Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
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: 07 Mar 2012 at 17:36
Thanks for the changes SC&co. I'm sure this is something we can all enjoy getting our heads round and adjusting our tactics to.

Couple of thoughts tho:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

The "exploiters" (or knowledgeable gamers, as they might prefer to see themselves) are actually the ones who benefit the most from this mid-tournament change.  Their armies are mostly intact and they are now free to go after those of us who have been wasting our troops like water attacking positions that would now be relatively easy pickings.  So they benefit twice.

Agree with you on that one - but can you honestly complain about it? It's like saying "The fishermen who knew the best places to fish used those places and have an unfair advantage" - it is not a crime that people who spent time earning knowledge then go and use that to their advantage - particularly in a game like Illy where knowledge is everything.

I completely rebuke this idea of the previous combat mechanics being glitched and people who used them to the best of their ability being bug-abusers. At the end of the day this game belongs to the Illy Dev team - if they view something as a glitch then that is what it is - and SC made it quite clear that the combat mechanics were the original+intended mechanics throught 2 years of Illyriad. The fact that they now needed some tweaking does now that things ingame have evolved does not make what we had previously a glitch.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Fixing the problem at some point was the right solution for the long term, although it once again tilts the balance more in the direction of the attacker in most battles, and toward larger players rather than teams of smaller players, thus toward established players rather than newer players.  These are the Illy dynamics with which we are familiar.  The game is now back to working as intended.

Honestly my first reaction on reading this is "Baaaaawaawaa....!!". You've made it clear to me in your opposition that you don't enjoy PvP combat in general and now I can understand why.

I can only see these changes being to the benefit of large groups of well-organised smaller players in numerous situations including trying to defend themselves in PvP and capture tournament squares.

That's all I got to say rlly, sorry for the long double post.
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 19:08
Many thanks and congratulations to the GMs for their work and for the way they handled that situation.

Changes in that old (but impressively good) combat algorithm were really needed. And that so young 5th tourney can already be writen in the rock for announcing a new age of fairness in combat outcomes, by pointing out the obvious Rounding Down issues, and the less obvious Crital Hit probabilities.

About the rounding down issues, I know i was the one who first wanted to develop it on a large scale (basically for alliance's self defense).
This "tactic" was used during this tourney, but we used it on a certain way (spread and not stack), to avoid to use its true potential (which would have been more than unfair), by stacking all on the same square, withough big plug armies: in those conditions, single armies with less than 20k units would have inflicted 0 casualties... and we really wanted to avoid that for a tourney. By spreading them, they just act as some commander self defense: a certain amount of def power added to overall power, at each encounter...

This thing had to be known by all to have the merit to be changed. And i'm also glad some large encounters revealed some unfairness about other factors when attacking and defending armies were pushed to extremes.

Again, i must thank the developpers for their excellent work.

Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 19:09
Well, the title of this thread does imply that they consider this something of an exploit.  Still, I don't blame you for taking advantage of it.
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: 07 Mar 2012 at 19:12
Createure, I tried to strike a balance in my post, to describe what I see as the effects of the change without making a judgment about them.  I don't think I used any negative or pejorative terms.  Indeed, I suggested the term "knowledgeable gamers" in place of a more pejorative term.  Your perception that I was complaining or making negative comments regarding this change is perhaps based more on your perception of me than of anything I actually said.

With regard to the idea that I don't enjoy PvP combat, my alliance mates and some extremely dead dorfs in Taomist would beg to disagree with you.  Wink
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 19:43
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Createure, I tried to strike a balance in my post, to describe what I see as the effects of the change without making a judgment about them.  I don't think I used any negative or pejorative terms.  Indeed, I suggested the term "knowledgeable gamers" in place of a more pejorative term.  Your perception that I was complaining or making negative comments regarding this change is perhaps based more on your perception of me than of anything I actually said.

With regard to the idea that I don't enjoy PvP combat, my alliance mates and some extremely dead dorfs in Taomist would beg to disagree with you.  Wink

I can vouch for Rill's willingness to kill dwarves. 
Back to Top
Miklabjarnir View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 73
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 20:36
I am really sceptical about fiddling with the combat system in a live game. Such things should happen only after a reasonably long notice period, like any important game change.

In principle, bugs should be fixed. However, if there is no documentation to the user of how the combat system works the the way it actually works is the specification.

I have many issues with the entire combat system in Illyriad, but that does not mean I think it is buggy and must be fixed. It means I think it should be improved in a planned and predictable way.

I kind of like the lack of specification for the combat system. It means there is a challenge for the players to explore it and find out for themselves. If somebody discovers that it does not work the way they believed, they should not be bailed out by a quick change. Lazy or sloppy players should not be rewarded at the cost of those who actually test their tactics and do some research.

For me this is merely a statement of principle. I do not take part in the tournament, so I have no personal interest in this case and do not have big enough armies to see any large-scale combat effects.

My biggest gripe with the combat system is that outcomes are way too binary. It is highly unrealistic in any kind of warfare, and pre-gunpowder in particular, to have large numbers of casualties. Losers should not be annihilated except in unusual circumstances. 10% casualties due to battle is heavy. More than 50% is a historical disaster, like end of the German Order as a power after Grünefeld.
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 20:41
Originally posted by Miklabjarnir Miklabjarnir wrote:

I am really sceptical about fiddling with the combat system in a live game. Such things should happen only after a reasonably long notice period, like any important game change.

In principle, bugs should be fixed. However, if there is no documentation to the user of how the combat system works the the way it actually works is the specification.

I have many issues with the entire combat system in Illyriad, but that does not mean I think it is buggy and must be fixed. It means I think it should be improved in a planned and predictable way.

I kind of like the lack of specification for the combat system. It means there is a challenge for the players to explore it and find out for themselves. If somebody discovers that it does not work the way they believed, they should not be bailed out by a quick change. Lazy or sloppy players should not be rewarded at the cost of those who actually test their tactics and do some research.

For me this is merely a statement of principle. I do not take part in the tournament, so I have no personal interest in this case and do not have big enough armies to see any large-scale combat effects.

My biggest gripe with the combat system is that outcomes are way too binary. It is highly unrealistic in any kind of warfare, and pre-gunpowder in particular, to have large numbers of casualties. Losers should not be annihilated except in unusual circumstances. 10% casualties due to battle is heavy. More than 50% is a historical disaster, like end of the German Order as a power after Grünefeld.

I like where your head is at. I think the "not total annihilation" concept is suppose to be represented by raiding. 

Maybe you can post something in the suggestions forum about different combat mechanics? 
Back to Top
JimJams View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 22:33
This fix doesn't change a thing. 

Issue 1 was well know but only a few alliances were using it deeply (at its real potential).
Issue 2 was only a critical hit chance and I wonder how much it will change things, not a lot I think. Eventually it will be reverted, or somehow changed, because of its impact on defense. Actually it look very odds and completely wrong when I see a little army attacking, being wiped, and do 4-8x damage to the defenders. It has no sense at all. But I have time to wait and see ....

If something has to be fixed is all the broken diplo system, and I am sure I don't need to explain why... 
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 22:50
Miklabjarnir, anihilation is needed... and i can take the exemple of the siege: as far as it isnt anihilated, it continues, and consequences of a non anihilation system would be pretty bad in that case. Then, there could be ways for an attacking army to focus on certain units (Siege engines here) in certain conditions.
Though, here isnt the subject of that. You have interesting points though; as said Geofrey, you should develop your ideas/vision through a thead in the Suggestions part of the forum.

To come back to the subject, JimJams, the thing about the roundings down really had to be updated. And about the critical hit chance, it depends on def stack, but Also on attacking power. The higher the both are, the higher the critical hit chance is... that also means that it will rarely aply to "casual attacks" even if def stack is big. So this change here doesnt change anything for usual use of armies, so from what you are talking about, i see your problem is much about the already present unbalance def/attk and not something brought by this update.

Though, something im understing through this, is that big attacking armies might not be the best if they make the citical hit chance increase against them... I always made sure to hve big single armies... these mostly permit to eat the coms self def only once... though i may change that maniac obsession... even if that have been substantially smoothed, i'd advise to be carefull with that :p.


Edited by Mandarins31 - 07 Mar 2012 at 22:56
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 23:58
Originally posted by SunStorm from the post http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/epic-battles_topic3208_post39607.html#39607 SunStorm from the post http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/epic-battles_topic3208_post39607.html#39607 wrote:

I think they ate their spinach just like Popeye said...
The Dev's have made me out to be a liar Tongue....apparently spinach had nothing to do with it after all Wacko.  hummmm..... 

(only joking - please don't take me seriously or send me hate mail - k, thanks)

(^_^)

"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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