Print Page | Close Window

05Apr13 - Updates

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4945
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 11:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 05Apr13 - Updates
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: 05Apr13 - Updates
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 00:46
Tournament Award Announcement
Announcement now says which region the award was received.

Tournament Summary
Graph for the Top 10 Alliances and how many Champions they have won over time has been added.

Tournament Square
Your Alliance's Armies On Square are now ordered by arrival time rather than departure time as this is the order that the rewards are given out so is a more useful layout from this perspective.

NAPs and Confeds
NAPs and Confeds were originally not suspended for the tournament squares. This was corrected, and the mis-stacked armies returned home. Unfortunately some combats occurred before we were able to repatriate all the armies; again we apologize for this.

Early Tournament Combats
The initial combats that occurred on the squares were not reported. These have now been added to the square's history.

Alliance Membership
Players were prohibited from quitting an alliance whilst on a tournament square, but not from being kicked from the alliance.  This has now been rectified for all tournament squares for the duration of the tournament.

Commander Equipment
In some circumstances Commanders could change equipment in the field, this is no longer the case.

Trade Hubs
If you tried to send a trader to a trade hub where your faction standing was too low to interact with, you would be prevented, but lose the trader. This has now been corrected and you will not lose the trader anymore.

Occupation Reports 
We've linked locations and towns in the occupy/siege/blockade IGMs to make it easier for you to find out what's going on




Replies:
Posted By: Gnorfum
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 01:29
Great :) Thanks!

-------------
Learn how to play Illy and live in freedome: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/702" rel="nofollow - TOR-U


Posted By: Grainne
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 01:53
To be honest I thought Commanders switching out equipment was a very fun and intentional feature; I am sad to see this go.  (In fact, I had hoped for a "Solunar" Tournament in light of our Midnight and Sun-Burnished armor!) I'm fairly certain there were "castle guys" who followed the Knights around with all manner of fancy armor and equipment, right?  Especially in times of Tournament.............  

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45918" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 02:39
Originally posted by Grainne Grainne wrote:

To be honest I thought Commanders switching out equipment was a very fun and intentional feature; I am sad to see this go.  (In fact, I had hoped for a "Solunar" Tournament in light of our Midnight and Sun-Burnished armor!) I'm fairly certain there were "castle guys" who followed the Knights around with all manner of fancy armor and equipment, right?  Especially in times of Tournament.............  

Hum.  It definitely wasn't intentional (hence the bugfix).

But I think your point is very well made, and maybe there's room for making swapping out Equipment in the field either a research and/or a commander skill.   We're not sure either way, and would welcome thoughts from you guys.

SC


Posted By: Lagavulin
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:00
I like this idea very much.  A commander would have a large baggage train of his own.


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:03
Originally posted by GM Thundercat GM Thundercat wrote:

If you tried to send a trader to a trade hub where your faction standing was too low to interact with, you would be prevented, but lose the trader. This has now been corrected and you will not lose the trader anymore.

Awesome. A lot of new traders got frustrated by that particular issue. Thanks for improving it!
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

maybe there's room for making swapping out Equipment in the field either a research and/or a commander skill.

That would be an awesome research. One immediate use case would be city reinforcement. Your riders and soldiers would ride out using light weapons, light armor and fast horses. Upon reaching your ally's city, you could swap your troops over to defense-optimized gear.

It does bring up secondary questions. Where would they get the fresh equipment? From your city inventory? Would the current equipment be moved back to your inventory? Or would you have to send all the gear with them from the start?

Even if that feature were only for commanders, it would still be really useful. Perhaps a Squire research item?


Posted By: Grainne
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:10
I like that.  (Squire Research)  Obviously there would be a speed penalty for the army--something to "balance" the benefit.  Armies/Commanders travelled with a LOT of stuff--I do know that, for sure.

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45918" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:27
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Perhaps a Squire research item?

Squires.... 

Now that's something I like a lot for both Lore and utility reasons.  

Let me ponder further, but btw this is - precisely - why our community is so awesome.

SC


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:33
good changes, thanks TC and SC.

I am not sure I like the idea of being able to switch out equipment while in the field.  I had always thought that part of the interest of the day/night armor was that you had to predict when it might be used -- either by sending for very limited, specific times or by using for a special event such as the last undead tournament.  I don't feel strongly about this, but I can see both sides of it.


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:40
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I had always thought that part of the interest of the day/night armor was that you had to predict when it might be used -- either by sending for very limited, specific times or by using for a special event such as the last undead tournament.  I don't feel strongly about this, but I can see both sides of it.

