Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Curious: Why are battles resolved instantly?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCurious: Why are battles resolved instantly?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 4.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Arctic55 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 16:42
Originally posted by Rorgash Rorgash wrote:

ok cool i got some slapping in the past, maybe it was because of a link..

oh well ikariam is the name. might be worth checking into for the devs aswell, to see how they made it and maybe see if its possible for Illyriad aswell to have a more impressive combat system. it sure kept people at the screen checking in to see how the battle was going :)


NONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!    People in that game were so selfish. I waited for weeks, played for months. I was bored as soon as I started. NOBODY would help me, they just sat there and sometimes attacked me for trying to send them igms asking questions and requesting to join their alliance. I'm sorry, but if the devs make this like Ikariam... I don't know what I would do. I hate Ikariam for being full of bullys and selfish pigs. I couldn't build anything because I needed help. But instead of helping me, they raided me. I had to build an arm from the start. I HATE that type of atmoisphire. I SAY NAY!!!!!!!!!!!! DEVS, I BEG YOU, DON'T MAKE THIS GAME LIKE IKARIAM!!!!
Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 17:26
-.- I take it you didnt bother to read anything on this topic not even the title...


please learn to read then come back to the forum.
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 17:29
Introducing a similar system would hardly make this game like Ikariam, however I would be against it simply because it would take what little instantainious events we have in this game away.

However, perhaps the seige system could be changed to reflect such battles.  Changing npc battle to such a thing would cause a nightmare for anyone that harvests anatomies after all.
Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 17:35
this is for player battles not animal slaughter i would think
Back to Top
Bonaparta View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 18:44
If bombardment happens every hour, why couldn't combat rounds also happen every hour? I think that server could handle it...

Farming NPCs shouldn't be a problem, if you would send overwhelming army poor animals would loose in the first round. But for large more even sided battles many rounds sure sounds more fun and more strategy. Multiple attackers would join in the next combat round to form a larger army... 

50 well coordinated small players could kill big defending army and each would share the troop losses. In current combat system 50 small players can kill large defending army, but many of attackers loose their entire armies and commanders. Using commanders with more hit points would also make more sense in round based combat system. Messengers could also be used to retrieve attacking army before next combat round...

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: 04 Jan 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by Bonaparta Bonaparta wrote:

If bombardment happens every hour, why couldn't combat rounds also happen every hour? I think that server could handle it...

Farming NPCs shouldn't be a problem, if you would send overwhelming army poor animals would loose in the first round. But for large more even sided battles many rounds sure sounds more fun and more strategy. Multiple attackers would join in the next combat round to form a larger army... 

50 well coordinated small players could kill big defending army and each would share the troop losses. In current combat system 50 small players can kill large defending army, but many of attackers loose their entire armies and commanders. Using commanders with more hit points would also make more sense in round based combat system. Messengers could also be used to retrieve attacking army before next combat round...

Great suggestions. 

Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 19:07
I'd just like to add that the devs could (presumably easily) add a limiting factor for NPC combat so that a battle against 1000 animals would take far shorter than the same battle versus player troops.

I wonder how this would affect blockades? It would be interesting if you could send an army out to attack a blockade as a "distractions" weakening that particular blockade by a __% factor while they try to fend off the attacking force.

Same for occupying squares: would an attacking force have to defeat EVERY defender to claim control of the square, or would it be based on number of troops still standing?

And a third, awesome thing: since you could send reinforcements and scout battles midway, hosting awesome tournaments becomes SO much more strategic and exciting!


Edited by Hadus - 04 Jan 2013 at 19:13
Back to Top
Arctic55 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 00:40
Originally posted by Rorgash Rorgash wrote:

-.- I take it you didnt bother to read anything on this topic not even the title...


please learn to read then come back to the forum.


I did read the title and the forum. The name of THAT game just makes me so angry from my experience there.

And any new machanics for time taking battles would take alot of work. I don't know, the devs are already working on so much, and the battles taking time to resolve would add so much complications. I sometimes send my troops out to fight a camped army and have them back in time to counter another. If the battles were not instant, the calculations would be all mixed up.

All I am saying is that you might want to consider the bad side to making the battles take time.
Back to Top
Hiei View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 08:17
Hey very nice idea, but there must be some sort of a thing were people can not reinforce or something, it would be too easy to break up a fight. Clap
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: 12 Jan 2013 at 10:08
This non-instantaneous battle idea have been well discussed already in the topic Anjire gave a link to. 
Would be quite an ineresting improvement... but as battles take time, it brings a real issue imo: it's about diplomatic relations between amies. Imagine player A defends a spot with large armies, Player B who has no Diplo relations with A can attack him. Player C is in Confed/NAP with A and B but decides to help A defend for exemple... here there's an issue because with current diplo mechanics, he can help none.

If Devs are willing to make some PVP battles non-instantaneous, the diplomatic relations system should be first reworked to avoid incoherences. Like someone in a goup of confeds can't be as well in NAP/Confed with an enemy his group is at war with. Currently, to take the exemple of the current war, any Consone alliance could be confed with H? or Dlords while still confed with the rest of Consone.

In the interaction exemple i gave, it's a hard case as B has no relations with A, and C is Confed with A and B. As B attacked A one solution would be to automatically change diplo status of B with C from confed to without relation or War. Same way, C could have an option to chose to defend A or to attack A, which would be seen as a betrail for B or A and change his diplo status automatically. 

Though, this means 1 player would make his whole alliance change automatically diplomatic status with an other alliance, if he supports one or the other side. And here it's an exemple with 3 players from 3 different alliances... sounds like a nightmare if more alliances with various diplo relations fight on a same spot.


An other idea though, would be to let alliances change their diplo status first, before being able to do anything. In my exemple, alliance of player C could first manually change its relation with B from Confed to War/no-relation in order to let player C help player A. But here the interaction exemple is just between 3 alliances... how does it work between more alliances battling on a same spot, and with various diplo intereactions?

I personnally think non-instantaneous battles would need to first re-view the current diplomatic relations system (which has to be re-viewed anyway, imo), it wouldn't work with the current one.





Edited by Mandarins31 - 12 Jan 2013 at 10:24
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.