| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
GM Stormcrow 
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 |
 Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 19:55 |
There's dev time scheduled in to fix this exploit imminently.
The question is whether we spend that time on fix a) or fix b)
If fix b) is better than fix a) we'll do that instead.
SC
|
 |
tallica
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 378 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 20:43 |
 GM Stormcrow wrote:
There's dev time scheduled in to fix this exploit imminently.
The question is whether we spend that time on fix a) or fix b)
If fix b) is better than fix a) we'll do that instead.
SC
|
do you guys have a schedule posted somewhere of what you're working on? Or a -new- list of items that are on your plate? it would be nice to see what's coming at us (both big and small).
Needless to say, you guys are doing an awesome job and we all are loving the game and work put into it!
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:07 |
I suggest doing some thing that is simple and easy to explain. Not collecting taxes meets this criterion.
On the other hand, de-leveling buildings does have the feature that it would eventually "correct" the food imbalance on its own. If de-leveling buildings is implemented, I suggest that the most recent building to be upgraded be the one that is de-leveled. If the imbalance is other than in food, the most recent building to be de-leveled that ALSO consumes that resource should be the one to be de-leveled. This could get very complex if someone runs out of multiple resources at the same time, so maybe it should always just be the most recent building.
The reason that I propose de-leveling the most recent building to be constructed is that it's easy to understand and explain.
There should be a notification for building de-leveling in the same way there is a notification for building completion.
It doesn't really matter to me which way you close the exploit, as long as it's closed.
|
|
Raritor
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 151 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:13 |
|
If your city has no food your people will starve to death, so pop will decrease. I fully support the idea of start autodemolishing buildings after a period of time,
|
|
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:21 |
Seeing that RTW was mentioned, I dare to suggest this:
in one of the Caesar city builders (I believe #3), there was this neat feature allowing to prioratize buildings and structures.
This way, when there was a shortage of plebs, the first to suffer were the least important ones (as set by the player).
Just substitute plebs with food, with conseguent downgrade of the concerned building/structure.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:25 |
Babbens wrote:
Seeing that RTW was mentioned, I dare to suggest this:
in one of the Caesar city builders (I believe #3), there was this neat feature allowing to prioratize buildings and structures.
This way, when there was a shortage of plebs, the first to suffer were the least important ones (as set by the player).
Just substitute plebs with food, with conseguent downgrade of the concerned building/structure. |
Something along those lines might be possible - we would still, however, have to have a "default" behaviour for players who hadn't specified their prioritisation; and that default behaviour would have to be the one we went with initially (rather than building a new "prioritisation" interface, which would
definitely delay the closure of the loophole, which we're not keen to do).
Regards,
SC
|
|
Grisna
New Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 14 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:33 |
Destroying the most recently created buildings in order seems like the best to me. If you create a priority system then surely it is easy for people to use it deliberately as a faster alternative to demolition. I can't see a new exploit openning up if it is always the most recent.
In terms of the new buildings, you should address the resource with the greatest negative hourly rate first. Delevel the most recently created buildings that have an upkeep of that resource first. Once that resource has a positive balance you move on to the next most negative hourly rate. Rinse and repeat until all resource rates are positive
Edited by Grisna - 27 Sep 2011 at 22:38
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:50 |
|
+1 to Grisna.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:59 |
No exploit possible if demolition (downgrade) times were the same for both methods (and why shouldn't they be?). It would be just like a "normal" downgrade, only not chosen willingly.
GM Stormcrow wrote:
we would still, however, have to have a "default" behaviour for players who hadn't specified their prioritisation; and that default behaviour would have to be the one we went with initially |
Just arbitrarily set up one (i.e. barrack more important than tavern), or let it automatically be the construction order, yes.
Then I bet every good player would prioratize to their liking.
I guess you devs are busy enough as it is and nobody likes delays, but I for one would wait for anything valid.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 |
Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 22:59 |
Grisna wrote:
Destroying the most recently created buildings in order seems like the best to me. If you create a priority system then surely it is easy for people to use it deliberately as a faster alternative to demolition. I can't see a new exploit openning up if it is always the most recent.
In terms of the new buildings, you should address the resource with the greatest negative hourly rate first. Delevel the most recently created buildings that have an upkeep of that resource first. Once that resource has a positive balance you move on to the next most negative hourly rate. Rinse and repeat until all resource rates are positive
|
Precisely what we were thinking here. Nicely summarised!
SC
|
|
Tweet
Consequences of negative res without stored res