A very good point, well made, on the other side.  

Hum...

Will continue to ponder.  Keep it coming.

Best,

SC


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:48
The ability to change armor in the field would also have relevance to the types that offer defense against specific troop types.  It is possible to make a good guess on the type of troop that will be arriving based on its movement speed.  If equipment could be changed out in the field, then it diminishes the strategy involved in predicting beforehand what types of units might be attacking.  Of course, units can be added to slow down cavalry to make it look like not cavalry, but it is hard to speed up spears to make them look like cav.

Some people might see this as even more fun and an argument for maintaining 8-10 different sets of armor, at least for commanders.  I am not sure that is the case.

If the ability to change equipment were introduced, one option would be to limit it to once every 12 hours or something like that, to avoid people changing out for every army incoming to a siege camp, for example.  (If that is determined to be undesirable.)


Posted By: Grainne
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 03:59
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:



If the ability to change equipment were introduced, one option would be to limit it to once every 12 hours or something like that, to avoid people changing out for every army incoming to a siege camp, for example.  (If that is determined to be undesirable.)
I think that's an excellent penalty--makes sense.  A quick glance at wiki (yes I know, a deplorable "source") includes the following as squire's job:  
  • Replacing the knight's sword if it were broken or dropped,
  • Replacing the knight's  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse" rel="nofollow - horse  or his own horse, if either be injured or killed,
  • Dressing the knight in his armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squire
The more I think about it, I can't imagine a smart commander setting off to war with a single spear!  Especially when travelling great distances for lengthy occupations...  


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45918" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 04:02
One question would be whether the army would need to "carry" all the spare equipment, thus making it unavailable for other armies.  The ability to switch equipment instantly between armies hundreds of squares apart would mean that people might choose to maintain smaller supplies of equipment -- especially since you could conceivably prestige caravans carrying equipment between cities and use one set for armies from multiple cities.  It seems unlikely that most people would go to that kind of trouble, but I'm sure someone would do it someday.


Posted By: Grainne
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 04:13
Wow!  Maybe we're looking at this all wrong and it should be a "magic" research?  Wink

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45918" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 04:37
Rill, in the city reinforcement example, it's impossible to guess ahead of time how the city will be attacked. The exception is if the attack is enroute and you are close enough to switch gear prior to dispatching reinforcements. That doesn't seem to happen very often.

I don't see anything wrong with a player watching an incoming army, guessing its composition, and then re-arranging gear. You can do that inside your own city, so why not in the field? Rotating gear is exactly what any good commander would do. I also think it's reasonable that an army might switch to War Axes for a sally forth, and then back to terrain or defensive weapons to continue protecting the city. It's also reasonable that your infantry would stable their riding horses once they'd reached the destination, rather than risking them in battle, especially inside the walls of a friendly city.

I think it's reasonable that the army or commander would need to take all the gear with them. Perhaps the drop rate on stored gear in the field could be 100%, thus allowing your opponents to recover treasure from your baggage train.

Even if the option were restricted to Commanders, I think it's cool and adds some additional flavor to deploying crafted items.


Posted By: BetaMatt
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 06:48
Originally posted by GM ThunderCat GM ThunderCat wrote:


Trade Hubs
If you tried to send a trader to a trade hub where your faction standing was too low to interact with, you would be prevented, but lose the trader. This has now been corrected and you will not lose the trader anymore.


I'm glad to see this as I was confused and upset when I lost my first trader a few months ago (my capital is a few squares north of Blackbriar). The market in this game is awesome and I nearly missed out on it because of this.

Speaking of trade please take a look at my suggestion here:  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/buy-sell-order-calculations-and-clarifications_topic4753.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/buy-sell-order-calculations-and-clarifications_topic4753.html

Thanks :D


-------------


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 07:29
I am ambivalent about switching gear. It seems way too much for troops but feasable for commanders, however there should be a limit. Perhaps a checkbox when doing the original equiping, wherein one could select a second set to bring along. I suppose if this were the case the skill required could be stepped up and allow the "squire" to bring more with higher skill levels.

The automatic stabling of riding horses in a friendly city during reinforcement is a great idea. I think this might be limited as well, though. You could allow this to work only if the friendly city has the horse trainer building?

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: lethargic0N3
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 10:46
Carry additional sets of equipment for commanders would surely slow them down possibly per set and the logistics involved in carry additional sets for a whole army would slow them to near siege speeds.

