22JUL24 - Military Unit Speed Increases
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=11126
Printed Date: 27 Mar 2026 at 01:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 22JUL24 - Military Unit Speed Increases
Posted By: GM Jejune
Subject: 22JUL24 - Military Unit Speed Increases
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 14:03
|
The DEVS are pleased to announce a significant movement speed update to unmounted military units. This is reckoned to be the first change to military units’ movement speeds https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/updates-29mar_topic227_post1989.html?KW=movement+speed#1989" rel="nofollow - , and perhaps one of the most consequential updates to the game’s military system since https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/31mar13-military-unit-production-time-adjustments_topic4913_page1.html?KW=movement+speed" rel="nofollow - were made in March of 2013. Movement speeds for unmounted military units are generally being increased overall, with some units receiving slightly more of an increase based on race and unit type. Movement speeds for cavalry are not being increased. The following table lists unmounted units' original and updated base movement speeds:
As you can see, most units increased well beyond 20%, with only a handful getting less than a 20% bounce. How and Why GMs Duran, Jejune, and Tolvar – all veteran players of Illyriad – collaborated with GMs Stormcrow and Thundercat on these movement speed increases for three key reasons:
This change is one in a series of planned military updates and additions that will look to rebalance the combat meta in Illyriad and introduce some new options for combat and warfare. Timing of This Update
The DEVS are sensitive to the fact that there are currently several large-scale wars underway, as well as other planned combat operations. In order to be sensitive to these combat operations and cognizant that occupations can last for 15 days, we will implement these movement speed changes shortly after 00:01 ST on August 6, 2024. UPDATE: The unit movement speed updates to non-cavalry units was launched as planned on the start of the new sever day on August 6,2024. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/414328" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 14:46
|
Thank you for the change - in my opinion it is going to improve the game by a lot!
|
Posted By: Deim
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 15:14
|
Behold, it is i. . . the Ripper and my travelling Circus. Coming soon to a town near you.
|
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 15:20
|
makes sieges harder by making it much easier to defend. attackers lose a lot of the advantage of first strike, meaning its easier for defenders to scramble together a defense even if they are unaware of the operation until it lands. there is less of a disadvantage of isolated enemies. already, most offensive siege ops are well planner and the primary occupation is sent days in advance usually. in a siege, there are only 3 timings which really matter: 1. how fast the pinning blockade movement itself reaches the target 2. how fast the siege with catapults itself reaches the target 3. how fast enemy defenders can reach the target 1 and 2 were not changed, so overall this change just buffs defenders even more than they are already overwhelmingly powerful. this change serves to further kill pvp for siegers in my opinion. this can be slightly rectified by buffing siege engine and ram movement speed, but overall I think this is a negative change for pvp.
|
Posted By: Silly Britches
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 15:23
|
Can one of the updates be to change elves infantry to use leather armor for t1 and one chain, one leather for t2, pleaseeee? ------------- Alien |
Posted By: Lola
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 18:08
|
No speed boost for cats? Why? ------------- Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2024 at 20:31
|
Speed boosts for engines would be very handy for "reducing the size of the server map by decreasing the time it takes for unmounted units to travel." Literally the slowest unit most of the time. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 03:33
| Siege engines already got a 25% boost with the draught horse. Its pretty feasible to get 100 draught horses but getting 100k riding horses isn't feasible most of the time. |
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 05:44
|
It's an excellent move for rebalancing between foot and mounted units! I agree that speeding up catapults is equally justified as this empowers non-cav defence vs sieges and speeding catas also makes the map effectively smaller Interestingly although the speed of stals is most relevant to me the most visceral feeling is that heavy spears can finally get around town
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 08:23
|
Imo this update as it is is not good and not in the good direction the game sould go imo. And the main reason is that it make the map shorter.... Butwhy is it bad to make the map smaller? 1) the newds is harder if not impossible already to a gage pvp cause the old established can reach them and forse them with their gameplay style 2)the locals powers are soften in benifit of the global powers... 3) the shorter the map the harder to make conflict over mines or terian of interest cause the other side can easier bring his big establish lined friends..... So imo the shorten the map the harder healthy pvp to be engaged... And that's why I strongly oppose speeding the siege engines..... There is some benifit tho.... The increase of the speed make pvp more active which active is fun but there are games out there with active pvp that you have to set the alarm to be competitive is that what we want? I do not want that I want Illy more like a knowledge chest game and less like a sport shooting one. I suggest to neglete the benifit and in order to give some space to new players alliances to play and pvp to make a Radious of the troops travep
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 08:28
| An other negative that brings is that make the stronger race "elfs" and even stronger since their favorite unit get the best 30 % when the rest takes around 20 % |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 08:41
All T2 spears besides elf get a 33% increase. Which is in my opinion a good change. Elfs still have the weakest defense against cav - which is in my experience the most used unit in the game. So overall probably the best race in attacking (Cav + Bow) but the worst race in defending sieges (probably close to humans though).
|
Sif wrote:Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 09:13
|
Summary: In my opinion this change increases interaction between players and there are going to be interactions more often. Both are in my opinion really good changes. Interaction between players keep players playing. Tournaments have shown that quite well over the last few years - especially in the beginning. Long distance warfare is in my opinion one of the main problems in Illyriad and that got made easier. Which is a good change. Alliances building clusters and then just sitting there without any interaction essentially kills the alliance in the long run (and there have been quite a few examples). I agree with Bazoon that defense might be a bit easier now. I do think that it is a good change though - as in my opinion it is better for the game to have a battle where the opposition has more opportunities to react and try to counter the aggression. Capturing/Razing a city without any counter-play might be efficient. But for me (and probably a lot of others) outplaying the enemy and Capturing/Razing a city despite the enemy putting up a defense is in my opinion way more fun - for both sides. I disagree with Sif. This is a MMO and you are always going to have stronger and weaker players and alliances. You always have to consider how strong the enemy is and a) if you are strong enough to "fight" them and b) if it makes sense to "fight" them. In my opinion this is a core part of MMOs and not too much changed there. As an example a new, 2 city player cannot and should not expect to win a war against a 20 city player. And in my opinion it is the same with bigger and smaller alliances. It is different in tournaments - and i really like that there. Big alliances usually fight for more squares and smaller alliances focus on a few squares - thus small alliances can (and do!) fight and win against bigger alliances on a square there.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 09:43
| The 2 city player that just come at the game sould be able to attack his neibor at the most isolated places of the map and not afraid that will get attacked from the other side of the map.... And this is imo the main problem here and it is so big that new players mitgh even get sieged for something they said at gc that someone stronger did not like... The smaller the map the less space for new players want to play at strategic war game... But for these who want to play a farm game is fine... |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 09:59
1) Why should he be able to attack a bigger player? 2) Does it really matter wether it takes 1d, 10d or 1 month for the attack on the other side of the map to arrive? You are complaining about something that is already (and should be) possible. The only difference is time. And Illyriad is a slow game - thus time is not that important. Especially when you made someone really angry.
Not really. As far as i know there have been quite a few successful war training alliances and also "PvP events" (e.g. thunderdome) in the past. You can still do those. Nobody is saying anything against newbies fighting each other - as long as both sides want it. What i personally have a problem with is bullying and griefing - as that is just fun for one side and the other side just leaves the game in the long run. Many other games have shown that already. Or as a conclusion: In my opinion don't force other players into something they do not want. Find like-minded players and create your own content. The update here helps with that.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 10:29
|
This goes off topick imo so a new topic sould open about if smaller the map is good or bad... As for this update imo limited radios for troops would solve the problem which this update makes worst... And the faster siege engines would make it even worst
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 10:47
|
Just because I can not let it go A 2 city newb sould be able to attack an other 2 city newb even if the other part did not want too... In a game... And not get bullied from the other side of the map for not to
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 10:52
| And imo not only sould be able to... But sould be motivated to.... If you want ppl to be interested to play a game |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 11:27
The
problem is that bullying/griefing kills the retention of the game. Players just leave and thus
the game slowly dies. Video games in the last 20 years have shown
this. Which contradicts the "one server and play
forever" idea of Illyriad. Video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34RPwDfLpKg" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34RPwDfLpKg In my opinion this is a game design issue and needs to be fixed by the devs. The devs should offer healthy and sustainable PvP content. Tournaments are. And there are a lot of other healthy and sustainable PvP ideas out there in other MMOs (e.g. Arenas, Castle Sieges, ...). But this is really off-topic now. We should discuss this in another topic. |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 11:32
| OK to the next topick do not forget to answer if a 2city account is allowed to attack an other 2 city account that do not want to, with the mindset you enforce both acounts to adopt |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2024 at 22:50
|
OK, so my thoughts on this: "
So thats what concerns me...everyone knows the meta is unbalanced for cavalry, but you are planning to do more than this? I always say that "availability is the best ability" and this to me was cav's biggest advantage, so if you are nerfing that best ability by 20+% what more are you going after? As zoon said, this effectively kills the last shot of siegeing in PvP, as the attackers needed a massive numbers advantage and will now need even more. I also wonder if you guys took into effect the bigger than 20% boost this gives them when you include riding horses. Paradoxically, long distance warfare is made harder by this update, not easier. With a lack of underlying source notes with this update, it makes me wonder if it was really thought out properly. Where's a DPH table? Where's a UpDPh table? It makes it seem like these numbers were simply pulled out of thin air and not carefully researched. I could come up with these this weekend if you are interested in them, but I wonder what your rationale for the values was. IMO, the greatest problem with Cav wasnt the move speed, it was the crazy terrain boost on plains. This made the tourney even more ridiculous when the squares are on plains. Limiting future updates to the imput of only 5 people, 3 whom dont play at all, is not great.
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 00:11
|
There was an extensive and finely detailed discussion about some of the basics in the "Infantry" suggestion thread that likely made up the core player input, along with the general 'the map is too big' concern My sense is that the speeds considered were almost all "is an increase of one or two more plausible?". The percentage results from the base speed and whether it was one or two. Only Sentinels gained 3 points which I support as it was kind of awkward with 9 speed Axemen following around fetching Sentinel elfs barely getting away at 10 speed I'd say riding horses are too expensive to affect the dynamic. With foot units largely 8-11 speed for a 9.5 average and cav 11-17 for a 14 speed average there remains a fulsome difference. The effective area of a cav cluster is 2x larger than foot and the linear allied reinforcement distance 50% more
|
Posted By: HATH
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 03:31
| what about the Scrawny Wolf, surely they deserve a boost! |
Posted By: stylesie
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 05:24
|
I would have loved to see some diplos, scouts get a speed boost. Or for Thieves speed and carrying capacity to be nerfed. Hard for a light footed, Ranger to catch up to a heavily laden thief. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 10:20
What thread? I never saw it. And sentinels on foot are now faster than knights? Silly
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 10:34
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/infantry_topic11003_page3.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/infantry_topic11003_page3.html On page 3 i made the suggestion to a flat buff to movement speed for all units. Which is essentially what this update does - with a few tweaks and improvements that i personally like. Let me quote Bazoon there:
This is not to call out Bazoon - as i think the concerns he posted above are valid. But at that time we did not consider them.
|
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 14:39
|
Oh, yippey!! Aug 2023!! Year old topic! Not to mention that Sentinels' top speed now is 30% faster than knights'. Build time 2.13x faster, for better than 90% the defensive value. Devs better be darn sure they look at the values before their next tweak...it appears they didnt do so for this one, just threw out a blanket 20-30% buff. Again, I agree with the general goal of this update, but Im not seeing any indication of an actual mathematical strategy.
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 15:05
Inf gets +1 movement speed, Spears and Bows get +2. With 3 exceptions: Sents, Wardancers and Axemen. More speed for Sents and Wardancers probably because of the race. Axmen probably to buff dwarf infantry a bit without making it too broken. Movement speed does impact the damage you can do - but it depends a lot on the setup and distance - thus it is in my opinon hard to compare it.
|
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 23:09
|
I dont agree with what I said previously as now I have more experience and a better understanding of the dynamic of sieging and defending. other units being faster is not good. I think previous movement speeds with either a reduction of cav attack or a reduction of the negative terrain effect of plains on other units would have been a better change to balance out cav
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2024 at 23:19
|
100% I loved how big and still crowded the map was when I joined. The slow pace, the even slower seiges. Fighting should have a reward imo. Capping a town gives you EVERYTHING in that town. And a cav on plains nerf would have been my go to.
Prioritize regional conflicts. And turn on hub blockading. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 02:45
|
Knights are speed 14 base? I do think that 13 speed sentinels is pretty notable although the concept of light elf bows being faster than dwarven cav would not surprise anyone if they didn't have prior expectations Although I think this is a very solid move I agree that it doesn't accomplish its goals without a cata boost
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 05:53
| Knights base is 12 |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 13:30
| Its a serious problem that there is no response to the feedback. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 14:19
I would like to give my feedback then.
I agree that the attackers needs a numbers advantage - but i do not think that this is a huge issue? In the end you have time to prepare and setup the operation - while the defender has a lot less time to react.
There have been at least 70-80 razes in the Iron/RE vs SMA war - and at least 40 of those have been "real sieges" (i.e. where the defender tried to defend). In less then half a year. And SMA hasn't even moved most of their cities into the warzone. So in my opinion siegeing in PvP/warfare is far from dead. It is not easy - yes. But there are a lot of ways and different approaches to make it work.
I have been running around 10 long distance sieges in the last few months. The update is going to make putting up sieges easier for me - as the travel times are going to be shorter. A week and more travel times (for armies without siege engines!) means there is a lot of idle waiting. From what i have read your main argument is that there is now more time to react and thus more time for interaction between players. In my opinion this is good for warfare.
|
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 14:39
|
I meant the GMs...but "So in my opinion siegeing in PvP/warfare is far from dead. It is not
easy - yes. But there are a lot of ways and different approaches to make
it work." /me twtiches "From what i have read your main argument is that there is now more time
to react and thus more time for interaction between players" Yeah...thats not my argument AT ALL as there is no more or no less time to react now.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 15:17
|
Noughts and Crosses is considered a boring game because between two moderately skilled opponents, the end result is a draw. PvP in this game has a similar problem. Outside of significant skill, activity, or size disparities the end result is a stalemate. This update strengthens the defending advantage, making the stalemate more likely. There's also an issue where entire regions aren't viable for pvp due to poor terrain which isn't solved in this update.
------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 15:17
| there's no "real" time to react, but there is a bigger "effective reaction window", meaning the speed increases give defenders a bigger reaction window to work with, because they can send faster |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 15:24
Faster movement speed -> reinforcements(/non-cav clears) can be sent later -> more time to react But you are right, i should have formulated that in a different way. The update leads to more player interaction more often. Do you think this is bad for warfare? |
Posted By: GM Jejune
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 15:25
I will refer you to "To begin to address" and "This change is one in a series of planned military updates and additions that will look to rebalance the combat meta in Illyriad. . . " These points were made in my original forum post -- I think I made it pretty clear that this is "one in a series." I will type it again: This change is one in a series of planned military updates and additions that will look to rebalance the combat meta in Illyriad. The combat system in Illyriad is by far its most complex and sophisticated. The player base understands combat to the extent that it does only after considerable trial and error -- there was never a set of instructions published on how it all works. Of Illyriad's near 15-year history, it took the player base probably a decade to completely refine our understanding of it, and there are still emergent combat strategems being developed to this day that no one thought of even a year ago. Given that we're planning to make several changes to a system this complex, it is our opinion that dropping all of them at once in one update would be incredibly disruptive. Reactions by you, Brian, and others in this thread proves how consequential even one change is -- why would we do 2-3 more all in one go? It would be total chaos. I want to be very clear: we aren't going to release all of the changes to combat and military in one update. It's never going to happen that way. The same will be true with Faction AI -- it will release in multiple updates over time. We will also continue to delay the implementation of these combat updates by 15+ days after they are announced so as not to disrupt planned military operations.
