Author Topic: Why the distance bonuses need changing part 2  (Read 288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tomas

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 718
  • Infamy: 217
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • Fallen Brigade Website
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Tomas
Why the distance bonuses need changing part 2
« on: December 23, 2011, 04:26:48 pm »
+1
Part 1 was an attempt to get the distance bonuses changed because they devalued the central villages on the map as they had nowhere to trade with in order to get the best trade bonuses.  This  disadvantages anybody settling there in terms of economy when personally I feel these villages should be the best economically as they are in theory the hardest to hold.  Unless of course the people in the middle have lots of allies propping them up ;)

See - http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,21863.0.html

My arguments were countered by the fact that these villages can dominate the trade routes giving the owners a chance to make cash from raiding.  So rather than continue to fight using my orignal argument i've decided to move on to another argument in order to try and get the trade bonuses changed.

So, on to part 2 :D

Currently the maximum distances between fiefs on the map are between EU fiefs.  Kulum -> Bariyye is 143463m (thanks to the Wolves spreadsheet for the value).  This can be travelled without having to set foot in NA territory.  Meanwhile the best NA trade route possible is Odasan -> Asuagan Castle which is only 103304m.  The difference in bonuses between these 2 routes is approximately 100% making the best EU route far more profitable than the best NA route.

To make matters worse, there are actually only 2 NA trade routes over 100km, whereas there are over 50 potential EU routes over 100km.  50% more routes over 100km makes sense as EU is supposed to be 50% bigger. 2400% more routes over 100km is just daft!

Finally, for all those people who say the NA guys should just use both sides of the map and travel into EU territory.  Why should they have to risk fighting on the wrong server when the EU guys don't have to?  The NA/EU divide was brought in so that people didn't have to do this so why force NA players back across it?

Before anybody says anything I'm an EU player so i'm not crying about being disadvantaged myself here.  I just seriously think the trade bonus system is flawed.

So to the Devs -
you won't change trade bonuses beacause they encourage carebears
you won't change trade bonuses beacause they disadvantage people holding the central fiefs without lots of allies
so please will you change trade bonuses so that they peak at around 50km, because it goes against the whole point of the NA/EU divide?


Offline Bjarky

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 352
  • Infamy: 31
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • U got gold? I bring tea, silk, hemp, camels +more!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Leadership member)
  • Game nicks: Guard_BD_Bjarky, Guard_the_Lederhosen
  • IRC nick: bjarky
Re: Why the distance bonuses need changing part 2
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2011, 05:07:40 pm »
0
i do agree with you on your noble quest, but i think 50 km is to low though, i rather see 70-80 km being the optimum.
the current optimum is on around 110 km (i made some test runs on strat) wich is very high and makes most of the strat fiefs inferior against the outer rim fiefs.