Suggestion

Holby · November 01, 2003, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: Gen. Volkovthese games aren't that different...

The value of many things is different, and a lot of what we have here isn't there, and some of what they have isn't here, either. *Shrugs* Should I be making sense?

Gen. Volkov · November 01, 2003, 05:41:51 PM

I dunno, should you? Thats kinda up to you, and what I meant is that the names, and number of turns you can have may be different, but overall, in my experience at least, they aren't that different.

Holby · November 01, 2003, 05:54:42 PM

I should make sense, people can understand me.
Your experience isn't that wide, by the sounds of it. The names don't bother me in the slightest, it's the values of food, troops, money, and how much is gained/lost, that confuzzleates me.
There are other parts of the game that exist at some proms, but not in others. That is hard for me to adjust to, as such, I'm failing at playing.
It appears once you know you have nothing to say or it is unfounded, you keep going on anyway. I do that, too. :D

Constantine · November 01, 2003, 06:13:51 PM

While playing other promisance games, I have realized that the only way to stop these people from massing food (Save dropping it to an ULTRA-LOW worth) is to put a food ceiling on the game, saying people can only have one billion food or so max. If you are playing the game as it is meant ot be played, why would you need more than a billion food, anyhow? I mean, I know in some games people get to point where they have hundreds of millions of troops, but that just means build some more foragers to barely keep the economy in the green. Just an opinion of a lonely Roman Emperor.

Veranor · November 01, 2003, 06:16:41 PM

Or do a capacity based thing with foragers. Much the same way that you can only support so many leaders with so many huts. Maybe something like 1 forager supports X amount of food, and then you start to lose some after that. I mean it makes sense... where will you store all that food?!

Perhaps changing the name to "Grain Silo," or something like that.

Gen. Volkov · November 01, 2003, 06:16:48 PM

Constantine>> GOod idea.. Holby>> Its not totally unfounded.. I just haven't experienced much I guess....

Dilf · November 01, 2003, 08:41:51 PM

putting a cap of 1 billion on food is ridiculous
and anway it wouldn't prevent people from stockpiling it on the PM
get to 1 billion
sell at a ridiculous price
get more grain
stop at 1 billion
sell at a ridiculous price

it wouldn't help
plus you might need 1 billion grian say if u were a MAGER and had troops to support aswell...
Mages (Wzairds / Leaders)
eat LOTS of grain (Food)
and you ahve troops to feed aswell
but one thing is for sure...
the value it gives to your networth needs to be lowered to prevent the easy winning that occurs

Juska · November 01, 2003, 08:43:54 PM

In QM Promisance they also got rid of being able to recall your goods off the market if not sold they return to you in 72 hours. They did that to stop Farmers as well. It gets kinda annoying though not being able to get your stuff off, but there are diffinitly less Farmers on QM.

PS: There is a big war on QM this set if anyone wants to get in make an account and Message me I'm Perseus in the forums as well as the game.

Constantine · November 01, 2003, 09:16:59 PM

Dilf. You are not the brightest person I'll have the pleasure of meeting today, are you? The limit will sort of fix that, and what's to say they just don't do it if you don't have a limit? Think about it. Trying to prove a point and you argue for the other side. Good job.

Badrang the Tyrant · November 01, 2003, 09:34:05 PM

If anything changes with the food, I say the value of it needs to go up...

Juska · November 02, 2003, 05:37:14 AM

Badrang can I see a reason why? Why post if your not going to explain and defend your side?

Dilf · November 02, 2003, 08:09:25 AM

Quote from: ConstantineDilf. You are not the brightest person I'll have the pleasure of meeting today, are you? The limit will sort of fix that, and what's to say they just don't do it if you don't have a limit? Think about it. Trying to prove a point and you argue for the other side. Good job.

WHY put a limit on grain
when when your empire gets big (don't know if you've ever experienced that)
you will NEED MORE than 1 billion grain on hand to run your army
if you're not allowed 1 billion grain, then it will screw up your countries manageability...
think about it...
yes - it might do good now, whilst empires are small...
but it will not help in the long run
and also...
a cap wouldn't stop stockpiling

and i didn't really understand your post

and what i was trying to say is this:

Grain should be worth MONEY and NOT NETWORTH
but you know - i don't expect you to understand that...
for example... i sold 8 million grain due to my empire being low on cash..
i lost near 2 million net
FOR 8 MILLION GRAIN??
thats a very high price...
and seeig as Grain is Cheap, you might aswell loot, and buy grains all reset...
and you'd win easily...
probly without haveing to hold an army

Juska · November 02, 2003, 12:07:18 PM

What price did you sell the grain for? It all matters if you sold for even price($31) Then you would come out good if you used that money to buy troops your net goes up. If you sold for $5 of course you will lose networth.

Badrang the Tyrant · November 02, 2003, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: JuskaBadrang can I see a reason why? Why post if your not going to explain and defend your side?

Some people (like me) mass food somewhat. And since food is not that valuable, I tend to stay landfat most of the time.

Retto · November 02, 2003, 03:04:59 PM

I agree that putting a limit on food is a bad idea. If you had hundreds of millions of rats, it eats up food fast. You need more than a billion food. Putting a cap on food is like trying to put a cap on Empire Sizes...and that wouldn't be fun.

The idea of treating food at its cash value is an interesting one. What if your food was worth the same amount of networth as if you had sold it all on the private market?