Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 29SEPT11 Moving Cities
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed29SEPT11 Moving Cities

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 22>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 03:58
Peace of the camp applies to the square where both the city and the army are.  The army then attacked an adjoining city from that square.  Peace of the camp did not apply to the adjoining square.  Not sure why this is difficult to understand.
Back to Top
Koragg View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 15:09
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Peace of the camp applies to the square where both the city and the army are.  The army then attacked an adjoining city from that square.  Peace of the camp did not apply to the adjoining square.  Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Because StJudes city (in the Peace of the Camp square) has reports of his Runes triggering and of a failed defence.  If StJude's city were under peace of the camp, it shouldn't have been attacked and THEN allowed the armies to encamp there.

I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand, now that the full details of Jude's issue are clear and easy to read.
--------
Koragg, Faction Abassador for Dwarven Druids [Druid]
Phineous, Trade Co-ordinator for Fairy Road Authority [Roads]
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 18:15
Again, peace of the camp and rune triggering are separate systems that do not activate through a common logic path.

I intentionally neglected speaking of what to do with an "occupied" city's forces, commanders, resources, or any portions of its control, because that would be going off-topic.  Thus far, everything I've discussed has related to fixing issues with new features, even if the fixes occur outside those features.

I also believe that while those issues present a lot of opportunity for new gameplay and the mechanics of most are simple and yet offer variety--i.e. occupy orders could kill every unit on construction, while blockade orders could take resources when they leave and attack only armies as they're given commanders--the actual proposed solution would be quick and simple and could be implemented without actually handling these issues.  Just allow the occupy/blockade/siege options and, for the moment, ignore city troop production and resource plundering.  Occupying in the city suggests an occupation/blocade could be snuck around anyway, so the existing attack triggers would be sufficient.
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 18:29
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Again, peace of the camp and rune triggering are separate systems that do not activate through a common logic path.

The debate, to me anyway, does not surround what is actually happening, nor whether the mechanics are activated as you say though a common logic path. The debate is that the justification for why the mechanic was "working as intended" is not holding up to scrutiny. In other words, there is a flaw, or whatever you want to call it. If it is not a flaw, then I would like to know the justification for why the mechanic would need changing if it is performing as intended. For now, I see no evidence to suggest it is performing as originally intended and this scenario is an unforeseen result.

Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:


I intentionally neglected speaking of what to do with an "occupied" city's forces, commanders, resources, or any portions of its control, because that would be going off-topic.  Thus far, everything I've discussed has related to fixing issues with new features, even if the fixes occur outside those features.

I also believe that while those issues present a lot of opportunity for new gameplay and the mechanics of most are simple and yet offer variety--i.e. occupy orders could kill every unit on construction, while blockade orders could take resources when they leave and attack only armies as they're given commanders--the actual proposed solution would be quick and simple and could be implemented without actually handling these issues.  Just allow the occupy/blockade/siege options and, for the moment, ignore city troop production and resource plundering.  Occupying in the city suggests an occupation/blocade could be snuck around anyway, so the existing attack triggers would be sufficient.

The Illy community enjoys a good debate as well as idea discussion. If you threw this up in the suggestions forum, we could keep this current discussion on topic and I would be willing to comment further there. Unless of course, you are merely stating your thoughts and are not really looking for criticism of the idea.


Edited by StJude - 27 Oct 2011 at 18:30
Back to Top
Koragg View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 18:59
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Again, peace of the camp and rune triggering are separate systems that do not activate through a common logic path.

No, but weather or not an attack happens on that square is part of the peace of the camp system.  And after the rune was triggered, the H? units attaceked Judes units in that town (resulting in the failed defense message) and then they were allowed to occupy there.

At least, that's how I understand what Jude wrote.  

It would be equivalent to StormCrow's example where A and B are enemies, but both send to reinforce C (who they are both friends with).  A gets there first, but then B fights A and C (because A is opposed to B) and then after the battle, B is granted peace of the camp.
--------
Koragg, Faction Abassador for Dwarven Druids [Druid]
Phineous, Trade Co-ordinator for Fairy Road Authority [Roads]
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 22:23
I'm not sure what exactly is a point of contention here, because I very much agree it does not appear that things are in fact working according to an actively-planned-out design.  The observed behavior fits far better with a "default" design affected by which parts of various systems run and when (more notably, when they fail to factor into a situation).

I'm merely pointing out how things can end up being inconsistent and unpredictable by default.

There is indeed some worthwhile discussion that could happen elsewhere, but it has at least been lightly discussed before without going anywhere.  I think if it had gone somewhere then, it might have prevented the slow fragmentation in gameplay we're starting to see now.  Complexity should be in the volume of rules applied, not the volume of ways (programmatically speaking) in which to apply them--or even invoke them.


Edited by HonoredMule - 27 Oct 2011 at 22:23
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 19:48
Ok so Exodus has arrived - and it's been in effect quite a few weeks now I guess.

But wasn't one of the main points in bringing in Exodus to enable the devs to close the 'negative food, zero balance' glitch without being unfair on people who had placed their cities in a manner unsuited to the proposed changes?

Now that Exodus is here can anyone tell us when this is going to get closed? Many of us have spent large amounts of time and prestige preparing ourselves for a change that just doesn't seem to be coming - while those who are still abusing this are still raking up enormous gold piles that they will be able to benefit from for months to come.

Is it possible to get some kind of timeframe for when this will be sorted? Because it almost seems like people have forgotten about this important issue.

I know - the dev team does not like giving precise timeframes (for obvious reasons). But I think you'll all remember that the dev team DID infact give a precise date that this issue would be sorted (in order to enable people to prepare) - of course this date was dropped because of public opinion and the decision to introduce Exodus first... but can we have a date back now please?

Can we at least get some kind of indication of whether this issue is going to be sorted 'now' or 'next' or 'later' or 'never'?
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 20:37
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

I'm not sure what exactly is a point of contention here, because I very much agree it does not appear that things are in fact working according to an actively-planned-out design.  The observed behavior fits far better with a "default" design affected by which parts of various systems run and when (more notably, when they fail to factor into a situation).

I'm merely pointing out how things can end up being inconsistent and unpredictable by default.

There is indeed some worthwhile discussion that could happen elsewhere, but it has at least been lightly discussed before without going anywhere.  I think if it had gone somewhere then, it might have prevented the slow fragmentation in gameplay we're starting to see now.  Complexity should be in the volume of rules applied, not the volume of ways (programmatically speaking) in which to apply them--or even invoke them.

I suppose one way to figure all this out would be to experiment in a variety of situations.  I am studying Exodus in a couple of my cities and would be willing to volunteer to "land" them on various spots with a variety of incoming or occupying NAP'd and non-NAP'd armies, if anyone is willing to volunteer the armies.  All in the interest of exploring game mechanics, of course.
Back to Top
Celebcalen View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 22:03
O goodie Creat is on the case.

O wait a minute he is well down the Harmless? food chain. The devs probably won't pay him in any attention then.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 22:58
All exploits are equal, but some exploits are more equal than others.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.