Of course we did, as well as commanders being fully leveled up for Forced March. However, when a siege stack of 1MM+ reinforcements are heading to a square to reifnorce a siege, the million+ forces aren't all galloping on riding horses. While they are eminently more accessible for elite units, large armies are not deploying them en masse. And the data that we have access to supports this conclusion. Many players have scrutanized this update solely through the lens of how it impacts the power gap with cavalry. That was one of the aims of this update, but we also sought to "reduce the size of the server map." I've been in PvP alliances for the entire duration of my time in Illyriad, having fought in alliances like ~NC~ and SIN. I was also one of the siege planners for SIN and planned dozens of siege operations. I can tell you without hesitation that long travel times to a target are 100% prohibitive for alliances at war. Numerous times, Stukahh, Malek, and other military leaders passed on a siege target simply due to the distances that our forces would have to travel to get there and back. A 4+ day march to and from a siege, plus 2+ days of fighting puts a large proportion of the aliance's troops out of commission, making it not worth the trek. Now, if 4 day's march becomes 3 days, or 3 day's march becomes 2, it allows alliances to consider a wider range for sieges. They can cycle their armies more quickly and stay engaged in combat rather than waiting for reinforcements to travel and return.
This is 100% incorrect. There was considerable planning, discussion, and design behind these movement speed increases. When we release updates, we release the update -- we don't share with the server all of the behind-the-scenes work product and "underlying source notes" that go into making new content and updates. Perhaps other games in the MMO class do this, but this isn't how we do it. The burden isn't on the DEVS to prove to you that we put in sufficient time and effort to make these changes. We did the work and we made the changes. Players either have the trust in the development team that they make informed decisions or they don't. If the latter, I'm not sure why they would persist in playing a game where they don't believe that its developers care enough to think through their game designs.
You are totally incorrect again, Brian. I refer you back to the original forum post, "GMs Duran, Jejune, and Tolvar – all veteran players of Illyriad – collaborated with GMs Stormcrow and Thundercat on these movement speed increases." There is a 5-person design team right now, and 3 of the 5 are ex-players with almost 40 combined years of experience playing Illyriad. The 3 ex-players who are contributing to game design have substantial PvP and tournament experience. The 3 of us spearheaded the design of these speed updates, and they were refined and finalized by the larger team. I think you will agree that our development team -- particularly over the past 6 months or so -- has made a concerted effort to engage with the player community and listen to their ideas. We will continue to do, and many of the things that we are working on are ideas that were pitched by the community (increased movement speed was one of these ideas).
------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/414328" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2024 at 21:09
|
In brief
#1 "Faster movement speed -> reinforcements(/non-cav clears) can be sent later -> more time to react" Thats faulty reasoning...there is more OPPORTUNITY to react, not more time, as the time to react to an incoming siege is the same now as it always was...it simply gives more opportunity to react to sieges. It, however, gives LESS time to react to direct attacks and blockades...so what we are doing is buffing blockades and direct attacks on towns, thus making these more likely to be used. The offensive potential of Infantry, Ranged, and Spears units have been buffed. This, however, diminishes the defensive/reactive power of Cavalry. The problem people had was not the defensive/reactive power of cavalry, but the offensive power of cavalry on plains. This does very little to mitigate that (only by increasing the OPPORTUNITY of IRS units to defend, but only in order to get to the square in order to get slaughtered easily). Power balance is a game of Jenga...taking out a block will effect the stability of everything else, and I fear that this change is only one of several more whose greater implications have not been forseen. #2 Jejune: The question was rhetorical, and I made this obvious by the very sentence after the one you quoted. "Reactions by you, Brian, and others in this thread proves how consequential even one change is -- why would we do 2-3 more all in one go? It would be total chaos." Which is the exact point I was making...and you seemed to not see it or ignore me making that point. You are correct about the statement about long distance warfare in a way that largescale LDW isnt easier, but elites who do use horses become much more viable, especially when talking about sentinels who are now faster than most cavalry. "That was one of the aims of this update, but we also sought to "reduce the size of the server map."" Yes, you addressed that...and you addressed it well, so I didnt push back on it...you want a cookie? #3 "When we release updates, we release the update -- we don't share with the server all of the behind-the-scenes work product and "underlying source notes" that go into making new content and updates." Again....THAT WAS MY POINT...I dont expect you to take us through your entire thought process, but I dont see any underlying data to show how you came up with these figures. #4 "Players either have the trust in the development team that they make informed decisions or they don't." Well, I have concrete reason to not trust the development team to check to see if someone said something they were alleged to have said before they ban and threaten to permaban someone. (Note: Someone accused me of saying something, relayed an altered quote to a Dev, and that Dev didnt bother to see if I actually said it...which I didnt; so i was banned and threatened for something I clearly didnt do) Or to explicitly fail to fix an exploit that one alliance in particular is using. So, yes, my trust has to be regained. I mistyped, 2 of the 5, not three. "I think you will agree that our development team -- particularly over the past 6 months or so -- has made a concerted effort to engage with the player community and listen to their ideas." I wont...now, maybe thats because its being done on GC at times I am not on, or on other media that I dont use, but I have seen very little outside of the above that I mentioned. AGAIN (because you seem to miss my point, i will say the same thing again in a different way), maybe you have, I however have not seen it. I fully realize that what I say can be easily misinterpreted and Im fine with clearing those misinterpretations up, however know that in general I have been very supportive of the Dev team...when the servers went down unexpectedly a while ago, I was one of the few people to calm people down. I am simply asking for more clarity as I can see a couple more of those Jenga blocks twisting and am worried what future updates may wreak. Those are alot of qualifiers, and again dont have any problems necessarily with this update, but without a look into the data behind the reasoning of these changes, and without a history of other changes to this game in the last 6 years ive been here...I feel I have the right to trepidation.
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 01:14
Ok. But isn't more opportunity to react good for the game?
You also have more opportunity to defend the city. Thus i am not certain wether at least direct attacks are going to be used more.
There have been multiple warfare players complaining that "plains sieges are impossible" and that the defensive/reactive power of cavalry is too strong. Source: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/16may24-bugfixes-siege-blockade-occupy_topic11099.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/16may24-bugfixes-siege-blockade-occupy_topic11099.html You also did not answer my main point: In my opinion more interaction more often between players improves the game. Do you agree or disagree? |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 13:28
|
Not necessarily...if we all descended upon each other like wolves, there would be a whole hell of alot of "interaction". One thing about Illy I like is that I dont HAVE to spend a ton of time every day online...Im able to have a (suboptimal) life. |
Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 13:31
|
You are going to penalize humans?? This seems like ridiculous reasoning to me and in my opinion will ruin the game Knights are too strong? you require 2 saddles??? all the stuff you need to make 1 knight? Of course they are strong. they are supposed to be This is a horrible reason to change speeds, all races had their strengths and it seems the other races just want to be human. So you penalize humans? Good Call lol |
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 18:09
|
One thing overlooked is that this reduces siege warning by increasing the speed of non cav clearing forces. If you were depending on heavy infantry hits to clear a town it's a significant difference. You can exo war wagons to reduce siege warning time but it's impractical for bulk clearing forces If you're using wagons to send a quick pinning block the earliness of the siege warning depends on the speed of the clearing forces
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 18:27
| And since clearing fakes can be easily sent, it doesn't become a wash between less siege warning and faster reinforcing troops, it's fairly easy to paralyze or misdirect reinforcers, besides the fact that attacking clearing troops have a large advantage in most cases once the walls are down |
Posted By: Deim
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2024 at 23:12
|
Well i like the new updates. Jejune and the Dev team are doing a great job enhancing the game and making PvP more interesting and accessible for everyone. I personally love that my hordes can now strike anywhere on the map and it removes that distance barrier that was talked about that was restricting people from engaging in PvP. My only concern with this update is, that players like thirion will be rubbing their hands together with glee at this update. he is a good example as he has a elf acct, with 60 cities producing millions of sentinels. literally millions. Im a Orc and i know only too well how orc units fare against elves in battle. we literally get slaughtered. massacred even. 60 elf towns, each with 5 elite armies thats 300 elites. an elite bow div can inflict up to 5000 casualties against kobolds. no joke. that means thirion can inflict 300 x 5000 casualties on my sieging army before he even has to commit any of his regular troops to battle. thats 1,500,000 casualties. and he can resurrect his elites every 10 hours(full heroism) and reload and hit my camp again. and again. attacking a player like thirion in the future is just going to be impossible. not unless you have 10 x his numbers, which we just dont. i love being a Orc, but watching my armies being slaughtered by Op elf bows or Op human cavs or Op dwarven infantry is no fun at all. i hope the planned updates by the devs continue to make warfare more interesting and bring more players to the game. which we should all endorse. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 01:18
|
Ill direct you to the comparative unit stats table I just made. https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/comparative-unit-stats_topic11127.html#111583" rel="nofollow - Comparative unit stats - Illyriad Discussion Forum So I will compare Knights with Sentinels to show what I meant about balance. Knights take 2.12 times as long to build, cost 9.35 times as much to build, have 2x the upkeep, and move 8.5% slower (could move 33.5% slower if you include riding horses) for 4.23x the attack value on plains, 1.85x on Small Forests, 2.36x on Small mountains; 1.38x the defense value on plains, 1.19x on small forests, and only 81% as powerful on Small Mountains. So, even with the cav's supremacy on plains, there's a serious cost to that supremacy, so its not like things are THAT out of whack. For anything other than attacking on plains, knights are less cost effective upkeepwise than sentinels in every other way, and now are going to be slower as well.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 01:43
|
And if Thirion decides to use his sentinel army to siege a similar sized player the exact same thing happens to him when cavalry destroy his sentinels. If you use your units in the worst possible way you should expect bad results. It would actually be a pretty terrible game if your units performed the same no matter the match up. Although it really doesn't make sense for sentinels to be faster than knights in terms of base speed it would seem to me that knights should have speed of 14. The idea of a foot soldier running past a galloping horse seems a bit out there, especially when the same foot solider then jumps on a horse and blitzes past. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 01:53
|
Its hard to say without knowing what additional updates were alluded to. I believe previously unit build times were adjusted, but before that the biggest change was probably equipment. If there is a change on the scale of equipment, say magical portals, magical means of speeding troops, T3 troops, etc its doubtful we would spend a lot of time focusing on the speed adjustments.
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 02:57
|
I recall an extremely shocking moment for me when a couple of us stacked a small mountain with 75% sentinels and 25% phalanxes and I think it was Roads blasted us with several knight attacks At first I thought it was a sacrifice made for the speed value but I ran the numbers. Knights vs that stack on a small mountain had the same upkeep ratio of 1.4 that Stalwarts would have had |
Posted By: GM Jejune
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 03:25
Place your bets:
Who's winning that race? (My money's on Legolas -- I might even take him without the riding horse  )------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/414328" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2024 at 04:32
|
Correction - that was what I believe the battle calc said at the time but it may have been wrong or I remember it wrong. This was a tourney square. Looking at the core stats and terrain modifiers I believe the ratio on that small mountain is: Stals 1.3 Knights 1.2
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2024 at 15:07
In my personal opinion in the current situation (i.e. not knowing/considering any other planned changes) i would suggest the following changes:
The first two points have been talked quite a bit about - thus i think they make sense. About the third point: In the current state of the game Cav is in my opinion too strong on plains (and plains is the the most important terrain at the moment) and in Tournaments (as speed is key there). But Cav is strong on all races and while humans have the hardest hitting Cav they do not have much else.
Thus humans are in my opinion currently the weakest race. Buffing archers on humans would give them a second identity. For example having hard-hitting but slower archers might further their identity as the best race for defending against sieges in close range. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 05:04
|
Im wondering at what point of no responce from the devs we should get pissed. Or you know, we should have taken care of the actual problem with Cav (attacking plains) instead of doing a nerf on speed. Cuz now we've broken something that wasnt a problem IMO, instead of fixing what was wrong with it.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 05:40
|
I believe that there sould be at least a upkeep reduction to the cav since now its value has been cuted.. Like 2gold/hour for t1 cav and 3gold/hoir for t2, and I believe this (upkeep reduction) fits and with the gameplay better when preparing and holding cav for your defence sould be cheaper than the agresor that have the element of surprise in his benifite And I would like a radio travel limitation for army's. It's crazy at a medevial game China to be able to invade Cuba.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 06:04
|
I just relook the stats and I believe that make elf bows game breaking... Let me explain... If you try to siege a town and the enemy have only elf bows and no other units he can send to clear the siege with the bows and he get eqoul results with the defender if the defender have put in the siege only bows... Or most likely extreme good results if the siege put spears.... And this will happen at better speed that the cav other races have
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 06:37
Cav was way too strong, now Cav is in my opinion only too strong. Cav used to have double (!) and more of the movement speed of their alternatives! Now it is a bit closer - but overall Cav is still by far the fastest unit (especially for elites). Cav also still has the best base attack ratio of all units on most terrain compared to their counterparts.
If you only put bows in your siege then you are going to get destroyed by cav with horrible ratios. Bow attackers lose against bow defenders on each terrain. Bow defenders lose against Cav on everything but large mountains and buildings. Also with bow attackers you are never going to get exceptional ratios like you get with cav (e.g. bows on plains). Meanwhile cav on plains always wins - not matter what troop the enemy puts there.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 06:50
I reject your suggestion that these numbers were "pulled out of thin air", and I am surprised by your use of the word "we" in your last post. A large number of people are supportive of the changes that we have made, and have said so in public as well as in private. I'm sorry you don't like our recent changes. Illy is our creation, and our future plans are partially the result of countless hours of discussions with the most experienced and helpful players in the game. They are also informed by what we want to do and where we want the game to go, as well as the collective experience of all our fabulous GMs, broader player feedback on a wide variety of issues, plus data from our servers and analytics tools. All of these things feed back into each other. We have a development trajectory to improve the Illy experience for existing as well as new players. There are many moving parts at any one point in time. Illy - or, indeed, this particular update - was not specifically made for you: not for your needs, preferences, wishes or playstyle. Feel free to critique - we love feedback! - but don't imagine for one second that you're part of the dev team or have a top-down view or some sort of special insight into what we want to achieve in the short-, medium- or long-term. Best, SC EDIT by SC: removing extra linebreaks
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 07:15
|
The siege have the element of surprise which is huge, so imo the siege breaker sould have huge benifit from preparing himself... By plain (or forest) surrounding towns, by banking siege breaker (cav, inf)... So the way I like to see and play illyriad like not a war game, the siege breaker sould always have benifit If you can skip all troops and build just one ( elf bows) and you still have equal - better ratio (and speed) than using any other unit & against it, it's a game breaking
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 08:20
I agree with that. This change improves that. Killing the siege or reinforcing the city is easier now - which makes sieging cities a bit more difficult. But you can setup sieges more often because of the travel times. In addition to that there is more interaction between players and more opportunities - which i think is good. Some of the war players are complaining though that sieges are too difficult in Illyriad (which i disagree). A RE player even said a few weeks ago that plains sieges are impossible.
You just made a point for nerfing cav even more!
Or summary for bows: Good in attack against everything but bows. Only good in defense against bows/spears (decent against inf though). Conclusion: Both bow attackers and bow defenders have a counter unit on all terrains. Meanwhile cav has no counter unit on plains. Thus according to you cav is gamebreaking. |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 08:30
|
summary for bows: Good in attack against everything but bows.... Exept elf bows that even if you defending with bows elf bows will kill you with equal ratio and faster than the cav arrival.... If you need only one unit to play it's game breaking and elf bow have become this unit... It was even before this update extremely good but now is faster than cav.. Lol
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 09:19
Surround yourself only by plains. Only built Cav. Now you have no unit that counters you and in addition to that you are going to get amazing ratios! That is in my opinion not well balanced - as currently there is not really a counterplay to that. Well, that is what RE and most warfare players are doing. But apparently that is fine and doesn't need a nerf? The Elf bow approach is way less powerful then the Cav approach (as you get a lot worse ratios) and has some counterplay in using elf bows. If you know that the enemy only has Sentinels then put up pure Sentinel sieges and the player is going to have huge problems. You are calling an approach that is worse then the current meta gamebreaking. What does this say about the current situation?
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 13:02
| Making the strongest all around unit faster than it's competitor at the only one sector cav is usifull for (breaking sieges) makes it gamebreaking imo |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 13:53
|
I feel the need to highlight and repeat several of my statements, as witnessed by a discussion with Thirion where he argued against several points that I never made or had already addressed. So Ill be putting context in red. SC: My notion was it SEEMED that they were pulled out of thin air due to a lack of underlying supportive data. The "we" refers to those of us who have an issue with the balance changes. A large number of people HAVE been supportive of the changes (and to be clear, Im not hating on this change PER SE, but your declaration of further upcoming nerfs to cavalry), but to be fair you dont make balance changes to please anyone...you make them to balance things (which again, I agree with your aim to make cavalry less OP on plains). "Countless hours of discussions"...well you see, I havent seen ANY of these discussions. I didnt know you had talked on discord yesterday about them but here's my POV: There was no discussion about this in recent months in the actual Illyriad places to talk about it. I didnt see it happening in GC/AC/PC/Ingame mail nor in this forum. Simply limiting these discussions to discord/slack/whatever takes away the voice of people like me who do the vast majority of their illy gameplay where they cant access those sites (for me, at work). Alot of the people who have been championing this move (that ive seen) are not, shall we say "heavyweights" in the current scene of battles in Illy. I think in GC at least, we as a community have a problem with people (not maliciously) making arguments that they really are in no position to make. IMO, people who havent been involved in much/any part of the current meta are commenting on it (which again, I agree with your aim to make cavalry less OP on plains). One example would be Smoking GNU (Dont kneejerk-defend him...he's a good example and the points im going to make are unquestionably valid...and im not saying he's a bad person) , who unequivocally doesnt take a part in the unit v unit battle portion of this game, and thinks that its fine for him to join an argument where he is hearing only one side of the argument. Or the current loudest member of the GC whose focus is unequivocally not in battle mechanics but professes their POV to be correct bar none. "Being part of the dev team" Thats my point exactly...Im not part of it, and as far as I had heard when I made that post, I had seen no evidence of the dev team seeking or listening to input from the community (which again, I agree with your aim to make cavalry less OP on plains). I dont expect necessarily to be "consulted" with it (even though I am an unquestionably large part of the PvP scene of the game), but based on my experience, I or anyone else outside of Thirion hadnt seen any of that (and based on my experience of the current mod team wantonly ignoring the truth in a moderation matter [punishing me for something I didnt say...obviously didnt say...then backing up that incorrect punishment despite the proof of me not saying it]; exposing me to many months of unfounded and disgusting abuse in chat and forums [and not addressing it until Dorcish went off the deep end]; and the dev team wantonly refusing to fix an exploit...I feel im justified in my lack of faith). I really dont WANT to be fighting you on stuff, because for most of my gameplay you have been one of the few people willing to see past the false narrative (based on out of context and flatly edited quotes) about me, and Illy is a wonderful game, but the direction that the game seems to be taking is worrying. Thirion: "But you can setup sieges more often because of the travel times"...no you cant, sieges are already confined by the speed of siege engines and this didnt address that. "Or summary for bows: Good in attack against everything but bows. Only
good in defense against bows/spears (decent against inf though)." OK, so bows are better in attack for 3 of the 4 possibilities and better in defense in 2 of the 4 and close in another 1. Sounds like we should nerf them, eh? ;p But yes I agree that the current meta of cav on plains needs to be fixed. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 14:38
And there is an easy way to get around the limitation of siege engine speed. War wagons (i.e. you move a city into enemy cluster, stack them with defense and then use the city to setup sieges). In my opinion moving the game into even more war wagon use would be amazing - as those lead to a lot of interaction. War wagons require a lot of skill and knowledge to setup. They are risky but the reward is really high. War wagons also allow a lot of counter-play. With the changes and the use of a war wagon the update leads to sieges more often.
Lets start with the following assumption: Spear and Bow are defensive units. Cav, Inf and Bow are offensive units. Looking at the stats this makes sense (as Cav/Inf has double the base attack compared to their base defense). This would change your statement to the following: OK, so bows are better in attack for 1 of the 2 possibilities and better
in defense in 1 of the 3 and close in another 1. Which in my opinion makes them a lot more balanced. Even then looking at overall data might be in my opinion misleading. Some terrain types occur more often and because of city placement battles on plains are a lot more common. Including tournaments. Thus in the current state of the game one should take a closer look into plains and the plains meta. Which you stated - thanks for that.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 14:38
None of the attack or defense numbers have changed from where they've been for the last 14 years. The only thing that has changed is the maximum speed at which these units can move. In a siege context such as you imagine the new stats for eg Sentinels (Elf bows) mean that a city defending against a siege 1 square away would get there in (new values) 299 seconds vs (old values) 360 seconds.
Nothing else has changed apart from speed. Just speed. Everything else is as it was before, so your 'relook' at the stats is just as valid now as it was a month ago. It's the same. Best wishes, SC |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 14:38
|
The town under siege must have a huge advantage, for now is the big hit cav do on plains mostly or rarely inf on forests ,and do the job just fine if this advantage is removed, something also huge must be replace it if we do not want to change the character of the game to a war game.
|
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 15:50
|
Thirion: A war wagon is in no way "easy" SC: ...and the stats have changed for the 4th row here https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/comparative-unit-stats_topic11127.html#111601" rel="nofollow - https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/comparative-unit-stats_topic11127.html#111601 A couple of those boxes have moved from Knights to otherwise...not a ton, but that has been changed, and with you promising more cav nerfs more boxes are in danger.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 17:17
I have literally no idea what you mean by 'boxes", but I do love the idea of 'boxes... in danger''. Presumably you mean something to do with colour-coding on a spreadsheet you have produced yourself? For the avoidance of doubt, and to prevent the spread of dis-/mis- information, I want to make it clear that underlying unit numbers for Attack and Defense - or indeed any other number except movement speed - have not been changed with this update for any military, diplomatic or trade unit. The only thing changed thus far is movement speed for non-cavalry military units. Best, SC
EDIT: Added the word "military" before "units" in the last sentence. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2024 at 17:57
Hi BrianN, We sometimes seek advice from players who we trust to give us sensible and quality feedback, sometimes we don't.
I/we occasionally engage with the community in alternate, non-official ways such as Discord, and we don't necessarily fit these around any particular person's work schedule - I'm sorry if this makes you feel disenfranchised, but there was and is no franchise to begin with. We will continue to talk with any players (or non-players) as and when we choose to do so, and I'm surprised you expect that you have an automatic right to participation in any conversation we have. Illyriad Game Development is explicitly not an inclusive democracy and we don't do game design by committee.
Everyone has an opinion on every other player, and the positive/negative contribution they make to the game and whether they are 'heavyweights' or not. You do not know who we consulted with.
qft. This x100. The forums too.
Whenever a player petitions about what another player has said in chat, we check the logs to make sure it was actually said, and that the petitioner isn't fabricating evidence. If a petitioner was fabricating a quote, we would take an extremely dim view of it. ChatID AddDateTime PlayerID ToPlayerID Text 35643240 2024-06-16 20:33:01.310 374572 NULL [GC] "Goo black betty namblalam" It's in the logs. You are PlayerID 374572, and you said this. You were then silenced by GM Duran. We're not always in GC so we can't always take disciplinary action at the time, but going through the logfiles of chat, this was your third mention of "NAMBLA" in GC. Previous mentions include: ChatID AddDateTime PlayerID ToPlayerID Text 35183425 2023-12-02 02:43:04.457 374572 NULL [GC] "Okie just came back from his NAMBLA meeting and is feeling frisky" 35470110 2024-04-10 21:46:43.613 374572 NULL [GC] "Sig likes the NAMBLA Monthly" We've gone back through the login data, and you weren't being sat at the time these were said, so please don't look for that as an excuse. Please take responsibility for your actions rather than blaming the dev and GM team for doing their job. Please stop referencing 'NAMBLA" in your conversations in GC. Personally, I think an apology is due to GM Duran for doing his job by disciplining you for things you have said.
I also believe Illy is a wonderful game, but I also believe the direction we're taking is the right one, rather than 'worrying'. I think we're rooting out the fundamental, underlying causes of strife and tension in GC and elsewhere. I believe our dev and GM team is more engaged with the community than ever before and that Illy has a bright future ahead. Best, SC EDIT: typo
EDIT: Last para clear-up |
Posted By: Lola
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 01:33
|
- null - ------------- Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 01:38
|
SC: and I'm surprised you expect that you have an automatic right to participation in any conversation we have. I dont...I never said I did...which is why I said "I dont expect necessarily to be "consulted" with it". You do not know who we consulted with. You're right...I dont...which is why I waited after my first post in this thread for a response. Regarding the ban: You also didnt include the fact that next to that first message I provided a link to "Black Betty" by Ram Jam and was quoting the lyrics. [20:33] Goo black betty namblalam Both these things I often do; and everyone knows it. Instead, Ordo changed my quote to [20:38] BrianN making "jokes" about p3dophilia like this one just now [20:33] Go nambla Then later in GC he complained to duran about it and Duran banned me for Do NOT discriminate towards NAMBLA I wasnt doing that...I was quoting song lyrics and got "Goo black betty namblalam" (a mistype of "nambalam) changed to "go nambla" (a deliberate edit to change an innocuous quote of song lyrics) to something disgusting. So, basically, I quoted song lyrics (which I often do), ordo changed what I said to something disgusting, Duran subsequently banned me for saying the disgusting thing (which I never said). What am I supposed to think? And yes, many people saw this all go down in GC and were disgusted by ordo's misquote and railing against me on it...people such as Lonewolf (who is above reproach) saw all this happen in real time. It was nothing, which ordo changed, gave the altered evidence to Duran, who didnt see the obvious context (which everyone in GC saw) in which it was made. P.S. With the misunderstandings cited above, I still cant say for certain if you know that I dont necessarily have a problem with the balance change, but am concerned about forthcoming ones. I am a person who it is easy to misunderstand, but you still didnt understand what I said after that long color coded post.
|
Posted By: lonewolf
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 01:43
| I have seen ordo change words up on what Brian has said so Brian is not the one at blame here |
Posted By: Lone Wolf
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 02:00
Whenever a player petitions about what another player has said in chat, we check the logs to make sure it was actually said, and that the petitioner isn't fabricating evidence. If a petitioner was fabricating a quote, we would take an extremely dim view of it. ChatID AddDateTime PlayerID ToPlayerID Text 35643240 2024-06-16 20:33:01.310 374572 NULL [GC] "Goo black betty namblalam" It's in the logs. You are PlayerID 374572, and you said this. You were then silenced by GM Duran. We're not always in GC so we can't always take disciplinary action at the time, but going through the logfiles of chat, this was your third mention of "NAMBLA" in GC. Previous mentions include: That is not what happened I was there also. Brian made an obvious quote of song lyrics. I even posted a link to the song when ordo changed what Brian had said. ordo is usually the perpetrator of problems when it involves Brian. You have access to the chat logs, it's not like we can lie about what happened. The blatant favoritism towards certain players needs to stop. I thought that went away when Rikoo left but it is obviously still going strong. |
Posted By: GM Jejune
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 02:33
The https://genius.com/Ram-jam-black-betty-lyrics" rel="nofollow - lyrics to the song are "Whoa, Black Betty, bam-ba-lam" and so on. This is what you said: ChatID AddDateTime PlayerID ToPlayerID Text 35643240 2024-06-16 20:33:01.310 374572 NULL [GC] "Goo black betty namblalam" This is not Ordo changing what you said -- this is what is in Illyriad's database that you said. Does everyone get that? Do you get that, Lone Wolf? You may have "been there," but this is data in our database -- not a copy/paste from someone's petition against Brian. So, this isn't favoritism or having it out for any one player. Yes, there was a petition. We corroborated what was in the petition with what is in our database. It matched. Are you actually trying to argue that you accidentally mistyped "bam-ba-lam" as "namblalam?" Even if the "b" and "n" are next to one another on the keyboard, trying to argue that spelling "nambla-" instead of "bamba-" was an honest typo insults everyone's intelligence. Especially considering the other references, that you conveniently did not address. Are you going to address previous uses of this term? ChatID AddDateTime PlayerID ToPlayerID Text 35183425 2023-12-02 02:43:04.457 374572 NULL [GC] "Okie just came back from his NAMBLA meeting and is feeling frisky" 35470110 2024-04-10 21:46:43.613 374572 NULL [GC] "Sig likes the NAMBLA Monthly" Are these fabricated as well? Typos? These are in the system, Brian. We're not making them up. I'll leave it to the player base to decide, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that you were referencing "nambla" and self-edited "Black Betty" when the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that you've used this term to slander people previously. And this isn't us singling you out; this toxic, slanderous theme went on in GC between you and other players for a long while, and we've put a stop to it. Others are at fault as well. Today, we're talking about you in this forum post because you made a false claim and are accusing Duran of an injustice for giving you a GC chat silence for typing what you typed. That's the only reason why it is an issue. You brought this up and made an issue of it, and we're not going to let it go unanswered.
------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/414328" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 02:51
|
I never denied that I said ""Goo black betty namblalam" "........where did i deny that I said that? I didnt, so dont say this is what is in Illyriad's database that you said. We corroborated what was in the petition with what is in our database. It matched. So, ordo petitioned based on what I did say versus what he complained in GC about [20:38] BrianN making "jokes" about p3dophilia like this one just now [20:33] Go nambla? I dobut that, everyone knows that Ordo changes things...and he changed it here...but even if that were true, then I got banned for Do NOT discriminate towards NAMBLA Which is nonsensical because I was quoting song lyrics (incorrectly as it seems, but innocently and thats obvious). Are you actually trying to argue that you accidentally mistyped "bam-ba-lam" as "namblalam? No...where did I do that? NOWHERE did I argue that, so why bring that up? Another example of you arguing a point I never made...read the parts in red also please. Per the previous references, I have never denied them and admit a mistake for doing them and have faced the consequences. Though I will point out again that they were made after an almost daily assault for many months with other altered quotes. So no, Im not excusing it...I just said that I made a mistake and said I shouldnt have said them, but there was a whole line of dozens and dozens of baseless accusations pointed at me for months about a disgusting act without seemingly any action by the GM team (of which AFAIK you and duran were not a part of at that time) until I fired back. 500 wrongs dont make 2 wrongs a right, but the GMs did let it fester for many months when okkudo should have been banned long before that happened. I don't think it's hard to imagine that you were referencing "nambla" and self-edited "Black Betty" And I dont think its hard to imagine that I was referencing song lyrics like i very often do, mistyped 1 letter from what I thought the lyrics were...and then there is without a dobut that Ordo then took that, CHANGED IT, and turned it into a issue. You brought this up and made an issue of it, and we're not going to let it go unanswered. Thats fine...I never said it wasnt, though could I suggest that this whole sidebar be moved to another thread so as to not distract from the topic at hand? And I will also contend that its pretty obvious to me, lonewolf, and everyone else who witnessed it that it wasnt an issue, and wasnt a problem until Ordo changed it into it...so in the context of my trust in the mod team, I believe its relevant.
|
Posted By: Lola
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 03:10
|
we shouldn't really try to shuffle the timings of the chats here i am afraid this will be an endless back and forth again. but it is true those were hard months for many players and sometimes you can't help to fire back. even for me, I got death and rape threats. but I would like to be more forward thinking here, with all the new updates coming in and new playerbase (since I heard there is a spike of new players from training alliances), we should give this a rest. bury it and start fresh. warning should go to people trying to restart the convo in GC to trigger BrianN or TCol. not as protection for any specific player, but to maintain a better GC for new and old players. just my 2 cents. edit: wrong GM name
------------- Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you. |
Posted By: Lone Wolf
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 03:15
| Every single person in GC at the time knew exactly what Brian was talking about. ordo knew it too and chose to be an asshole as usual. It is favoritism and has been going on since 2010. We all know it. We all see it. Too bad the Dev team can't or refuses to see it. |
Posted By: Roman Emperium
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 03:36
|
^ Whose lone wolf? Anyone? -Cersei
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 03:53
|
I think that multiple explanations are plausible at the same time -The Devs interpreted Brian's comment in the context of other comments, which may have been a mistake in isolation but an honest one with clear context -Brian was under serious duress from a mentally ill person (who mentioned to me something to the effect that he does not have the resources to get access to a particular medication), and that there was an unacceptably long period where this was not corrected, and which is significant context for his choice to start to make jokes that leaned into it -Duran has directly taken Brian's side in GC previous to being a Dev and made it clear to me in one conversation previous as well that he does not by any means favour Ordo versus Brian at all -Ordo has allowed unremitting hostility towards Brian to control his thought process and he was honestly interpreting Brian's comment as he interprets everything Brian says Of all these things I would say the most significant one was the amount of time it took to correct the Okkudo situation. The Devs have taken multiple unprecedented steps in this regard and I think it is well done. I sincerely hope a personal apology has or is made in some regard to Brian for it considering I found GC intolerable as an observer, for over a year
|
Posted By: Roman Emperium
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 04:51
I was enjoying the STAT debates, lets please get back to that  Peace and love everyone peace and love Cersei
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 05:08
|
Meh. Given the knowledge that there's going to be further military updates which are already planned, speculating and commenting on the effects feels a bit pointless. Though, not as pointless as arguing with the GMs over whether a comment was made in bad faith or not... ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Lone Wolf
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 05:53
I belong to no one.
|
Posted By: GM Jejune
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 14:26
Right here, Brian (my emphasis added):
Also, you just again tried to argue that you mistyped it in the response where you are denying that you didn't argue it in the previous reply. See this quote:
It wasn't the mis-typing on 1 letter -- I covered that in my last reply. And we'll agree to disagree on this notion that you weren't referencing NAMBLA, given your longstanding participation in the toxicity surrounding that term and its theme. Perhaps someone who had never engaged in these kinds of conversations in GC would get the benefit of that doubt, but yeah, context is everything. And now (for the first according to my reckoning) you'll at least admit that you have engaged in those conversations and used that term. And by the way, Ordo typing what he typed was also wrong, and he wasn't the one who petitioned against you. It was someone else, and they reported what you actually said (not Ordo's edit), as well as: 2024-06-16 20:45:27 BrianN [TCol] /me ponders if he should report okkkie for that P word More context, given Okkudo's previous role in these toxic chats. In an effort to improve community chat, we were at the time of this incident (and continue to) enforce a no-tolerance policy on this kind of speech. Multiple accounts have received disciplinary action for doing it, those people stopped, and we've all moved on. Actually, this situation has improved immensely in GC -- I cannot even remember the last time we had such an incident reported. Our many thanks to those of you who have helped improve this situation, and also to those who have adjusted their tone in GC. We're only talking about this one instance with you, Brian -- the only time you've ever received a silence for many instances in the past that were not disciplined -- because you decided to bring it up in publicly and accuse Duran of an injustice. This was not the place for you to address any issues you have with this or any disciplinary action; the people following this thread want to have a debate about unmounted military unit movement speed. That said, we won't let it go unanswered. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/414328" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Lola
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 14:40
+1 ------------- Someday, someone will best me. But it won't be today, and it won't be you. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 15:04
|
And now (for the first according to my reckoning) you'll at least admit
that you have engaged in those conversations and used that term. Far from the first time Ive admitted to it...of anything you can say about me; I always admit when Im wrong. the only time you've ever received a silence for many instances in the past that were not disciplined Thats not true...Ive received several silences...not proud of it, but you should get your facts straight Multiple accounts have received disciplinary action for doing it, those people stopped, and we've all moved on. Again, you are wrong...I was called that just a couple days ago. It hasnt stopped, it continues...I just have given up reporting it every time as that doesnt work. The fact is that I have been subjected to gross and defamatory abuse for many months here, being accused of something without any basis for that. Including that June 2024 quote that you included in here referencing him calling me that...you use it as evidence against me instead of further proof that the abuse continues. I reported it nearly a year ago, it wasnt addressed for many months. It still continues to this day. I dare say that nearly ANYONE else would not have endured this long receiving that abuse unanswered...and the fact is that the longer that the GMs continue to take a stringent stand against me, regardless of the facts, the longer it will continue. They are trying to drive me out of the game, and anyone who is in GC alot sees this. This can be backed up by several people in this thread (including lonewolf), yet all Ive ever seen from the Mod team was either silence (not addressing the okkudo spam in GC and these forums for MONTHS) or banning me for an innocuous song quote. Anybody but me, with my extreme need to never give up, would have been driven away by the abuse inflicted on me and the treatment Ive received. No apology from the Mod team for the abuse Ive endured for the last
year. Just a ban for assuming I meant the worst when to all involved it
was obvious that I didnt (because of context that continues to be left
out). Im not saying Im blameless, but I can say that the mod team has failed and continues to fail at their job of stopping this abuse. Contrary to what some think, I DONT enjoy being called these vile things. So do I have a chip on my shoulder about all this? Damn right I do...because its ruined my experience of this game for upwards of a year, and now IM being punished for when others bring it up. I cant take place in simple conversations for the fear that it will be taken out of context or flat out edited to get me in trouble. Yet I get no apology or benefit of the dobut that Im not that word from the dev team in any of this. So excuse me for being indignant when you continue to attack me. As much as I hate SJW speak, its pretty shameless victim-blaming (again, not saying im blameLESS, but I am a victim of a hate speech campaign). the people following this thread want to have a debate about unmounted military unit movement speed. So do I...it unfortunately hasnt been addressed. Not a single word yet from the dev team regarding the massive amount of data I compiled to talk about it. No thanks for the resource that was produced. No feedback about the actual topic at hand, just more attacks on my character.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 15:45
This is what happened.
