16MAY24 Bugfixes: Siege, Blockade, Occupy
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: Technical Support
Forum Description: Post your technical support related questions here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=11099
Printed Date: 27 Mar 2026 at 05:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 16MAY24 Bugfixes: Siege, Blockade, Occupy
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: 16MAY24 Bugfixes: Siege, Blockade, Occupy
Date Posted: 16 May 2024 at 16:33
|
Hi everyone, Gosh, it's been an exciting week, hasn't it? We have fixed a number of bugs relating to sieges, blockades and encampments. 1. The ability to remotely siege a town without being on a square located adjacent to the target city has been removed. This was only possible if a player circumvented the public user interface and manually edited data contained within the underlying page before submitting the order to siege or blockade. 2. The ability to occupy / set up a siege or blockade from an impassable square has also now been removed. This also involved editing the underlying data in the page before submitting the movement order. 3. I would like to make it clear that "using the User Interface" means using the User Interface that we have provided; not delving under the hood and pushing data into the back end that the public User Interface would not permit. It also follows that simply "using the User Interface" does not absolve you from the other Rules of the Game. Now we're not about to say that you can't peek under the hood, for two reasons: 1) We can't stop you, as it's an HTML game, and 2) Lots of amazing people like Tensmoor rely on doing this in order to build their awesome tools. To those under-hood peekers: please apply common sense. If you're going under the User Interface to edit underlying data, you are probably doing something the system does not intend you to do. Reading from the data is almost always fine. Writing to the data is most probably not. Now that the method and practice being used to edit the underlying data is out in the open, we will take a very dim view of people doing anything to bypass the designed intentions of the public UI in the future. Obviously, if anyone has any loopholes that can be exploited using the public User Interface, we'd also really love to know about them.
4. There are still interesting scenarios with towns exodusing, and units arriving - perfectly legally via the User Interface- either before or after the town completes the exodus, these units having been despatched before the town actually arrived. The Dev team are currently working out what we think should happen in these instances, and we will be implementing some changes. The Dev & GM team would like to thank the players who have helped us out by either demonstrating the issue, or by submitting detailed petitions / documentation. 5. Finally, can we urge any players who are aware of other potentially serious issues to let us know about them via petition with a detailed step-by-step of how to reproduce the issue. We won't be mad. It's to the benefit of everyone if the interface and gameplay is fair. Thanks for your time. The Illy Team |
Replies:
Posted By: Kyslior
Date Posted: 16 May 2024 at 20:18
| Thank you for looking into these issues. I would like to comment on the nature of point 4 - with regards to landing before the town lands as RE has done. Cities surrounded by plains have no feasible siege options. This is the closest anyone has come to a counter for cavalry, and it can only be done on exo'ing towns. If the dev team does not wish to rebalance cavalry units to make sieging a town surrounded by plains less impossible - I do not believe this concept can be done away with. You will make war less fun and more rote. Either introduce a counter to cav on plains to make siege a plausible thing or do nothing. Any other option is unacceptable. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 16 May 2024 at 22:03
|
I agree with Kys- the all plains meta is oppressive. Covered sieges are an edge-case that should be rewarded- I particularly enjoyed my siege in Jejune in his pre-GM days that would have been even less viable if I had not been able to protect the siege with a town. ------------- 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: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 May 2024 at 21:48
|
I've kept under 10 towns for 8 years for the reason of settler seiges. Give me a reason to go to 20 please <3
------------- KS |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 17 May 2024 at 23:03
Eowan thinks underhanded tactics should be rewarded? SHOCKING!!  |
eowan the short wrote:Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 18 May 2024 at 00:11
|
Oh, horror! Calamity! I think that in depth knowledge of mechanics should be rewarded. I think that the plains meta is oppressive. Skill-less peasants be jealous. What exactly makes this (now) very public strat underhanded? ------------- 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: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 18 May 2024 at 10:31
|
I have always believed that Cav are far too offensively powerful on plains and indeed on other terrain where just knocking a % off still leaves them far more powerful that troops with actual positive bonus on that terrain. Perhaps troops should simply have differing combat values for the differing terrain types. Also I feel that T1 and T2 spears should have differing combat abilities. T1, being shorter and operating better in rough terrain, whilst T2 being longer, pikes etc, will naturally operate better on open terrain, such as plains.
|
Posted By: Okkudo
Date Posted: 18 May 2024 at 17:14
This is what you call people who don't cheat, abuse exploits?
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 18 May 2024 at 22:54
Illiterate peasants be jealous too. ------------- 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: Roman Emperium
Date Posted: 18 May 2024 at 23:52
|
Rome put weeks of info collecting and coordinating for SMA to simply use the UI to send a siege to eagles town. Show`s the lack of actual participation by SMA and it`s leader desperately trying save eagles town to still be razed. Special thanks to IRON and RE for all the hard work they put in on the siege of Puffing. LONG LIVE ROME, LONG LIVE LAND CLAIMS !
|
Posted By: Okkudo
Date Posted: 19 May 2024 at 05:20
I read your post fine. We differ in how we define cheating. The exploits in this case, the building glitch,  the digging around in chrome dev mode you taught me. .
Abusing exploits is cheating to me. Not a sign of skill. Not to be recognized as in-depth knowledge. |
Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date Posted: 19 May 2024 at 13:01
|
You don't defend against cavalry by setting sieges on plains? You defend against cavalry by getting the enemy to attack you, on bad terrain, with better odds to your defensive troops, depleting their ability to attack your sieges, when you do put them on plains. Its the Ta2in way As far as plains sieges being impossible...Thirion, a "Non PvP player" just razed two of Orcasms cities, using plains sieges,in the middle of their cluster, because their responding cav was too far away, their closer in cav having been used in taking Eagles city, on a large hill. The game is what it is, it is what you make of it. Shout out to the devs for their continued commitment despite having to deal with us
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 19 May 2024 at 20:51
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! SNAGGLE DISCOVERS WAY TO OVERCOME PLAINS META- SIMPLY BE 4X THE SIZE OF YOUR OPPONENT.
------------- 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: Sif
Date Posted: 20 May 2024 at 12:03
|
Cav is fine imo, and this is goes off topic, town sieges is fine too as you use something the enemy could if know how to, Unfortunately by what SMA did Iron and RE lost very a usifull weapon In the ongoing war. I believe that SMA did was a cheat and they did it because they false think that we did, which we did not that's why I ask for the Devs to punish not permaban the SMA and also gift Iron and RE for losing that advanced knowledge... I value high this knowledge cause at the previous war even if I knew it was possible to use towns as walls, I did not use it cause I though iron did not know about it and I did not test it and use it to deny from my ex emeny such powerful weapon. Iron obvious was expert on these but know with all this situation it has turned to common knowledge which is unfair IMO
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 10:32
|
In the last few weeks i had the ingame experience to both fight against a siege in a city and also raze 2 cities surrounded by desert plains. The sieges on plains I do not know the details about the attackers setup. My defense setup was quite bad and could be improved by a lot. The core of my defense was my 3 month old account who didn't have any commanders with experience. I killed NPCs to get to level 10 forced march buts that it. The point of the operation was to get experience on my commanders and also to see how they would react and change my approach according to that in the future. I did not expect to get razes. The point i am trying to make: My setup was bad and could have easily improved by quite a bit. But lets look at the numbers i got: 1) Worst case: 13200 Knights in an 4 elite setup killed 49855 Sentinels and 48165 kobolds. -> 52800 upkeep killed 147875 upkeep -> 2.8 ratio (Reason: Bad Sents/Kobolds ratio) 2) Normal case: 15000 Death Packs killed 22718 Sents and 62119 kobolds -> 60000 upkeep killed 107555 upkeep -> 1.79 ratio With a better (and normal) setup on my side ratios around 1.5-1.7 would be more reasonable. Reducing the advantage for sieges on plains There are quite a few ways to reduce the advantage a defender has.
It requires a good plan and a good execution to pull off - but you also get quite a bit of benefit from it. Sieges in a city Unfortunately i did not get many attacks on the siege in the city. Most troops had been recalled already. A big and relatively easy example: 43000 attack sents killed 52971 kobolds and 11751 Clan Guardsman. No elite setup on the attacker side while the defender was using ~15 elite divisions. So total 86000 upkeep killed 76473 -> 0.89 ratio The city was on plains - so advantage for my Sents here. In addition to that my Sents hard-counter spears - thus i should have a huge advantage there. I have done the Sent attackers vs kobolds defenders a lot. Even in unfavourable terrain (forest) you get at least 2:1 ratios. Without the city i would have at least gotten a 2.0-2.5 ratio. A single Sentinel has 20 attack value against a defense value of 6 (Kobold) and 11 (Clan). I can do more math in case people are interested here. I am relatively certain that Iron/RE did not use gear in that case. But they could have. Decent, mass-producable gear (that you do not lose - because of the city) would have quite likely halfed my ratio again. Comparison Illyriad is designed to favor the defender in sieges. That is in my opinion a core design of the game to protect less active and more casual players. In a normal scenario the siege player loses around double the upkeep compared to the defender. Putting a siege into a city is bug-abuse and obviously not intended by the devs (Quote GM Jejune). You get an advantage of at least double the combat value of your troops. With really good preparation you can make that tripple or maybe even quadruple combat value of your troops. Or a closer look at the math: There are ways to improve the combat value of your troops. For example a 10% Prestige bonus, 10-15% commander skill or 20% college bonus on certain terrains. With the siege in a city approach you get 115% with just the wall and another potential 120% bonus with gear that you are not losing. In addition to that there is not really a counter-play after the "siege in a city" landed. You force the enemy to either attack the city (where you have a huge advantage) or setup a normal siege (where you have a huge advantage). Because of the "siege in a city" the attacker now has the advantage instead of as intended an disadvantage! Summary and Conclusion As shown above by my "real world examples" the "siege in a city" gives a huge advantage that is way out of line what is achievable with conventional game mechanics. It also turns around a core design goal of Illyriad: Instead of the defender having the advantage now the attacker has the advantage. "Siege in a city" is bugs abuse, not intended by the developers and gives an unreasonable and gamebreaking advantage. Thus it should not be allowed. Good and smart gameplay should be rewarded. I agree. But abusing a bug to get a gamebreaking advantage should not! That said i do think units in Illyriad need a slight rebalancing/tweaking. Best regards, Thirion (aka Ellania/TrollHunter)
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 11:34
|
I agree at the rest exept the siege town . That's why I am against any reduction of the cav attack the siege party has very bad ratio but it has the element of surprise which is crucial and it is similar and to the real life warfare . Regarding the town siege fighting against numerous at the size opponents is the fact that push to getting this knowlege siege town so it sould be rewarding ... also it's a weapon of the small alliance s o protect their areas from huge inveidors. Note that it require no sov around the town
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 12:09
Sorry, but i do not understand what the second sentence has to do with the first one. Can you explain that again please?
Game knowledge should be rewarding. I agree. But knowledge about bug abusing should not be rewarded. Also knowledge about any mechanics that are not intended by the devs should not be rewarding. Otherwise in my opinion the game changes from a "gameplay focus" to a "find the most gamebreaking, legal bug that you are allowed to use to break the game". This might be fun for some - but i am sure it is not for the big majority. Why put work/time into the game to come up with good strategies, good gameplay and good teamwork when you can just get it a lot easier by abusing a legal, gamebreaking bug? Why buy Prestige when you can just get power by abusing a legal, gamebreaking bug?
What big invadors? In this specific case YOU declared on us and YOU started the conflict. In my opinion you heavily misjuged the situation - thats on you and not us.
Which makes it mostly only useable against War Wagons. In my opinion in the current state of the game War Wagons are THE most important tool to allow long distance warfare. And thus Wars. They require planning and a lot of skill to pull off (because you need to be prepared for things that might happen multiple days later) War wagons are already difficult as it is. As an example: Against Ripper he killed all my commanders in the city and also got the city to 0 population. Should an important tool like this (that essentially enables real wars) be even more difficult to pull off?
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 12:41
| I see no bad distance to be a big factor at a strategy game for me it would be fine even if distance was an absolute factor as and at the medevial real life warfare, you would not send a wagon if you had not 20times more troops than Riper . I see your point there about war wagons but in my opinion the small sould be benefited from finding ways to overcome the digs size advantge , |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 15:18
|
36 accounts vs 400+ is game breaking. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 May 2024 at 17:35
First: We do not have 400+ active accounts in the war. At the moment i think at most 40-50 accounts are participating in any form in the war. That said, i would agree if what you call the 400+ started the aggression against the 36 accounts. But that is not what happened. The 36 accounts declared and were the aggressors. Thus in my opinion it is on them. Lets look at a real life example: When the US declares war on a small country without any aggression from that small countries side then that is a huge problem. But when the small country decides to attack the US and/or NATO then that is on them. Iron/RE expected SMA to either back down and not fight or not do as well in the war. You took the risk and it backfired. In my opinion you went "all in" with a bad hand. I expected Iron/RE to do a lot better and SMA to have a harder time - especially in the beginning. But we did in my opinion amazing (considering the circumstances) and we are just getting started!
|
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 26 May 2024 at 01:53
|
my opinion: what should NOT be allowed: -1 - putting siege inside a placed city of any player (sma) -2 - putting city inside a placed siege of any player (ascn) what should be allowed: -3 - exoing a city to land where a siege from a confederated/ally will land later (iron/re) situation 1 is basically only ever used to counter situation 3, but i still think its not good. with the new dev fixes i believe this should not work anymore so all is good. situation 2 is abused by ascn, they exo neutral cities onto existing sieges to be able to attack the sieges with equipped troops and collect 100% of the equipment, and be able to assassinate siege camp commanders. i think it is clear why this is broken and should not be allowed. not clear if the recent dev fixes change this, would like some clarification @jejune if possible situation 3 can only be achieved under city circumstances: a. the location a city was exoing to was discovered and cities were pre-exoed and effectively timed (iron) b. sov 5 was claimed next to the city to allow an exo c. the city did not have sov at an adjacent square and the user was offline for more than 30 days i think circumstance a rewards good information keeping, scouting, game knowledge, and military planning. i think circumstance b and c would only be feasible if the player was inactive and his alliance was not paying attention, in which case they deserve to lose the defenders advantage. |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2024 at 13:04
|
The fact that anyone has tried to justify the SMA remote siege at all shows the state of the community. The absence of justice is punishment to Iron and RE, leaving SMA the winner for breaking the game. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Illyriad Admin
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2024 at 18:43
Just read this. The fundamental is that BOTH sides used GDT to do things that the UI did not intend to happen, and - for this reason - we've chosen to close these particular exploits (now that we are aware of them) and not punish the individuals or alliances involved. We regard two groups at war who both cheated and then petitioned each other as pretty-much a wash in the grand scheme of things. From our perspective, it's a win; as it's enabled us to close a large set of potentially game-breaking exploits. However, I would reiterate that - now what we are aware that some front-end UI input components are not religiously checked by the back-end receivers - we're looking at them all, very carefully, and will regard anyone poking around in this area very sternly. (btw, you have this entirely the wrong way round in terms of the remote siege, it was Iron/RE using GDT to set up a siege/blockade on SMA from 100s of squares away. It was SMA using GDT to set up a siege/blockade from within city walls). Regards, SC
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2024 at 18:48
| Apologies, was logged in as Illyriad Admin at the time. The above post was me. |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2024 at 22:30
|
SC you told me and gc that Sma did not go behind the ui to launch their seige. When you said that, I said "so I can do that too". Only replicating what you said was a legal move from Sma. Which shows it would have been ignored (if I hadn't done the exact same thing, a little different ofc). You could have simply repatriated their seige, and I would have never known how any of it was done. I had to save myself from from an exploit, because you wouldn't. And then I get asked to give back the town that someone else has captured (who did not go behind the ui). I wonder what would have been reciprocated had I been razed. ------------- KS |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2024 at 22:52
|
Also I sent a blockade not a seige and admitted what I did immediately and gave fair warning beforehand as well. Now we have 2 towns of mine and 1 alliance mates are razed because of your choice to not repatriate their exploited seige. We used a strategy war players have used for many years against each other, for our 2 legal seiges. We presented proof and were met with objection. We then present the proof and tell the truth after you object our proof in a public setting. Sif is spot on with how we feel, Iron and Re took an incredibly long time to coordinate the knowledge we have gained over the years to properly combat a massive invading enemy. Now we have been hurt by a simple choice of not to repatriate an exploited seige after presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 09:45
This is in my opinion not true. You setup 2 sieges in a city - which is at least a major bug abuse and according to Jejune not intended by the devs. You knew the city was stacked - thus you had 2 options:
We had a lot more troops from Elgea on the way to Eagles city and to attack the sieges. And we would have sent a lot more. You were on a timer. More time for us means
From the beginning you had to make the choice: Expensive raze or no raze. According to you it took a lot of knowledge, preparation and resources. Would you be fine with no raze and just being annoying? I don't think so. Thus in my opinion (and knowing you) you never really had an option and you would have always gone for the raze. Which means the SMA siege didn't change the overall picture at all - on the contrast. You decided to clear the city as fast as possible (which would have been the best option if you wanted the raze).
Iron/RE started the aggression and Iron/RE started the war. You took a huge gamble and it backfired - that is on you and not us. |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 11:01
|
If you would not cheat 4 thing would happen 1) you would lose a dramandous troop count with the worst ratio possible 2) you would lose a crasy amount of prestige 3) you would not know how we did it (we forsed to say, so to prove we did not cheat) 4) you would probably lose the town (but this was not the most important lose)
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 11:28
|
In my opinion just more propaganda without valid reasons. Why did the SMA siege change anything?
1) We lost a lot of troops anyway. What did the SMA siege change there? Even the opposite is the case - the longer your siege lasts the more troops we are going to lose (which we are fine with). 2) Both your cities are on plains. Thats not the worst ratio possible  3) We are fine trading our Elgea troops (that are useless otherwise) for Iron/RE BL troops. We outproduce Iron/RE by a lot - thus ratios do not matter that much.
We kept the city up so our Elgea reinforcements and clears could arrive. We had to use Prestige because you cleared the city. Without clearing the city we do not need to use any Prestige there.
We already knew how you did it the first time it was used by Iron (in the King EAM siege that you failed). We just didn't know the details - we thought the siege had to arrive first and sieges arriving after the city would bump.
Not really. The only reason we lost that city was because of a cheated blockade that was setup in Westmarch hundreds of squares away from the sieged city in Aindara that we could not kill.
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 11:42
|
We had no plans to send a single large army to Eagles town, we planned to elite at it for a another week, being annoying would have been fine. The exploit put us on a timer that did not exist previous. If we didn't break your seige, I would have been razed. Literally paying money by the hour to save my town from an exploit. ------------- KS |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 11:45
|
You knew we didn't cheat for our seiges, you knew you out number and out outproduce us by far. Why did y'all hack the game to fight us? ------------- KS |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 12:07
|
Yes that's something I was not expecting. you knew we did not cheat and you do it regardless? I had the impretion that you thouth that we cheat so you try to do the same and that is justified at some point in my mind(, you still should get punished and we get gifts from the dev for our lost knowledge even if you thoth we do the same). But knowing how we do it and choose to hack????? This is for acount ban imo.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 12:11
| Also even if you are several times bigger than as if you sould all the time attack at our troops behind wall and full geared you could not overcome our forses imo |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 12:13
|
Not to mention it was a group effort by them. What I did, I figured out myself, and acted by myself, monkey see monkey do. Used a single troop, not a large seige army. You also had the terrain advantage that you knew. You had the advantage in every possible way, and still cheated. We are not the same. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 12:30
I posted the answer to that in GC already but i am glad to repeat it here. I was under the impression that you cheated and that one of our players was doing the same you did. I was wrong in hindsight. |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 12:50
|
You just said you already knew how we did, because I did a walled seige on King Eam months prior. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 13:10
We knew that (and how) you could bug-abuse to put a city on top of a siege. According to one of our experienced war players the siege had to arrive first (he was wrong in hindsight) - which was the case in the King EAM siege. Thus when your siege arrived days later my assumption was that you cheated. And that one of our players would use the same method. Me and most other SMA players have not been in a war were a siege was put into a city. How am i supposed to know the exact details? There are a lot of game-breaking bugs in this game - especially the wargame. As a player new to wars you cannot and should not be expected to know all of them in detail. Thus in my opinion abusing game-breaking bugs should not be allowed at all unless the Devs make an official announcement allowing it.
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 13:21
You are right. We are not the same. We did not
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 13:48
|
So you did not know how we did it , but now you know . So our secret knowlege lost because we forsed to prove to you that we did not cheat. Imo you sould punished,not acountban but some punishment ..and RE/Iron sould get refund for losing such a crucial weapon . If you did not know how we do it . If you knew how we do it and choose to hack imo accountban is justified (which imo is not the case)
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 14:00
| Ok know I understand the last comment .so my last post is not in subject |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 14:06
|
At the time, we believed this to be the case. As you and many others know, it is perfectly possible to have a siege from inside a city wall if the 'sieging town' was in exodus at the time the siege was sent. As I said in another post, this is something we are looking at changing. It's a complex balance, mostly because of the difficulty in sieging cities surrounded by plains, using conventional methods. We think we have a solution, but will be testing it extensively before release. What we did not know at the time was that Google Developer Tools (GDT) or plug-ins like Tampermonkey were being used to push invalid data (via the raw HTML) into the back-end. When (in hindsight, unwisely) I said that "if it's done using the UI, it's legal", I - in no way whatsoever - thought for one second that anyone would believe this meant "SC says it's fine to go behind the User Interface, using GDT or Tampermonkey, and push manually-altered data into the back end that the publicly-available front-end would never allow. I'm sure the game meant to allow me to set up a siege or blockade from 100s of squares away." I don't want to get into a discussion about who cheated more, or more effectively. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if you plagiarise one chapter or an entire thesis: if you get caught, you’re not getting your PhD. You’re certainly not getting any sympathy from us. We continue to find new GDT exploits being used - eg the "non-standard commander unit GDT exploit” or the "non-standard commander equipment GDT exploit", both of which have been recently closed. I would strongly recommend that any alliance members from either SMA or Iron who suddenly find themselves ‘inexplicably’ missing some of their military commanders do not open a petition about it. It will not be received sympathetically. So far, about 2 weeks of development time has been spent on fixing these various GDT-related exploits. I’m not complaining about this dev time: a closed exploit is not lost or wasted time at our end, it’s a win for the game itself as it improves the fairness of the game for everyone. However, I’m genuinely not going to countenance any whinging from either side about how they have been unfairly treated. You should all be counting your lucky stars that the other side did it as well. My sympathy/tolerance level for players and alliances involved in GDT cheating was zero Fahrenheit, and my sympathy/tolerance level for those same players and alliances who continue to cheat has reached zero Kelvin. We don’t like kicking people out of the game, but the next GDT exploit I find being used will result in permabans. If anyone is aware of a GDT exploit that we haven’t yet closed, I would urge them to get in touch with us, via petition, immediately. If you directly let us know about an exploit that you’re aware of, there’s currently an amnesty on the ‘how-to’ knowledge, but not the practice. I’d rather know about it and get it closed than throw people out of the game, but my patience threshold for players and alliances who continue to use GDT exploits has been broached. Regards, SC |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 14:57
|
You had every single advantage possible in this game besides experience. You did not know how we did our walled seiges (but did at the same time). So your team chose to replicate our experience using hacks. There is no justification for hacking the game. All offenders should be banned, from Ascn using the hack, to Sma using the hack, to myself. Everyone in Iron and Re both told me not to bypass the UI, was the same sentiment held in Ascn and Sma? ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 22:34
In addition to experience you had the better position on the map (regional vs spread alliance) and the better timing (you didn't use many troops in the tournament while we used probably 10m or 70-80% of our overall troops - most of them defensive ones in the tournament).
It was not our team. As far as i know there were 4 players in total that
knew about it and only 2 players (me and the player that did it) that
knew what it meant. Sieges in a city are in my opinion a game-breaking advantage. They are bug abuse and not intended by the devs. At that time i thought our player would use the same approach as Iron/RE to level the playing field a bit - instead of a huge advantage (2:0 sieges in a city) you would only have a big advantage (2:1 sieges in a city).
I agree - but its not that simple unfortunately. You (and one of our players) still did it. Thus it is in my opinion usually not "black and white" but instead "grey". In hindsight it was a mistake and with what i know now i would have said "don't do it". But the circumstances then were unique and i lacked critical knowledge to make the correct decision. That still doesn't make the decision "correct" but maybe a bit understandable?
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2024 at 23:09
|
Dont forget Eliza J testing it on me and landing inside Eagles town, likes he was clueless both times. The game is ruined for me until justice is served, for Falln, for Iron/Re, for all your teammates now having to be on a team that hacks the server. For the entire server itself. The game has been changed, due to repeated use of an exploit. Do the crime, do the time. I will gladly have justice served upon me as long as it is just. I plead my case. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 08:32
|
IMO 1 case : siege without hack = not cheat , military knowlege (IRON/RE) 2 case : siege throu hack = cheat , acount ban 3 case : siege throu hack falling believe you are protecting yourself from the others cheating = cheat BUT gray area , punishment and refund the other party (SMA ) 4 case : siege throu hack to protect yourself from other cheating (case 3) =not cheating selfdefense (King Sig)
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 15:03
1) At the time the long distance blockade was setup the SMA siege was gone. Thus it was not self-defense but a revenge/retaliation cheat. The blockade did not protect King Sig city at all but instead it made it possible for Iron/RE to raze Eagles city. 2) The SMA siege was something that could be achieved with ingame mechanics and had some counterplay (kill the siege). The long distance blockade could not be achieved outside of cheating and had no counterplay - as you cannot fight a blockade that is setup anywhere on the map. That said i do agree with GM SC:
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 15:12
|
It was so we could destroy the wall and remove the seige. We would have razed either way, except if Sma hadn't hacked, it would have been our way. We planned and observed everything for countless hours, spent so many resources. You changed the game with hacks and only we will suffer for it. Unfortunately how long and how much prestige did I spend to save myself before I sent the blockade? A simple repatriation would have been punishment enough for sma. Now that can't happen and I want justice.
------------- KS |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 15:23
|
That would not be justice for Falln though. How many of them have left the game because their enemy cheats? If someone will do it once with no consequences, they'll do it again, and we cannot allow that in our community. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 15:50
Thats a different topic but in my opinion most of the war players left the game because 1) the war player community is toxic and 2) the content is not good There is a reason why there was no opposition for warmongers for a long time - as the opposition just gets bullied out of the game. Your and Rippers reaction to me abandoning Thirion (and almost leaving the game) showed that well enough - bragging and congratulations for making a player abandon (and thus bullying them out). When the "win condition" of one side is to bully out the other side then it cannot work in the long run. As nobody is left. Let me change your statement a bit:
That is exactly why i am fighting you and why i am not going to stop.
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 16:09
|
Yea let's talk about multis and sat accounts. Devs can see where my 1 sat account logs in and resets me. I beg for the devs to check and confirm this. And reciprocate to you. Thats why I declared on you, not Sma to start. Then you abandoned and made your fight their fight. While we obviously all saw your "alt" still in the game. I don't want to get into who supports the community more. But if you don't want justice, for hacking the game, you're one of the ones ruining it. My game is ruined. Fallns is ruined. Ascn and Sma suffer nothing. Ofc you don't want justice, you have not been effected from hacking the game, yet are guilty. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 16:29
|
I am going to stop here. You are starting with your slander and baseless accusations again. I have never multi-accounted. I used to sit 3 accounts yes, but you talked to the original owner of 2 of those accounts in voice chat. SMA is currently in a war against toxic players like you instead of doing what we enjoy - tournaments.
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 16:34
|
Ok hacker. Take everything you can, you ruined my game with your hacks. You can have Illy. I do not want to be part of a community that supports that. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 16:40
I never used GDT or any other way to push invalid data (via the raw HTML) into the back-end. |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 16:51
|
You certainty coordinated and endorsed and now defend the use of it - mine ofc. Pour more toxicity into the community. Stagnation, lies, hacks. If you weren't involved why are you here, and where's Duramax. Dura, I'm sure we can both agree we and everyone who hacked the game deserve to banned. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 17:00
I never endorsed it nor did i defend it. My statement from the beginning was quite clear "Do not allow gamebreaking bug-abuse at all".
You accused me of multi-accounting and hacking in the last 3 posts. I just defended myself. I wonder who the toxic player here is?
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2024 at 17:01
|
Wheres Duramax, Eliza J and every Ascn player who used these hacks? Not here, it's not their problem. ------------- KS |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2024 at 19:52
It's coined as a remote siege because it was warped into a city. The actual distance from the city being sieged doesn't matter to qualify as a remote siege. The siege has to involve warped units to qualify as a remote siege. Note that the warped units remained in place for almost a week or more than a week before the remote blockade appeared. The remote blockade didn't arrive until after raze population was achieved so it's not like any damage was done from the blockade at all. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2024 at 20:09
This is completely wrong. Eagles city was cleared by Iron/RE but we kept the city up and out of raze population for multiple days. We occupied the surrounding squares for an hour (so that Iron/RE could not put up blockades) and built up the city multiple times. We could have kept the city out of raze population for a long time using this approach. The remote blockade completely changed that - as we could not kill the blockade thousand squares away and thus not keep the city above raze population. Which made the raze possible.
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2024 at 20:17
|
That is a lie. We razed as soon as the town was clear and capture pop was achieved many times in the meantime. I sent over a 1000 blockades during that seige. The last one was a remote blockade after I had been remote seiged for a week. It also wasn't 1000 away, it was under 550 away and 1 single troop. I spent over 100$ on prestige to save my town from the remote seige. At least once I landed my remote blockade Eagle didnt have the spend anymore money or beg the devs to save him from hacks for a week.
------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2024 at 20:29
Capture pop was achieved when the city was stacked. As soon as the city was low/out of troops we kept the population up. Eagles growth profile shows that quite well: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Growth/362300" rel="nofollow - http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Growth/362300  Note: You have to move the bottom graph a bit to the right - as the time does not align on the top and bottom graph. As you can see towards the end we kept the population up over raze population. Some pictures from the remote blockade:  That was the message for a blockade on a city in Aindara.  |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2024 at 22:12
|
Most of the time you wouldn't contradict a "war player" on war matters. Wonder what "war player" actually means if it doesn't mean they know about war. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2024 at 01:40
|
A wise man once told me that's a derogatory term. ------------- KS |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2024 at 07:35
So essentially "The facts contradict me but trust me, i am a war player and that means i know what i am doing"? Let me point out some flaws in that argumentation (outside of in my opinion "facts > believe"): 1) King Sigerius told me when the war started that i am a war player now. So what is it? 2) I had sitter access to Eagles city and was supplying a lot of the resources and Prestige (via alliance pool) for his Pres builds. I was also in this position multiple times before (with Thirion/Ellania against Ripper and as sitter for some SMA players) - thus i do have quite a decent experience here. 3) FALLN, TCol, HORDE and other war alliances have put up impressive and well planned/timed sieges. Unfortunately Iron/RE hasn't. War is always messy - i get that. But on Iron/RE side there have been a lot of mistakes and bad plays that war players would call "noob mistakes" that could and should have easily been avoided. To be honest i expected a lot more from Iron/RE. When SMA as the "non-war" alliance sets up way cleaner sieges compared to the war alliance then that is in my opinion just sad. In the end Iron/RE is failing sieges because of bad planning/timing in sieges they should not fail - while we are getting razes because of good planning/timing and bad Iron/RE counter-play that we should not get yet. And it is going to get lot worse in the future. I have not called out Iron/RE on this until now - as you continue to do those mistakes. But maybe it is time to point out some of those "noob" mistakes:
I could go on but as long as you continue doing them it benefits us - thus i am going to stop here.
You are to some extend responsible for your reputation. There are slandler/lies - which is used by Iron/RE quite a bit - but you can still manipulate your reputation to some extend. Maybe there is some truth behind your reputation and there are problems there that you fail to see?
|
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2024 at 02:08
|
We're noobs that can't handle ourselves with no knowledge of game mechanics. We're so skilled at the game the only way to defeat us is to literally warp units around the map. There is no other way. Pick one. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2024 at 09:25
I never said nor implied any of those statements. Just more propaganda, misinformation and lies on your side. I pointed out obvious mistakes on your side - but that does not mean you "can't handle yourself" and have "no knowledge of game mechanics". As an example there are quite a few Iron/RE players that are using elite setups well. But lets get back to facts: Iron/RE cleared Eagles city on 14 May 2024 07:28 - proof:  Note: The report is quite long thus i am only showing the in my opinion important part. I can share the whole report if needed. This failed defense also killed our siege on King Sigerius city. Iron/RE remote siege was setup at 15 May 2024 00:54 - proof: Between the clear and the raze we had multiple defense armies arriving - but those got cleared multiple times. Lets look at your statements:
The pictures above prove that the statements above are not true (and thus lies). The remote blockade was setup after the siege was killed (thus no self defense) and the city was cleared long before it was razed.
As the proof above shows the city was cleared but not razed for around 24h. Considering that the siege was going on for a long time and thus we lost 60 building levels every hour that is a long time. As you can see on Eagles profile (i posted pictures above in another post) the growth shows that we built up the city above raze population multiple times. The remote blockade did not make that possible anymore. Thus the remote blockade completely changed the situation and made the raze possible! Conclusion: The proof above shows that Iron/RE is making up lies for propaganda
|
Posted By: Island Living
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2024 at 22:40
This is an egregious twisting of the facts.
RE/Iron landed coordinated sieges from the result of months of intelligence gathering and weeks of planning. When the GMs reviewed what we did and how (with all supporting evidence) they classified it as “metagaming”. SMA tried to counter siege and landed 1 siege to the north square of xOutragedPandax’s city “18.Lilly Pad” which was instantly hit with cav, losing 2/3rds of their forces with more cav hours away from hitting the SMA siege. That SMA siege was recalled and then 3 SMA cheat sieges (2 test and 1 real) were sent that landed inside of Eagle’s city of Puffin. SMA was unable to land a non-cheat counter siege and needed to go under the UI to land sieges inside of Puffin, two test sieges clearly shows this was 100% intentional. RE/Iron’s plan was to slowly siege the town of Puffin, forcing SMA to either lose it or spend vast amounts of prestige to keep it alive. We had half a million cav on standby to kill any counter sieges (which we did just that), we did not have it on standby to attack a town with a level 20 wall. Our plan was to spend the next two weeks hitting the town of Puffin with elites as we needed to kill SMA troops with favorable ratios due to our size difference, not send wave after wave of 100k cav into a lvl 20 wall to kill a cheat siege. The cheat siege that landed inside of Puffin threatened one of our two main sieges and moved up our timeline from 2 weeks to 5 days. When this happened support tickets were immediately made, and RE/Iron held off for DAYS (under an active cheat siege mind you) awaiting the official outcome. During this time RE/Iron was forced to use large amounts of cav to kill off the cats/rams inside the cheat siege and RE/Iron also held off on sending a large block due to knowing SMA cheated and that the GMs would punish them for it. The official outcome of the investigation was…
the claim that Eliza J and Duramax sent "impossible" sieges against the city of Lilly Pad whose siege armies set up in the square occupied by the friendly city of Puffin -- was meticulously researched within the game data point by point against the timeline that you provided. What we found is that those sieges were sent using the provided UI that all players have access to. There is no evidence that Eliza J, Duramax, or any other SMA member engaged in manipulation of the game's code underneath the persistent UI. SMA achieved their siege scenarios by using an aspect of the user interface that didn't invalidate access to the siege command in the UI when it should have … So, the official investigation came to the conclusion that SMA did not cheat, which we all now know to be false due to SMAs own claims within this forum (SMA has admitted it went under the UI to cheat). RE/Iron already knew SMA cheated as we understood the game's mechanics, so Iron sent the remote block to not only prove a point but to fight fire with fire. The Iron block only existed due to the devs not acting against SMA OR that the devs were lied to about the true origin of SMAs cheat siege. Put another way, the Devs first told us that SMA’s siege was allowed. We were flabbergasted. So Iron sent the remote block. Only after Iron sent the remote block did the Devs change their position on what was allowed.
My question to the devs on this matter is this, did SMA initially lie to you about how they achieved their siege or did you believe it best to not tell the truth and bury it? Because the official response I received on the matter clearly states that “There is no evidence that Eliza J, Duramax, or any other SMA member engaged in manipulation of the game’s code underneath the persistent UI.” Which we all know is false. This false statement is also 100% the reason Iron’s remote block happened as it used the same exact method SMA used to achieve the impossible.
Also to add to that, I would be willing to accept that the GMs don’t interfere with an ongoing battle even if there was cheating involved except that the GMs directly interfered with the very next RE/Iron vs. SMA fight to SMA’s benefit. When SMA was attacking Iron’s city, Iron managed to kill 2 out of 3 blocks. This left the last block on the town standing but broken as it would not block incoming caravans. Multiple times Iron was able to kill the smaller blocks while letting the big broken block just exist and then send in caravans to pres build. GM Duran addressed this issue promptly and even though he said “the blocking mechanic is working the same as it always has” he still put in a hot fix that made SMA’s broken block work again. This action directly contributed to SMA getting the raze and then recalling forces to dodge our cav that was about to hit their sieges, thus allowing them to continue further operations in the area. The fallout of this inaction from the devs during SMAs cheat siege has caused RE/Iron to reposition as we rebuild cav and has left a huge opening for SMA to move towns at a faster pace than before. This inaction occurred either because SMA lied to the GMs about the origin of their cheat siege (thus buying them more time and leading to Iron’s long-distance block), or the GMs lied to RE/Iron at the conclusion of their investigation. Which is it?
|
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2024 at 23:01
|
I forgot out the broken block. The devs changing that mechanic that has been around for years in the middle of a seige on Iron, yet wouldn't repatriate the hacked seige on me.... This is why I will no support this game or devs. I feel personally attacked by the devs yet again. ------------- KS |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2024 at 23:48
|
And the fact that Stormcrow lied in gc is mind blowing. The cheaters need to be banned or they will cheat again. I wanted a simple repatriation, it's to late and now I need the devs to man up and ban all parties involved. ALL parties. This isn't right, a top 3 alliance cheats against someone as small as us. We know the tricks of your bad coding and are directly hurt by the devs actions (and inaction). Sma (a top 3 allaince) literally hacks the game and they get nothing but advantage. WTFFR I feel unwanted here from the devs themselves, and I love this game. I just don't understand why they would hurt me and my team like this.... I tell the truth, and I'm the bad guy. I went the behind ui, and only know how to because of the devs and Sma. I'll probably do it again too, I don't trust the devs to keep the game fair. They want certain people to be able to do whatever they want, and they want certain people to leave the game or be destroyed by hackers. ------------- KS |
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 00:12
| this situation was handled very poorly by the devs and i wish now that the devs have more manpower and are seemingly putting more effort into the game, they put that same effort into shutting down cheaters. seeing people getting away with playing a different game than you is no fun and has lead to many people leaving the game over the years, be it the exploiting or the obvious multiaccounting (speaking in general not about anybody specific in this thread). |
Posted By: Roman Emperium
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 00:41
|
Hello, I would like to know all the bad timings RE has made, as far as we know we have razed every town we targeted or your players ran away from the sieges and everyone has been on time, including siege trains that razed plains towns within 20 hours. I know lying is your strongest suit here , noob mistakes? you guys ramming 400k t2 infantry into walled towns and getting slaughtered by a bunch of elite units, you only got 50k kills for your 400k t2 infantry loss. So if we we are doing such a bad job I'm wondering how you lost so many towns if they were so badly planned and coordinated lmao. You`re alliance has 20 million population and has performed horribly, you may not be a ``war alliance`` but have many troops and 2 war veterans guiding your actions so far so I don`t want to hear that excuse. You`re lies on this are as bad as your lies with the war negotiations at the start when you broke the agreement made with RE to end the war before it got heated. Do us a favor and abandon your accounts again
|
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 02:15
|
Ye olde bait and switch. It was fine when someone else did it, but since we waited a week to do anything and told you it was fine to do (either by silence or outright telling us) and then you did it nobody gets punished. Even despite the other guys giving a mea culpa. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Dingo
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 03:35
gonna be real, no one cares how you feel. as a game dev please uphold your reponsibility in eliminating cheaters from your game. (btw i believe anything that can't be done through player ui and multiaccounting should be counted as cheating. things doable through
player ui should be considered game mechanics. i cannot believe i need to make this distinction myself, which demonstrates how overblown and endorsed cheating in this game has become) also don't compare cheating in a video game to plagerism on your phd. it is not the same at all and doing so is pychotic. ------------- Woof! |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 07:38
This is in my opinion off-topic and thus i made a new topic here: https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic11122_post111197.html#111197" rel="nofollow - https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic11122_post111197.html#111197
|
Posted By: Dogstar
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 19:53
|
Thirion is so sad. Just ask [insert name]. We did so well with the timing of our sieges! [fill in the name] said they were proud of us! Just remember, you declared on us! |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2024 at 20:25
Getting personal in an online game. Thats just sad |