Two trading ports in a town

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • Two trading ports in a town

    General Information:
    Currently, if a town has two trading ports, their loading speed is summed up and is only able to load one shipment at a time.

    What are you suggesting?
    Whenever a town has two trading ports, the player can enable an option wherein the two trading ports will be able to load goods simultaneously. Meaning TWO shipments can be made a time, but the loading speed will still be dependent on individual's trading port level.
    If the player would only transfer some goods to ONE town, the old system would kick in where both trading ports will load the goods, but if there are TWO or more transfers, the player can have the option to load the goods simultaneously.

    How will it change the interface/gameplay/battles/system?
    As it can load two shipments at a time, towns that focus on production can transfer goods to their Capital and at the same time to other colonies as well. Or for military-oriented players, one port can load the army for war and the other can transfer their loots.

    Suggestion Reason:
    It is for efficiency for those towns with two trading ports.

    For example, if you need to transfer goods from Town A and it would need two hours and you already spent an hour waiting, then suddenly, you need to move troops to Town B but you still need to wait an hour for the former's goods to be loaded.. You can enable an option where your army can be loaded to the other port, but of course, the goods loaded for Town A will still be there but the time for loading will have to be adjusted accordingly.

    In this manner, micro-managing the port can help a big deal on both small and large players.

    Render/Image/Screenshot:
    board.en.ikariam.gameforge.com…1ab6f9236fe86baaf02da5d9b
  • One way to go about this would be to have ports automatically assigned to the first shipment, and then permit the player to assign a port to a subsequent shipment in the queue (or even assign both - effectively pausing the loading process of the 'first' shipment.

    This could be done in each port - and perhaps a new tradeship manager screen - which makes it really tempting to subsequently do other things with tradeships... but that is stepping far beyond the scope of this suggestion.

    I am of the opinion that this falls in the category of 'nice to have with a decent amount of potential for subsequent expansion'.


    GAME FORGE!
    Please reconsider your permanent ban practices!

    :!: Contribute to & Vote on: :!:
    (Suggestion: The lit match has been dropped. Its too late now... :thumbdown: )
  • This is real life closer.

    But the user must control the speed .

    If we have only one post , then a shipyard is not used.

    So it is not useful .

    Of course you can send the second port when the speed prior to loading . After the end of the loading speed back to normal.

    This is different from your Suggestion.


    What is your opinion ?

    So we were silent against the fools. That said, the word count is not the answer.
  • bamcbix wrote:

    The only way this would actually work is if before loading at all, you chose that option otherwise it will not work. With that reason alone, I'm giving this a Zer0
    If you only have one shipment, then both the ports will automatically load it.. If you assign another shipment, it'll go to queue just like James Cauchi's reply.

    James Cauchi wrote:

    One way to go about this would be to have ports automatically assigned to the first shipment, and then permit the player to assign a port to a subsequent shipment in the queue (or even assign both - effectively pausing the loading process of the 'first' shipment.

    This could be done in each port - and perhaps a new tradeship manager screen - which makes it really tempting to subsequently do other things with tradeships... but that is stepping far beyond the scope of this suggestion.

    I am of the opinion that this falls in the category of 'nice to have with a decent amount of potential for subsequent expansion'.
    I do agree with your first statement on how the port would behave but to assign both the ports for the second shipment, it somehow bypasses the queuing system. So if I have five shipments in queue, and I realised that the last one is needed, the ports will prioritize the last one while the first shipment's goods are on hold, sounds like a premium account..

    And adding a single option to the Port screen to have 'that' port to load a shipment simultaneously with the other wouldn't have to change the whole screen. If many people would suggest about the Ports' behavior, then yes, this would go beyond this suggestion but I'm only trying to make both the ports load simultaneously.
  • And, as I said, the only way it'd work (based on how gf coded their games and the "style" they use,) is to choose before loading any with how many ports you'd use and then you'd have the option of using the second as a stand alone port. That's the only way it'd work and because that's just useless code IMO, I wouldn't support this idea from either a developer's stand point or the annoyance and time wasting of choosing one or both as a player. Do you require more reiteration?

    Sig by June 8)
  • Using the second port as a stand alone, on all grounds, a way to think on this one. But to say that it's the only way to make things work, and to choose before the shipment (which I find that you are annoyed of choosing), is one way but not the only one.. So I don't see how sarcasm would get you anywhere.

    Your point, where you'll have to choose before any shipment, is that it would be annoying if the game would prompt you to choose if you'd like to use only one port or both.
    What I'm trying to get here is that you wouldn't need those choices, the game as it is now will load the goods with both the ports with any shipments.. You'll only encounter this option if you'd like to have both the ports to load simultaneously different shipments. You alone would decide if you'd want to use this feature.

