Game Balance: Diplomatic Units
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Implemented
Forum Description: Suggestions which have been implemented or resolved.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=201
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 09:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Game Balance: Diplomatic Units
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: Game Balance: Diplomatic Units
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 10:58
|
Hi all, Change list is now http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/game-balance-diplomatic-units_topic201_post1937.html#1937 - available towards the end of Page 3 of this thread. I'm raising this now as we're now seeing the effects of theft from advanced units, and we're not yet at the point of saboteur units ingame - and I want to get this right before we get there. So, here goes. THE THREE ISSUES: ISSUE 1. THIEF UNITS - ESPECIALLY ADVANCED ONES - ARE UNBALANCED Thieves carry 5 times more than military units can, have the benefit of being able to steal advanced resources, and also have the benefit of - if the mission is successful - a zero casualty rate. Yes, the Vault is there to protect resources, but with the higher level building requirements the Vault doesn't come close to protecting all that is needed. We're not in favour of increasing vault capacity; the purposes of the Vault building is to give new players some for of protection, but it is a building that should be "outgrown" fairly swiftly. ISSUE 2. SABOTEUR UNITS ARE UNBALANCED Saboteurs, in their current formation will totally destroy the next building and/or research item on the queue, and this is surely overkill especially as people get towards multi-day build and research requirements. Given that a wave of cheap, throwaway scouts can clear out any protective runes, it's wrong that the only real defence against Building Saboteurs is to spend prestige on instabuild options. Given that there is no research queue instabuild option (nor will there be), there is actually no real defence against research Saboteur operations (unless you have saboteurs of your own). ISSUE 3. THERE SHOULD BE A PENALTY FOR CLEARING OUT RUNES WITH CHEAP UNITS Waves of very cheap units can clear out defensive runes, and - again - this is broadly unbalanced. THE SET MENU OF SOLUTIONS, BUT WE ALSO DO A LA CARTE AND KITCHEN REQUESTS: We think that the following options are on the table - but we encourage anyone to come up with other options that fit the bill if they're better ideas. We are willing to implement some, many or all of the following: 1. CHANGES TO DIPLOMATIC UNIT COSTS TO MAKE THEIR LOSS MORE MEANINGFUL We're considering a basic unit gold upkeep of 2 for basic (and 4 for advanced) for all diplomatic units, plus requiring Horses for basic units and Horses + Saddles for advanced units of all diplomatic types. 2. CHANGES TO DIPLOMATIC MISSION OUTCOME ALGORITHM At the moment it's all or nothing - you either succeed and escape with all your units, or fail and die with all your units. Introducing a diplomatic unit "casualty" calculation would mean that, actually, that much smaller number of defensive diplomatic units would still extract some penalty from the greater numbered agressor. 3. CHANGES TO UNITS CONSIDERED DURING DIPLOMATIC MISSION OUTCOME RESOLUTION At the moment it takes a thief to catch a thief, and takes a saboteur to catch a saboteur. We're considering changing this so that all diplomatic units present to defend a city are made part of the calculation, with different weightings. So, for example, defensive thieves would be very good at catching offensive theft missions, but equally defensive scouts could also provide some (substantially lesser) protection from theft. 4. CHANGES TO THIEF CARRYING CAPACITY Thief carrying capacity should be brought in line with military units. They still get the advantage of the ability to steal advanced resources. 5. SABOTEURS DO NOT DESTROY BUILDINGS, THEY DELAY THEM Saboteur units - instead of completely destroying a building in the queue - would delay the construction of the building, adding time (current thought is 1 hour per successful saboteur) up to a maximum delay (current thought is double the time to build the building from scratch). This would mean that saboteurs are unable to completely cripple a small growing town from a player straight out of new player protection - which they would, currently be able to, but equally provide some meaningful penalty to larger cities. 6. SABOTEURS DO NOT CANCEL RESEARCH Simply remove this entirely, given that there is no way whatsoever of speeding research. The difference between basic and advanced saboteur units could be (apart from their success chance) that advanced saboteur units could delay the construction of both items on the build queue, or alternatively delay the building for longer. 7. REMOVE INSTABUILD OPTION AND REPLACE WITH HALVE CONSTRUCTION TIME Basically, take out the instabuild option and replace it with something akin to the "Double Movement Speed of currently moving caravans". 8. NEW SUB SCHOOL FOR RUNES - TARGETTED SLAYING Allow a new subschool of Runes that only kills *specific* unit types (eg scouts, thieves, spearmen, cavalry etc). When you cast the spell you would have to specify the type that the rune would effect. This school would probably cost a little more than the current "blanket" slaying runes, but would also have more charges. As mentioned earlier, we're very happy to consider alternatives; and we're also very happy to hear coherent and rational arguments as to why we should do items 1,3,5 & 7 but not 2,4,6 & 8. They're all up-for-grabs. I'd be grateful for any and all feeback on these proposals for anyone who wants to put a "for the good of the game balance" hat on. Unlike most hats, these ones are very stylish and make you look cool. Thanks in advance, GM Stormcrow |
Replies:
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 13:33
|
Diplomatic Units are unbalanced, I agree. They are cheap, damaging, and very hard to defend against (hmm... could describe some people I know.) Option #1 helps with the Cheap part. If I knew I was potentially throwing away a bunch of saddles, I might think twice about sending out a blind theft mission. #2... for gameplay purposes, doesn't this basically mean that diplos become a defacto military unit? I like the idea for the purposes of balancing, I guess, but if a thief succeeds, he succeeds, if he fails, he dies, is kind of in-line with the concept of the definition of a thief. #3 Makes sense, but has the potential to again, just turn diplos into a military unit. As you say, though the weighting could easily unbalance things, so care would have to be taken to make sure lowly-scouts don't become uber-assassin killers. #4 50/Thief is probably too high, but bringing them down to the same as military units, sort of makes them... military units. Not sure the point of a Thief is, if they are always discovered by small numbers of defensive diplos (see option 2) and carry the same as Military. Other than the option to take advance booty, they might as well be Protectors. ... Haven't thought through Saboteurs enough yet. #7 - Seems like a revenue opportunity rather than a game balancer. Same outcome, more money spent. #8 - I think this is a great idea. When do I get my hat? |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 14:27
|
Diplos are unbalanced, definitiely. 1. CHANGES TO DIPLOMATIC UNIT COSTS TO MAKE THEIR LOSS MORE MEANINGFUL maybe, but how about an 'at home' reduction in maintenance cost for the numbers of the little blighters we have to keep for defence. This change targets defence as much as the overbalanced offense. upkeep is 50% if at home? 2. CHANGES TO DIPLOMATIC MISSION OUTCOME ALGORITHM Actually the all or nothing dissuades large numbers of thieves. 3. CHANGES TO UNITS CONSIDERED DURING DIPLOMATIC MISSION OUTCOME RESOLUTION yes. 4. CHANGES TO THIEF CARRYING CAPACITY yes, and reduce the amount of high value stuff, taking 50 high value things is daft. 5. SABOTEURS DO NOT DESTROY BUILDINGS, THEY DELAY THEM very good 6. SABOTEURS DO NOT CANCEL RESEARCH very good 7. REMOVE INSTABUILD OPTION AND REPLACE WITH HALVE CONSTRUCTION TIME erk. no. 8. NEW SUB SCHOOL FOR RUNES - TARGETTED SLAYING hmmm, no. But the ability to destroy runes with waves of 'free' scouts, allied with long cool down time is a worry. also the runes are very useful in killing / detering spies - so the unspecificness has advantages. the problem is 76 scouts negate a rune designed to deter 74 nasty soldiers etc. how about diplo units dont deplete the 'horror' runes. that way the defender can decide his priority - kill all and any oncoming unit (but delete 1 for 1), or know that this 'horror' rune may not kill oncomers, but will be effective against all and not be vulnerable to overrunning. still not it. maybe closer? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 15:15
|
While I agree that diplomacy is somewhat unbalanced, this game heavily favors defensive play already. "Unbalanced" also means "volatile," and that can be a good thing. I would not wish to see new changes that overcompensate. In particular, I think JUST doing number two (calculating diplomatic losses on both sides) would be adequate change for the central, but being the wordy analytical type I am, I'll elaborate and note where other adjustments present benefits. 1) Their cost is already made meaningful by the number required to defend yourself and the gold upkeep that accrues. This change is dangerously likely to make into units "too expensive to have" those which were previously "too important not to have." This will carry into #3. 2) It is indeed very strange that diplomacy is an all-or-nothing proposition, and for the attacker only besides. I would like to see a "battle outcome" calculation that favors the defender, but causes casualties on both sides IF the attack is discovered (and then success depending on that outcome). If it fully succeeds, I would not see the defenders already insufficient forces dwindle more, and it wouldn't make sense for conflict to always occur anyway. After all, the objective is generally intel/subterfuge and with most types of attacks, one expects a chance to be completely undiscovered. That can't happen if the mission breeds casualties. 3) I very much like the system the way it is. It promotes diversity and provides more vectors for assault. Such a heavily defense-favoring game as this really needs those extra options. Letting diplomatic units defend against everything would just guarantee that everyone is far more capable of defending against everything than they are of attacking against anything. If anything, I'd like to see military presence contribute to defensive value, but by a smaller order of magnitude than the proper diplomatic unit. 4) I really hope this does not get nerfed. If anything, military units should be allowed to carry more. 10 base resources per unit is a joke and again makes acts of hostilities that much less worthwhile...military units are today more costly than farming can recover, and even cavalry have no greater capacity. The commander upgrades to carrying capacity operate by percentages, which applied to a base of 10 gets you nowhere. Furthermore, the issue is more with advanced resources in general (i.e. as they apply to trading in caravans as well, etc.) Perhaps it is they that should be altered to take up more than one unit of space. 