would be a big one, especially if we were allowed to craft items for units as well as commanders. As having cities hear hubs that bought and sold different items could make trade EVERYTHING as you may be friends with the seelie court as well as faction that is hungry for magic products but without the capabilities.
Also perhaps the introduction of teleportation spells to cities with lvl 20 mage towers would help fix some of the imbalances with clustering.
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269 |
Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 18:04 |
I like that there is a limit on the number of cities. That makes all your cities stay important all the time. 20 or 30 cities could become a management nightmare.
Also if there is an option to move a city by retaining just the commanders and the research, many people might do that (atleast when the factions come alive)
|
|
Nesse
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406 |
Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 15:23 |
|
I created a new thread about ideas for taxation mechanisms. Thought it relevant to post a link here:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2235&title=how-does-this-taxation-work-anyways
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158 |
Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 13:05 |
By the way, about the new sitter rules, I rarely sit accounts, however I have my alt as one of the accounts I sit to easily change between them, would it be possible to link two accounts if you have both passwords, (may also make it easier to track multi accounters)
|
|
bucky
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 May 2011
Location: geodesia, tejas
Status: Offline
Points: 40 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 15:14 |
|
+1 to dhenna and erik dirk's requests for linked alt/main accounts
|
|
"If you are the master be sometimes blind, if you are the servant be sometimes deaf." - R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 22:29 |
GM ThunderCat wrote:
We have postponed the Sitters and Food change until 31st August. |
Thank god...My internet is fried and I was worried I wouldn't have it back up by the 12th or 14th or whatever it was. If I don't have it back by the 31st it wont matter, I'll surely have gone mad by then.
|
|
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 |
Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 07:17 |
|
Well i have a question. i suppose that having negative basic ressources (wood,clay,iron,ston) production, having 0 stockpiled and not losing any sov tile/building level is also seen as a game abuse right?
I would just like to be clear on that point as im actually using this largely in one of my cities.
If you use this tactic at its maximum (at 0% tax and lvl 20 library) you can have +400% production for the chosen unit/adv ressource, while being running out of average -30k of basic ressources.
|
|
JohnChance
New Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 24 |
Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 18:27 |
|
I would think that is a cheat yes. Of course I interpretted the stated food rules to mean that if I got to zero stored food EVERYTHING stopped . . . including Q's I'd already set up, and the timers for the buildings I already had going up. The only thing I could do was build food plots or buy food.
I don't consider these "loopholes" or "exploits" but rather bad program rule enforcement and pure cheating. I know that's a personal opinion, but its rather disappointing that I, as a new player, read the rules and planned to play by them, while other players found these "loopholes" didn't report them in a ticket, and are not getting HARSHLY punished for cheating.
Reading the rules for sov squares I also thought that if I couldn't support my sov I lost levels of the building, or they stopped working. Sounds like the devs have a real problem. They set up a system of balances where we have to play strategically, and then they don't enforce it, so players CAN cheat and gain huge advantage by doing things that are, on the face of it, simply non viable strategies.
There would be no problem here IF, from the start, you hit zero resources, couldn't pay your bills and lost your slots, and you hit zero food, couldn't feed your people, and they stopped working. People read the rules, same as me, and they simply would have spread the word:
Those guys are serious! You have to have food and resources to pay your bills or stuff simply doesn't work.
|
|
Tweet
21JUL11 - Mobiles, other