| Author |
|
Createure 
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: 07 Nov 2011 at 03:19 |
|
Indeed Korag - I am in the habit of reading every announcement. And I did read about this 'other potential exploit'. But just because one possible avenue of approaching the problem is blocked (due to causing bigger issues?) does certainly NOT mean we should accept the current glitch being left open for all eternity for all to exploit if they should be so inclined.
All I was saying is that things seem to have gone very quiet on the current glitch existing in the game - and I would just like an idea of whether steps are being taken to remedy this.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Nov 2011 at 21:00 |
Apparently there is a glitch and city walls are NOT affected by Exodus. Either the documentation or the coding needs to be changed, perhaps.
[21:01]<LadyLuvs> I have heard they don't drop [21:01]<SunStorm> it does not level down - I have exodused already [21:01]<LadyLuvs> the walls I mean |
|
Koragg
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
|
Posted: 01 Nov 2011 at 15:38 |
 Createure wrote:
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?
(snip)
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'?
|
This is addressed here;
In other words - the changes they proposed opened up a MUCH LARGER explot, so they're holding off until they can do it without making things worse, and if they can't, they'll cancel the plan. (Reading through all of the announcements over the last 3 or so months is a good way to get an overall feel of the state of proposed changes, btw, and if you are big enough that this change affects you enough to spend prestige on, you should probably already be in the habit of reading all of these. Though considering this very thread is in the 'announcements' section, I'm baffled as to why you didn't read the one I'm linking now?)
EDIT: WHOOPS, posted the wrong link somehow?
Edited by Koragg - 01 Nov 2011 at 15:39
|
|
--------
Koragg, Faction Abassador for Dwarven Druids [Druid]
Phineous, Trade Co-ordinator for Fairy Road Authority [Roads]
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 23:17 |
|
Personally I am happy with the current definition of what is exploit and what isn't: Something that the dev team tells us is an exploit = exploit. Something they tell us is no exploit = not exploit. Because at the end of the day this is their game and it is for them to say what is intended and what isn't, not the players - who are all subject to biases based on their in-game situation.
I would kind of like an answer to my question above though. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been somewhat of a side-track.
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 22:58 |
|
All exploits are equal, but some exploits are more equal than others.
|
|
Celebcalen
Forum Warrior
Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
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.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 20:37 |
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.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
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'?
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
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
|
|
Koragg
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
|
Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 18:59 |
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]
|
|
Tweet
29SEPT11 Moving Cities
Topic Options