Would we also take into account the time it takes to change a full set or armor.. with the possibility that that they are still changing when the attack arrives... and the reduced stats from being half prepared


Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 12:53
Equipment: Yes, I reported that bug at the last tournament ;o)
It was 'useful' in that you could act upon latest scout reports and change your equipment while your army was en-route: perhaps you could remove the equipment if you foresaw certain defeat, or add equipment if you forgot to do so before sending.

I'd support 'overloading' equipment, so that a choice can be made in the battlefield.
Minor point: There's then a tricky simulation question of when opposing armies change equipment. Given that our simulation is fairly simple, and presents only limited opportunities for 'phases' for decisions, we could have a situation where both sides change equipment, based on what they see of their enemy, and are no better off after the change.

I suggest that scouts (as a contingent in the army) play a part it making a good assessment of the enemy capability, and therefore be required to enable the changing of equipment.

Being well-equipped might have effects:
  • contribute to the confidence of an army.
  • make the army slower, unless supporting units are used. I like squires, but divisional unit allocation might become complicated if we're not careful. Do we really need squires, or should they be integral to the unit type, e.g. T2 Cavalry already require two horses: is that intended as a choice at the stables, or a redundancy in the field?
If a unit is killed, you'd lose all its equipment, of course.


-------------


Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 17:41
Changing armour is fine, and should be possible. Teleporting it out to an army in the field, however, seems a bit strange. 
I like the squire idea - maybe  the squire would be able to carry a limited number (say three) extra sets of equipment? Obviously, if the army suffers defeat, all equipment would be lost, though the unequipped should have a higher chance of getting salvaged.


Posted By: Timrath
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 22:52
Originally posted by Grainne Grainne wrote:

To be honest I thought Commanders switching out equipment was a very fun and intentional feature; I am sad to see this go.  (In fact, I had hoped for a "Solunar" Tournament in light of our Midnight and Sun-Burnished armor!) I'm fairly certain there were "castle guys" who followed the Knights around with all manner of fancy armor and equipment, right?  Especially in times of Tournament.............  

I'm 100% behind you!
For me, this wasn't as much a bugfix, as it was a good feature being taken away from us. I don't see how being able to switch equipment hurt the gameplay. On the contrary, it gave us a tiny little bit of tactical flexibility. Now it's gone, and I can't imagine anyone being happier for it.


Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 23:37
Originally posted by Timrath Timrath wrote:

For me, this wasn't as much a bugfix, as it was a good feature being taken away from us. I don't see how being able to switch equipment hurt the gameplay.
Ah, but the point was that the switch could be performed by 'magically' moving equipment from the city to wherever the army happened to be (and vice versa), instantly.

What some players are doing here, is finding a way to keep the feature, but make it a realistic aspect of the gameplay, e.g. carrying extra equipment with the ability to re-equip (at some, as yet to be determined, point) to increase capability, perhaps at some (as yet to be determined) cost.


-------------


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 00:16
Not sure I follow that logic.
In a game with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters?
Why is there anything intrinsically wrong with magically transported equipment?


-------------


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 03:20
Originally posted by Mahaut Mahaut wrote:

Not sure I follow that logic.
In a game with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters?
Why is there anything intrinsically wrong with magically transported equipment?




Good point but this (before it was "fixed") had nothing to do with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters. One could have zero magik researched and still do this.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 04:45
I don't see it as being intrinsically right or wrong.  The main question is, what will be more or less fun.  Having some constraints can make the game more fun.  Having too many constraints can make the game less fun.  The question is what is the best balance?  It could be there is a "right" or "wrong" answer, just a variety of possibilities.


Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 09:07
Firstly, thank you! Glad to see the fixes and they are much appreciated (especially the report update ;) )

A whole tier of squire research would be kind of awesome - allowing squires but not necessarily having a physical unit. I'd allow equipment to be changed once per research and make it irreversible until the army came home again. So, on the equip box, have primary equipment, secondary, tertiary etc and in the field you can change to each type but once it's changed, it becomes unsuitable for use in battle, it has to be taken home to be repaired or whatever.


Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 19:24
I think commanders could need some extra work in any case. It seems too cheap to be able to promote somebody to commander without incurring any cost. Commanders have their own tent and supplies, and if they command more than a handful they also should have a staff. 

I also think the "one size fits all" approach to officers is bad. At the very least there should be a limit of how many will benefit from the division skills of a commander. A new command skill could take care of this - commanders with no training in command skill can command 32, the rest of the division behave as if there was no commander. Then double the number for each level researched.

Make this command skill the base for size of staff so that each level gains one squire / staff member who can at most carry one complete set of extra equipment. The staff members / squires would be drawn from the rank and file of the same type as the commander, and should only contribute to the defensive strength of the army.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net