Jenne Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Since my nations inception in 9/23/2006 I had Aluminum and Furs as my resources. With the recent game change allowing me to change resources, I switched my Furs resource to Water on 9/22. When I did that, I lost 2/3 of my land by growth. I realize that Furs has a growth multiplier, but I would have thought the loss of that multiplier would have applied to my growth going forward and not back to my start date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 [quote name='Jenne' timestamp='1317471550' post='2813308'] Since my nations inception in 9/23/2006 I had Aluminum and Furs as my resources. With the recent game change allowing me to change resources, I switched my Furs resource to Water on 9/22. When I did that, I lost 2/3 of my land by growth. I realize that Furs has a growth multiplier, but I would have thought the loss of that multiplier would have applied to my growth going forward and not back to my start date. [/quote] How come? If resources change, they change the properties involved. You're assuming that each day of growth is recorded, but it's all accumulated. Like most things, a discount, or an increase, is applied retrospectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceknave Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 What furs actually does is triple your natural growth land AND natural land growth rate so as long as you have furs as a resource (either via trade or have it native). In the past, I used to have furs as a trade resources in a 5BR (land was ~1.5k or so). The ring collapsed due to inability to find one very rare combo, dropping my land to ~500 or so. I then ended up in a 3BR ring with furs, which caused my natural growth land to spike again to ~1.5k or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenne Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I understand what happened, I just think it's incorrect behavior. I didnt happen to fall into a black hole just because all the racoons died. I don't have to go back and spend a bunch of extra money on infra just because I lost my marble trade. But since pop density has an effect on my economy, had I not gone to water, I would be forced to spend a couple hundred million on land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nathan Brittles Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 But marble there ;s a big difference. Marble provides modification to the purchase of infrastructure and not how much infrastructure you have. If it did the result would have been the same. Loss of a modifier means losing the gain the modifier provides above the base value. It works as designed and not a bug. If you feel it should work differently, there's the Suggestion Box. iClose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts