| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Mandarins31 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 |
 Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 01:32 |
 Brids17 wrote:
Yes but with this exploit, you're still producing a lot of resources, more than enough needed for producing advanced resources. The only thing you lose out on is some extra speed you would get from sov. I should point that you even with 100% taxes you could still manage sov, just less of it. So you'd build armies a bit slower. Ok, sure, that would suck if we were playing evony. However the majority of this game doesn't take place in a hostile environment. If you were using your army constantly maybe speed would mean a little more but current many players rarely use their armies and are at no disadvantage at doing so.
|
i think many players wont be agree with you...
Brids17 wrote:
So once I build my 100k troops and 500 siege engines with threat of being attacked, how is that balanced? I got my big army built up now I'm going to siege you. How long does it take 500 siege engines to bring down a city? |
if you sent 500 siege engines, only 30 would hit the buildings, 30 of the other type of engine will hit the walls. with coordination, a siege can alreay end up within a bit more than 1 day.
Brids17 wrote:
Perhaps instead arguing as to why this isn't broken we should be trying to find a way to fix it more equally? As I said, perhaps making it so that food is no longer capped would help with managing cities running negative food. |
that's a good idea... but it doesnt solve the problem, just allows not to lose exeeding food... personnally idk care, before i can have an exciding food, i need to demolish things and lose 10k pop per city. i calculated already... i could have -5k food per hour at 18k pop and 80% (to have some kind of decent gold unkeep). this in the 3 actually maxed cities would make a -15k food per/ hour to feed. i would feed it with my food city at 0% tax... of course all that with sov focused on food production... losing 30k pop, a gold producing city, some production speed,... and the best would just be to destroy everything an rebuild from the start... one year ago.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 23 Jul 2011 at 01:33
|
 |
Kamakik
New Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 01:46 |
A way to sort of fix the food issue. From what I'm hearing, there is a conflict between Food and Gold. If you lower taxes, you get enough food. If you raise taxes, you don't get enough food.
So I'm going to suggest that we be able to build structures within the city that produce "Consumer Goods". Here is my suggestion:
1) Rename the Carpentry building to a Saw Mill
2) Add: Carpenter, Potter, Tinker and Tile Maker as Structures that convert basic resources into an advanced consumer good resource.
3) Based on the level of your market place, a certain amount of "Consumer Goods" will be converted to gold every hour if they are available.
This allows you to still lower your taxes, but maintain your gold costing units. It also partially negates the importance of the 7 food cities and provides use for extra resources. Yes, you'll have to sacrifice an empty lot (probably the Vault, which in my opinion is pretty worthless) to build this structure. Yes it will take some time to adjust. But everyone will be able to adjust fairly.
Edited by Kamakik - 23 Jul 2011 at 01:48
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 02:02 |
|
The Devs have been aware of the negative food issue for a long or should have been. When there was a rush of new players, their new player place program began clumping new players right on top of existing players cities and sov squares, as a consequence, many players were claiming all squares surrounding their cities in addition to the sov squares they desired. Yes, the Devs were aware because I told by a Dev that was one way of preventing new players being placed directly next to my cities. Increased sov squares equals higher taxes and lower food, with current game mechanics claiming that many sov squares leads to neg food consumption.
I like the idea of elininating the food cap but I don't believe that solves the problem for veteran players and I don't like the idea that have fewer options to play this game. Perhaps another solution is to release that mysterious Sov building now or allowing members to move their cities to new locations (whether they choose a 7 food square is their choice). You can't eliminate one aspect of the game that has been in place for over a year without penalizing very large group of players.
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
Sister Nikki
Greenhorn
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 76 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 02:09 |
|
I told it , you don't wake up a morning and you want to change a game mechanic !!!.
Sorry but in a game which could be in "B Beta" trying to be better than other games in same type and in 8 months on which I play still is trying to find its own way through the game industry and that I consider it "good try" you don't make steps back.
Food perhaps some are using it, as strategy point and use some cities to fill the one that they produce armies, it is a strategy view which you may find in a lot of games. Others may use gold or other mechanics for the same results.
But all are based in the Mechanics which the game has. Players are free to find out which solution they prefer. You don't change the mechanics because it is like playing chess and in the middle of the game you are changing the rules how the queen will move. If you are free to change it as developer ... yep Sure you may change it and sure you may win or loose players - clients.
