Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Anaris

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 377
16
Feature Requests / Re: Edit function for statues and monuments
« on: January 02, 2019, 05:23:51 AM »
If that is the case, you only need to limit it to the description only and not the actual name of the statues or monuments?

Right, because no one would ever find a way to abuse that...

Triple-check your work, and if mistakes sneak past—as they do sometimes in real life—then live with them.

17
Feature Requests / Re: Edit function for statues and monuments
« on: January 02, 2019, 05:16:42 AM »
This was deliberately left out so that you couldn't just replace every monument you happen to come into stewardship of with one of yourself for free.

I'm adding a note making it clear that you can't edit them to the page where you create them.

18
Feature Requests / Re: Colonial Master!
« on: December 27, 2018, 04:02:12 AM »
I'm sorry, but I can't help but read that as "limit alliances to the size of my own alliance bloc". Lurian bloc members demanding a limit of 33% when their own bloc forms almost exactly 33% rings obnoxious to me, doubly so given they were what caused these alliance blocs to begin with.

Sorry, Chenier, this proposal's been on the table since long before the current Dwilight status.

If there's any particular situation that prompted it, it's the Cagilan bloc on Atamara.

19
Feature Requests / Re: Imperial/Hinterland Regions
« on: December 26, 2018, 03:12:14 PM »
Was it a voluntary choice to implement the TO restrictions below a certain density, before implementing the hintherland feature?

......No, someone held a gun to our heads and forced us to implement that...?

Of course it was a voluntary choice. The TO restrictions are a band-aid that took all of a few minutes to implement; Hinterlands are a major feature branch that might take months, depending on how things go.

20
Feature Requests / Re: Imperial/Hinterland Regions
« on: December 26, 2018, 04:59:28 AM »
Not a joke.

The current hard cutoff on TOs based on player population is adversely affecting gameplay at this time.

Maybe consider it a reminder that this is something we need now much more than we needed it when TOing was more open.

Something like this is now becoming necessary as many realms are hitting the "maximum size" they can expand to.

It's not just "on my list," there is literally only one thing before it. Once I have the Compact Realms mini-project done, this is the next new feature I'll be implementing.

I'm not sure how much clearer I need to be at this point...?

21
Feature Requests / Re: Imperial/Hinterland Regions
« on: December 25, 2018, 03:50:27 PM »
In case this is not a joke:

A version of this is already on our public Developer Roadmap for the near future. We're even calling it Hinterlands.

22
Feature Requests / Re: Brainstorming: More Steward Abilities
« on: December 17, 2018, 06:14:59 PM »
There are a number of things I'd like to give Lords the option to fill automatically from taxes; this is one of them.

23
Feature Requests / Re: Bring back old age penalties
« on: December 17, 2018, 02:07:57 PM »
Nope. We removed this for a reason.

The hypothesized effect of increasing turnover never materialized to the extent that would warrant the feature's existence.

The downside you cite is, in fact, exactly what happened instead.

24
Dwilight / Re: Shameless Astrum Recruitment Thread
« on: December 12, 2018, 02:11:12 PM »
On the other hand, if someone prominent in Astrum holds these as ideals, and people join Astrum expecting them, they can work together to make the things he says true.

If, on the other hand, everyone just says, "Astrum is terrible, don't go there, no one ever does anything," then there's no chance for the realm to improve.

25
Dwilight / Re: Shameless Astrum Recruitment Thread
« on: December 11, 2018, 08:05:45 PM »
When Westgard was founded, it was (as I recall) one of four realms set aside for refugees of the sinking, the other three being in the south of the EC where the ice receded.

If they wanted a PvP realm, they could go to Alara, Minas Nova, or Greater Xavax (as they became). If they wanted to fight monsters, they could join Westgard.

If I recall correctly, there were still several people who didn't pay attention to what they were getting into, and complained about Westgard being all PvE. I don't think they stuck around long.

26
Feature Requests / Re: Activating Shipyards
« on: November 30, 2018, 09:28:02 PM »
What was that intended purpose again? I remember when they were first implemented, but that seems like it was about 5 years ago.

Providing something resembling scout reports of sea zones—basically, giving you some idea of who's on their way toward you from the adjacent sea zones.

27
Feature Requests / Re: Activating Shipyards
« on: November 30, 2018, 09:24:36 PM »
Phasing out ferry routes would be nice. However, it's not on the TODO list for the foreseeable future. There are just too many things that still rely on regions being connected by old-fashioned routes to function properly.

Shipyards already have an intended purpose; it just needs to be implemented. (That is on the TODO list in the foreseeable future.)

28
Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: November 29, 2018, 03:54:06 AM »
And that realm made it PvP. How great is that.

If Westgard's players were enjoying the PvE, and that's what they were there for, then it's not great at all if that's being taken away from them.

Just because that's the way you like to play doesn't mean it's the way everybody has to play, so long as what they're doing isn't causing a problem for the island/game as a whole.

29
Development / Re: 2 Dimensional Battlefield
« on: November 28, 2018, 04:05:22 PM »
I actually have answers for those, because the dev team has had serious discussions of both a 3-section battlefield and a full 2D battlefield in the past.

For a 3-section battlefield, if you try to put all your troops in one flank...that becomes the center. If you try to game it by putting a very small number of units in the other two sections, too bad, the section with the most men is still the center. That's practically the definition of the center, actually.

For a 2D battlefield, while there's a possibility we would still use a similar method of allowing armies to deploy on flanks, we certainly wouldn't allow any finer-grained control than that 'vertically".

Implementing a 2D battlefield would enable some much more interesting possibilities, like obstructions in the battlefield (trees, river with a bridge, etc), fortifications designed like a star fort, chokepoints, and other cool things that make combat much less of a straight "my army's CS is bigger than yours" slugfest.

30
Development / Re: 2 Dimensional Battlefield
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:06:24 PM »
What if it wasn't truly 2d but just three lines of the existing 1D map. In line settings you would choose "Center, Left Flank, Right Flank" along with the existing front, middle, back and rearguard. The units in different lines don't directly interact or fight each other as that would be too complicated, but if one side takes a whole line whatever lines are adjacent to it take penalties and have an ever increasing risk of retreat.

It is possible that that would require less work than making it fully 2D.

But I wouldn't bet heavily on that.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 377