    And if the developers find these codes useless, it's their call. It's the dev team that would decide, so if it's a no, a no.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by jramoso7 ().

  • The original idea creates far too much advantage.
    Bamcbix statement about choosing an option first before loading your 220 ships has a good reason. (in fact, doesn't matter if you choose an option or not.. let's just say, if you don't choose, then you won't have the option later; and if you do choose before loading, then you will have the choice later).

    So, you have been loading goods for the past 20 mins, and there is another 10 mins to go?, and now you want to send your heavy duty troops out in urgent? Well, tough luck! Should have clicked on the 'option' before loading ;)
    In any case, far too advantageous.

    Those players who chosen to have 2 ports (a feature that came at the end of 2010) gave them speed advantages, but the disadvantage of not being able to build battle ships. Then came the new Ikariam layout in mid 2012, giving players the ability to delete units without the need for constructing a barrack or a shipyard, which gave a plus for every player. Not long after that, the ability to complete loadings using ambrosias.
    So, why should this idea go through?
    You'll Never Walk Alone
  • So this idea already came to life late 2010..
    Oh, so this has already been done, experienced and removed.
    I played the game somewhere 2009 or 10 before I stopped so I don't think I remember or even got to play this patch..

    Thanks for the reply, sir. :)
  • jramoso7 wrote:

    So this idea already came to life late 2010..

    What I am trying to say is that the ability to build 2 ports came at that time. It gave 'farmers' greater advantage; they can load faster, they can remove their goods faster. Then I mentioned that ikariam gave all players the ability to delete their units/ships without the need for a shipyard or barrack. This gave a good deal for everyone.
    Then... came the ambrosia feature to accelerate your loading of goods.

    So... my question was: why should this idea be accepted if there is an ambrosia feature to complete your loading (don't care if some cannot afford it, but it's there :P).
    You'll Never Walk Alone
  • I originally thought of this idea without thinking about the Ambrosia.

    Actually, the first that came into my mind was the barracks, how most RTS-based games allow mulitple barracks, and as I think about it, building space is very very important in Ika, also one can just upgrade the barracks and have another set in queue..

    Then there goes my train of thought for the Port, of which I though why can't a town with two ports load two different shipments (since if it is a farm colony, there would be no need for a shipyard)..

    Then you reminded me about the Ambrosia, if we take your example in account, spending ambro rather than wait 10-mins for the loading process is somehow impractical. But, let's say it's two hours or so, then spend ambro then..
    And yes, I am trying to take advantage to the fact that some farm towns or mobiles has two ports, but as you pointed out that it's too advantageous, with or without ambrosias, then this idea is down hill.

    As for your original question, the ambrosia's feature is to complete the process instantly, this one is for long-term processes and for maximising the efficiency of the ports.
    (sorry if this one got too long, I'm an extrovert after all ROFL) XD

    The post was edited 1 time, last by jramoso7 ().

  • jramoso7 wrote:

    Actually, the first that came into my mind was the barracks, how most RTS-based games allow mulitple barracks, and as I think about it, building space is very very important in Ika, also one can just upgrade the barracks and have another set in queue..


    Ok. not quite in the same discussion as the original intentions of ths thread. But just want to say that I have 'an average' of level 44 barracks in several towns.. imagine how fast one can build if there are 2 or even 3 barracks of such level in a town?
    A real military player does not really care much about building spaces (at least, not in a pure sense). If they want to sacrifice a forester, a winery, or whatever productive building, to build more barracks, they will.

    Anyway, to return to this.
    Even if bamcbix's idea of another option to click first before making your first load is suggested, the ambrosia loading feature for resources will still need to be considered :)
    You'll Never Walk Alone
  • And that is why I dropped the barracks-thing on my mind..

    And that is also taken into account. Thank you very much, iotsak, for your help.
    Oh, I am loving this community ahaha :D

    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

    ALSO, if the ports are able to load different shipments, how would the buyers on the Trading Post see the actual speed of loading of the said ports? If they would see the summed up one and then the player decided only to use one port (since he maybe using the other port), the buyer had to wait a little bit longer since he thought that the loading speed would be faster and I feel like he was deceived for some reason.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by jramoso7 ().

  • Hopla wrote:

    Once a suggestion is approved, it gets 90 days to be discussed. If your idea is very well received by the Ikariam community and players feels it is merited, then it will be moved to the Reported Suggestions forum. For a suggestion to get into the Reported section, the suggestion must receive more than 80% upvotes, minimum 12 out of 15 votes, after 90 days of being active.

    [jake]This suggestion has been open for over 90 days, and hasn't received the required feedback to be moved up to the Reported Suggestion forum. Thank you all for voting. Thread closed! :)[/jake]