LOL you don't play free although the game in this stage is better than the most games giving prestige and having a mechanic which helps people to even play it without spending money. So consider how many people are spending real money for a game and just make any calculations and check if it is a cheap game. Just go to a store and buy any game for multilayer online gaming and check the price about 49euro. Buying a game and playing it, as long you like :)
I have spend about 150 pounds in prestige for helping the "good team" and i can say as i am average player probably others have paid much more!!. So sorry it isn't a cheap game :( and people that are playing more than a year they have deposit real money and sure will not be happy if a developer wakes up and change the rules .......
Just think that players above a year playing this game have done everything to give to this game soul and helped it to grow.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 02:20 |
Kamakik wrote:
A way to sort of fix the food issue. From what I'm hearing, there is a conflict between Food and Gold. If you lower taxes, you get enough food. If you raise taxes, you don't get enough food.
So I'm going to suggest that we be able to build structures within the city that produce "Consumer Goods". Here is my suggestion:
1) Rename the Carpentry building to a Saw Mill
2) Add: Carpenter, Potter, Tinker and Tile Maker as Structures that convert basic resources into an advanced consumer good resource.
3) Based on the level of your market place, a certain amount of "Consumer Goods" will be converted to gold every hour if they are available.
This allows you to still lower your taxes, but maintain your gold costing units. It also partially negates the importance of the 7 food cities and provides use for extra resources. Yes, you'll have to sacrifice an empty lot (probably the Vault, which in my opinion is pretty worthless) to build this structure. Yes it will take some time to adjust. But everyone will be able to adjust fairly.
|
I like this idea quite a lot. It gives viability to imbalanced locations for a much more palatable tradeoff of losing some building plots.
|
|
GM Gryphon
New Poster
GM
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 60 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 02:23 |
|
Hi all,
The GM Team had implemented production penalties for running negative food balances. We certainly never intended running a negative food balance to become a City advantage; Especially an advantage that increases with an increased negative food balance. This is clearly unintended behavior, and having recently been made aware of the potential advantages of extreme usage of it, we have deemed it an exploit.
We appreciate that the 1st of August may be too tight a deadline for people to re-balance their cities, and therefore are extending the deadline for this change to take effect to 12:00 server time, the 14th of August.
We do intend- Perhaps in light of this change, with increased priority- To allow players to move their cities to other squares of their choosing and take on the underlying terrain of their new square. This will, however, incur a very significant one-off penalty to the city that moves. We have, in the past, discussed terraforming magic, and do intend to release this in the more distant future.
GM Gryphon
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 02:42 |
Darkwords wrote:
Its got nothing to do with Math its just what I have.
Simple fact.
|
It has everything to do with math. Simple fact.
If you are claiming that you are getting 90K gold an hour on a 14K pop city, then 34K of that gold has to come from other sources besides tax. The max amount of income from 100% tax that you will have with 14K population is 56K. (unless there is an alternative exploit going on)
With that said, the rest of the income can be made up from trade items but then the disparity between a 5 farm city and 7 farm city becomes that much greater. Since, you can support a higher population which converts to greater production and a greater amount of resources to sell. Using your math a 19K (a typical population a 7 farm city can support) population city would be able to support an army of 122K.
Which is a great disparity between the two cities just for setting up shop on 7 food squares.
This is not an argument against the proposed change (I think everyone agrees that it is a good long term idea), it is merely an argument against the manner in which it is being rolled out. Without an alternative to make 5 farm (starting cities) competitive or at least nearly on par with 7 farm cities then all starting players should look at having their capital city razed the moment they build a second city.
That is the simple fact that math now suggests with this roll out.
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 03:03 |
|
Thanks for posting GM Gryphon, however, for veteran players than have several old cities " a very significant one-off penalty to the city that moves " is VERY much a concern. For those that have been here from the start and hopefully helped the Devs to improve the game, a significant penalty does not solve the problem if it involves gold. As I've stated several times, many of us have old cities that are 5 food squares, we don't have huge stores of gold as we've had to make up the food shortage of not having a 7 food square by claiming sovereignty squares. Whatever the penalty, it needs to be reasonable for the "exploit" you are fixing and the consequences that we as players will incur for this taking so long to identify.
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 03:13 |
|
I think the penalty will likely mean losing building levels. I don't know what thread it was discussed in but there was a lot of talk about it and it was suggested that to balance it, it would de-level buildings.
|
|
|
|
Kamakik
New Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7 |
Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 04:50 |
|
GM Gryphon, why is food gimped? All of the other resources follows a standard curve, but food is on a lesser curve? Why?
|
|
Tweet
21JUL11 - Mobiles, other