Combat API and its use in a Player Run Tourney |
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 11> |
Author | |||
Gragnog
Postmaster Joined: 28 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
You only need one player in an alliance to be occypying the square with api key for the alliance to get the occupy time. All other players can just attack and reinforce said player. Trying to punish players and alliances is just going to result in people hitting tournament squares to mess with the tournament. I for one will not be giving my api but will be reinforcing the square my alliance goes for. If that gets my alliance penalized you can be assured I will start to hit other squares just for fun then.
|
|||
Kaggen is my human half
|
|||
Rill
Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 7078 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
When this was discussed in gc, kodabear said he didn't see a problem with people not officially participating in the tournament trying to occupy the squares. They won't get the prizes if they win, of course.
In terms of people who haven't given APIs trying to act as "spoilers" for the tournament, I don't see how that could be a thing, given that in the past everyone could try to occupy tournament square, and in this tournament, the same thing, everyone can try to occupy tournament squares. In the past there have been folks who have tried to act as "spoilers" by camping on squares for reasons that did not appear to have tactical or strategic value. There have also been people who seemed to think their actions had tactical or strategic value when they probably didn't. Who are we to judge?
|
|||
Mr Damage
Postmaster Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thanks for the replies. Not trying to spoil anyone's fun just looking to have some of our own. I am happy not to be a chance of winning anything but would like to hit the squares regardless. There is no chance that Grey can win anything to start with.
|
|||
kodabear
Postmaster General Player Council - Astronomer Joined: 18 Jun 2013 Location: Lucerna Status: Offline Points: 1515 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I will ask players nicely for there API key. They wont have to give it to me but they wont get any prizes though.
|
|||
Lagavulin
Wordsmith Joined: 31 Dec 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 208 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
sounds more than fair to me
|
|||
kodabear
Postmaster General Player Council - Astronomer Joined: 18 Jun 2013 Location: Lucerna Status: Offline Points: 1515 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Just to be clear the only way for a whole alliance to be disqualified is by cheating (having more then one alliance hold a Tournament Squares). Now if no one from an alliance end up giving me a Tournament API key and wins a sq they will still prizes for the sq but if they won 1st place in the whole Tournament they wont get any medals (because i will be giving medals based on API key given to me).
|
|||
Digioso
Forum Warrior Joined: 09 Feb 2015 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 312 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
As long as the script can get the information it doesn't matter how many players are involved that shared the combat key. If none of the players who participated in the combat shared their API keys the combat cannot be tracked. If only one player per alliance shares their key this would mean that this player has to participate in ALL combats and he also has to be the first player to occupy any square. Because if another player that didn't share the key is the first player on a square it cannot be tracked. |
|||
Cilcain
Wordsmith Joined: 13 Oct 2012 Status: Offline Points: 106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
SC, Sorry for the delayed response to your post – but I’ve been
attempting to be on holiday for the last few days J All you say regarding in-game battle reports is, of course,
true. A participant in a battle gets a
report (either complete or partial), and is able to share this with whomever
they like by forwarding the report. This is fine, and it translates into the ‘fantasy Illyriad
universe’ quite well as “word of the battle spread far and wide” type stories. The use of the current API in my mind changes this somewhat. Firstly, it enables intelligence gathering to be done
automatically, and at volume – this is easily then extended into automation
that populates a large database of intelligence outside of the perimeters of
Illyriad. The action of sharing
information then becomes less of a ‘role play’ thing – which essentially the
game is – to a coding thing. The owner
of data also loses the ability to cherry pick which data to forward on to
others, as the API gives access to all data. Secondly, the use of the current Combat API for a player run
tourney means that players must share this data with players outside of their
alliance with whom they have probably had no previous dealings. Your example of forwarding battle reports is
generally done within the confines of an alliance – or more specifically,
shared with specific leadership accounts within an alliance. On the fewer occasions when reports are
shared outside of an alliance, they tend to be on a battle by battle basis (see
the first point above). Thirdly, the current Combat API provides more information
(or rather, the same information in more scenarios) than in-game battle reports
do. Currently, if I reinforce a square
occupied by my Allies, Confeds or NAPs, I just get a report stating that my
army has arrived, and the name of the player with the earliest occupying army. However, using the API, I get an XML that
details all of the armies on the square (including troop types and quantities) –
i.e. you can scout without Scouts, even when the occupying armies have huge
contingents of defending scouts themselves.
The same applies for reinforcing a city. I am not saying that the current Combat API should be
retired – I think there are a great many good uses for it. What I am saying, is that for the specific
use case of a player run tourney, the current Combat API is not suitable, and
that we need an API specific to this use case.
This tourney API should not only be tourney square specific, but should
also filter out some data elements so that it doesn’t become a tool for
intelligence gathering via the coder’s back door. It wouldn’t require a new XML schema – just an
API policy or data masking rule on the existing schema. C |
|||
Tacardi
New Poster Joined: 18 Sep 2012 Location: Mason, Michigan Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I would like to know "IF or WHEN" the coding will be changed? and if so will there be like another button to generate the tourney API code?
I'm a co-lead in TCOL and we are starting to get our members coordinated and providing the needed API code
Thanks Tacardi Edited by Tacardi - 14 Apr 2016 at 18:42 |
|||
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3926 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi Cilcain, Thanks for getting back to me.
Many alliances have used the Full API key and automated parsers, for many years - precisely for the purpose of collating alliance-wide (and even confed-wide) intelligence purposes. It saves all the members the hassle of copying and pasting every combat email into a text parser, which would achieve the same effect - but with more hassle.
So... you're absolutely *fine* with the 'secret' data being shared with - or aggregated by - anyone in the game, entirely out of your control... but only so long as it's done manually via igms or via copy'n'pasting each individual xml file attached to each email into an xml aggregation system. I guess this is where I believe your argument for a reduced API dataset loses traction; especially now as you're specifically making it an imposition on all the other players in this tournament as well - ie there's no point in your alliance using a restricted dataset API key unless all the tournament participants do... so we, the developers, must force all the tournament participants to abandon use of the Full API key for combats on tournament squares in order to satisfy your requirements to participate. Your argument is, fundamentally, "it's not the data we object to, it's that the system is too automated - and we'd be fine if it was made more manual"... and I'm afraid to say that's not an argument that really holds much water. Regards, SC |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 11> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |