Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 27MAR14 - Exodus bugfixes
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

27MAR14 - Exodus bugfixes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
jordigui View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jordigui Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 22:31
It is an EXPLOIT, because armies in the city are currently not fighting the enemy troops on the square. The exodused city just settles in the square and the enemy armies on the square reinforce the (enemy) city.
And this is used continuously by H?. So they are clearly using it as an EXPLOIT that is AGAINST how exodus is described.
What would happen if the troops in the city loss against the enemy army? is the city conquered?
Back to Top
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 23:24
Yep it's a total nonsense. How is it possible that the game allow a player to exo on a sq held by an encampement from an alliance he's at war with????????????????
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 599
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:16
Why is it nonsense?   If the city is free to move within the rules of exodus and especially if they have Sov 5 on that square why is that not a good defensive move?     At least it's creative. :P

Edit:  Of course, if you used it, I can bet you wouldn't be complaining about it.  It works both ways and no the enemy forces do not fight the city, they reinforce it.  :D


Edited by Starry - 07 Apr 2014 at 01:18
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Lyken View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: mCrow
Status: Offline
Points: 55
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lyken Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:21
All's fair in war and naps... or something like that.

While the problem should most definitely be fixed as soon as is possible, we'd not even know about it had they not discovered and used it. I applaud you sirs/madams!

Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 599
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:33
It is not an exploit, read the rules for exodus, it all works as intended now.   The enemy armies had no claim to that square, there was no siege in process only occupying armies, blockades had been cleared.   No exploit, just a creative move or would you like to continue taking blocking all creativity in this game?  
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:55
Well, I won't argue about exploit or not. Yes it strictly obey to the exo rules and I must admit it's creative.

What I think is just that we've spoted a specific case that the dev hasn't even figure out when they wrote the exo rules cause really, do you think that it's logical to succeed in exodussing a city (just imagine it) on the top of an ennemy encampement without a single fight??? Do you think that it's logical that armies sent to occupy this sq before the city move ends up reinforcing an ennemy city instead of attacking the garnison?

To me there's just something wrong there.

Back to Top
Count Rupert View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Points: 242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Count Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:55
Well, it's really for the devs to decide whether it's working as intended.  That argument could have been made about NPCs reinforcing player encampments.  Whether a city should be allowed to exo to an occupied square or not, I'll leave up to the developers to decide, but you have to admit it can hardly being working as intended to have enemy units reinforcing the city as a result.  
Back to Top
Lyken View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: mCrow
Status: Offline
Points: 55
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Lyken Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:56
I think the issue to these people is less that it's possible, and more that NAP/confed armies reinforcing a tile block any further hostile action by friendly forces upon that tile. It's fair enough that the rules of exodus allow for it, but the consequences of such have clearly not been examined closely enough, likely due to the lack of the tactic being employed.

If it's to be a 'working as intended' feature, it should at least be balanced... as it is there is little risk to the town in making the maneuver, which makes little sense if you think about what's actually going on... you've just ordered your town dismantled only to be re-constructed on top of the enemy's camped forces!

...but hey, what do I care? Have fun with it while it lasts!

edit:: perhaps the results of the subsequent battle should determine the cities fate? Would certainly make more sense...


Edited by Lyken - 07 Apr 2014 at 01:57

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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 02:47
I have re-read the moving cities announcement thread http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/29sept11-moving-cities_topic2495.html and it appears that I remembered the peace of the camp conditions incorrectly.  Stormcrow clearly states in that thread that peace of the camp will prevent the army from the city from attacking any army on the square.  So it appears that the mechanic is working as intended.

Stormcrow also said in that thread that he believed they needed to give additional consideration to changing those mechanics in the case of a city landing on a hostile army.  So Stormy, how about some reconsideration?

By the by, that thread is an amusing glimpse into the history of Illy featuring such luminaries as StJude, Celebcalen, HonoredMule, Starry and Kumomoto (as well as some contributions by yours truly).  Remember all that stuff?  Makes me smile now, seemed so serious at times then.

Good for perspective!
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 599
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 03:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have re-read the moving cities announcement thread http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/29sept11-moving-cities_topic2495.html and it appears that I remembered the peace of the camp conditions incorrectly.  Stormcrow clearly states in that thread that peace of the camp will prevent the army from the city from attacking any army on the square.  So it appears that the mechanic is working as intended.

Stormcrow also said in that thread that he believed they needed to give additional consideration to changing those mechanics in the case of a city landing on a hostile army.  So Stormy, how about some reconsideration?

By the by, that thread is an amusing glimpse into the history of Illy featuring such luminaries as StJude, Celebcalen, HonoredMule, Starry and Kumomoto (as well as some contributions by yours truly).  Remember all that stuff?  Makes me smile now, seemed so serious at times then.

Good for perspective!

It should not be changed, the rules of the game are being followed.   There needs to be enough flexibility in the game for people to be creative, isn't that what you are always espousing?   This is a sandbox and the players find new uses or strategies in the game?     Just because the use of this strategy went against your "group" does not dictate change, there needs to be some room for players to fight a war with new and innovative ideas.   You cannot have it both ways, Rill.   Destroy the ability for players to use their imagination in this game and you doom the game to boredom and predictability.  You don't see H players demanding change for some of the ways your group are using the game mechanics and trust me, there is a very long list of creative strategies being used on both sides.


Edited by Starry - 07 Apr 2014 at 03:25
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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