We do have access to the chatlogs, and that's what I posted. You are either deliberately lying about what happened, or have a faulty memory.
We don't play favourites. We're balanced for the good of the game. We have no vested interests in player A or player B or Alliance C or Alliance D. Accusations of favoritism are unfounded and incredibly toxic to the game environment. Quite frankly, I've had more than enough of this entirely pointless discussion, and I think the other GMs and devs - let alone the players - feel the same. The simple fact is that the chat logs are accurate, and this is taking up way too much of everyone's time, and I'm putting a stop to it. We have better things to do than argue about who said what, and what they meant by it - in the face of the ultimate truth of what was actually said in the context in which it was said. No private company is forced to suffer baseless accusations, unfounded insinuations, toxic insults or astonishing denials of verifiable facts. We have a responsibility to protect our brand and our community from unfounded attacks that seek to erode our credibility, since they not only threaten the success of the game as a business, but also the safety and player experience of the amazing community that supports it. BrianN, Lone Wolf - I wish you the very best of luck in whichever game you choose to play in the future. You are no longer welcome in Illy. Regards, SC
|
Posted By: Deim
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 16:21
|
Begins to Complain again about those elves . . . Then notices the scene of utter desolation around him. spots the charred remains of Briann and Lone Wolf lying ruined in the dirt. . . and slowly backs away. then runs very fast.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 16:32
Oh, please feel entirely free to complain about the changes. We love feedback - and negative feedback is often more useful than positive feedback. The "charred remains" are NOT about feedback on unit movement speed changes... They're about denials of the reality of actual chat logs, toxic insinuations and accusations of dev/GM-team partisanship, and bringing the game into disrepute by continually referring to things such as pedophilia in GC - and then pretending that it was a typo. We're not fools; we don't have to put up with this nonsense - and we won't. Please feel free to complain about Elves! Best, SC |
Posted By: Remy
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 16:58
|
Complain about Elves? DEATH TO ELVES!!! In general I'm opposed to this. I feel like the original move speeds benefit to a greater extent strategic clustering by making it more difficult for global alliances to project power in distant regions, allowing smaller regional alliances to cast a larger shadow than their sizes would otherwise permit. The new figures would buff the top great power alliances which are already borderline hegemonic. Just my two cents as a little rat, inexperienced in PvP :P JJ made a comment earlier in the thread about Legolas being able to outpace a heavily armoured Boromir. I'd agree with him, but only if Legolas is mounted on a riding horse. Otherwise, a heavy knight should be outspeeding an unmounted archer. They'd still be at equal pace if the sentinel was moved down to 12 speed, but I think it's an improvement. Would like to see some siege engine move speed buffs in the future if these changes are coming into effect for reasons mentioned above a few times. Siege engines moving as slowly as they did before means that defenders have the same amount of notice as before. Faster troops means that players have more time to react and send, as their relief armies can cover more ground in shorter amounts of time. This change simply makes sieging more difficult.
|
Posted By: Tucic
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 17:30
| What if Boromir had a Mearas line of horse? would be close even with a riding horse for legolas. Weight of armor also makes sense to an extent if the knights have full armored horses, in theory. |
Posted By: Zenrath1
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 17:35
|
I think faster movement will encourage more PvP, which is good for the activity of the game. My personal thoughts is we shouldn't think can an Elf Archer out march a mounted knight, instead we should focus on - Does each race have a distinct personality, pros and cons that make each race viable to play in the game. |
Posted By: Deim
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 19:28
|
Yes erm, well about those Elves. . . For starters, they all think they are prettier than me. . . they think they are so superior. . . now they discover, that they can jog across the country. . . wiping out peaceful Orc villages anywhere on the map. . . and that smugness, by Goodness those elves are smug. . . they laugh and they smile and make love to us all. . . it was bad before, but now is completely intolerable. Something has to be done about them. i propose we start hunting them for sport. A server wide effort to wipe them out. But its not all bad, im interested to see what new updates are coming to make the game more enjoyable. i think players should have a little more faith in the dev team. im especially looking forward to interacting more with factions. i already got a 40% positive racial standing with the drek hathral i think the name is. i wonder if there will be faction quests. and bribes to clan leaders. that would be sweet. And more seriously, i totally agree with the devs wielding the hammer on those players. you had better have a big stick if you challenge the devs. and there is no place in Illy for the kind of things that were said/recorded. Its like SC says. . . the dev team just wont tolerate it. |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2024 at 22:03
Pfffffffffft! If I was in charge, I would declare war against the DEVS (again). First you ban snuggling in chat, then encourage complaints about my beloved elflings. What is Illyriad coming to? In other news, military unit speed increases have been necessary for quite some time (i.e. with the Broken Lands update) but when will we get an increase in trader speed to match?
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 00:37
I never! Snuggling in chat is definitely allowed. SC
|
Posted By: Smopecakes
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 03:30
|
I think 13 speed sentinels make a lot of sense - imagine the average long distance marching speed of an elvish light bow across different terrains vs heavy cavalry. The cavalry can charge faster across a flat battlefield, but that reflects in the attack and terrain bonus stats rather than base speed Zenrath has a good point though - what about the game effect? This is more challenging. There seems to be a pretty strong agreement that the elf bow/cav attack and speed combo is the best military advantage. With this now stronger it highlights that human cav aren't way better than other cav in the way other racial best units are Should bow attack be nerfed or human cav strengthened? Seems to be a strong case for that now
|
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 05:26
| whenever you think of an archer you don't think of bow units charging into battle and running around shooting, you think of them standing in formation or on top of walls shooting down. basically, I agree with what smope said, but I think the way to solve it is to reduce the attack of bow units so that they are more balanced towards defense. they can quickly dash to a position and set up defensive formation but expecting bows to run into an offensive battle doesn't sound really real |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 06:00
Why not buff humans in another area?
Bows in the current state are a bad defensive unit. They lose against the most common attacker (Cav) hard on plains and most other terrain (exception large mountains and buildings). They also always lose against Inf. Thus every time you use them you worsen your ratio. Because of this you do not want to use bows in defense. If the enemy has bows then you kinda have to - but that is the only case where you do want bows as defense. In my opinion bows in the current state are the worst unit in the game. Cav/Inf/Spears have their clear use cases. Bows are flexible and can be used in a lot of cases - but they do not have a case where they excel or do really well. Sentinels are a slight exception because of movement speed and production cost (and to some extend Trueshots because of the damage). |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 06:32
|
Bows are the best unit that's why you are building them Thirion. Bows can attack any defender with extremely good ratio, Exept bows.... Elf bows exempted for that exception so you can attack other races bows with elf bows and still worth it... And now faster than cav....
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2024 at 06:39
|
In matters of reality footsoldiers are faster than cavarly ate long distance travels with olny few exception like Checis Han when cause of the climate change his army was able to feed an enormous amounts of cav which was used as food and as transportation in pararel with other horses... And his army was extremely used to nomadic horse life. Also human could caver long distances faster than any other animal and that give them a advantage at hunting (cause of their skin cooling system) In game matters I believe cav it sould be much faster than the rest units tho
|