5) I believe saboteurs are already incredibly weak, especially for the tech level they require. If anything, advanced saboteurs should have a small chance of bringing down a targeted building level by a level if the building was recently spied successfully. 6) Are you suggesting that paid players *should* be able to escape an attack that non-paid players cannot? This is already a serious problem with building construction, and others of my alliance were speculating that construction completion would be removed from the prestige options when it became clear how profoundly advantageous and unfair this benefit is. 7) Ah, yes. This would be much more reasonable. And a much better answer to #6 would be in this form. Spend to halve research time. In both cases we're finding cause for open-ended spending to advantage, so I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere, that I hope for sanity's sake the spending of prestige gets capped. Almost any cap will do provided it's one that some people would actually reach, though one that sets at least a remotely reasonable limit on true cost would be best (i.e. something like 20 euros per month or something...lower would also be good). 8) It sounds a little overly complicated. Instead of introducing so many branches, why not instead have one new sub-school that targets a predefined set of the most troublesome units, such as saboteurs, advanced thieves, assassins, and military assaults? I may have original ideas later, but must run to class at the moment. |
Posted By: Callous
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 15:39
I'm already very much against being able to use prestige to instabuild buildings, so halving the time is at least better (25% reduction would be even better  ). I'd like to see either a building that can reduce building time (like an architects office) or, to compensate for saboteurs increasing building times, how about you can use research to reduce building times (better planning reduces building time) |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 16:10
|
Just want to add 1 thing about prestige points. People who dont use prestige points are offcourse against it and try to nerf it to doom. People who uses prestige points want to keep what they have offcourse. Just my 2 cent about number 7. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 16:37
That's why I have already pointed out, in discussion directly regarding those issues, that I am a paying user. I have spent nearly 700 points already, and will purchase another 1400 soon enough. As previously mentioned, the cost isn't an issue for me. But I also remember what it's like being a poor gamer, and I know I wouldn't bother playing any game where I wasn't actually in a position to compete. I speak not out of self-serving bias but an honest assessment of how I view the situation. Were that not so, my tune would be reversed. |
Wuzzel wrote:Posted By: Sarky
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 09:41
|
Have been thinking on this for a little while now especially re thieves and sabateurs.
1. I love the insta-build BUT agree that it needs to be replaced with double build speed (which can be used a limited number of times per queue) not to make more money but because with inst-build the sabateurs cannot achieve anything.
2. Many are complaining that thieves steal too much. Quite frankly having thought about this I am not sure I agree. Though I do agree that advanced thieves should not be allowed to steal 50 advanced resources each. Maybe 5.
However I believe military units should be able to carry the same as thieves. Being a bit further advanced in the game I can assure you 5-10units carrying capacity is ludicrous.
The thieving mechanism does need to change however otherwise growth can but stunted completely.
I suggest:
1) Chance of detection should increase with the more thieves you send in comparison to the poulation level as well as using their diplo unitsin the detection.
2) Thieves can carry away up to 50% of what is not protected by the vault or a maximum of 50units each. After all any security is going to notice if the storehouse is emptied. But if you take the half from the back its not so noticable.
3) If thieves are detected the amount they can escape with decreases in proportion to how well they were detected. So 500 theives attacking a town size 1 might get away with 1 each. This makes using theives a more precision game rather than just overwhelming numbers.
After all if you know a large bunch of thieves is attacking you extra precautions are taken.
4) If they are are detected then a covert war between the two sides occurs. i.e diplo units killing diplo units.
5) Might be nice to have an extra building to provide defense against theives like the city wall does against military. A "Customs" office or some such.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 18:01
|
I like Sarky's first suggestion with population. It's a nice touch for protecting little players and makes real-world sense besides. It's always easier to find a functional game balance when you model real-world relationships. The second suggestion makes sense, but I don't think it would make a big difference, especially if a player is being persistently harassed. Playing off of the 5th option, why not also have diplomatic defense slightly affected by alliance relations? i.e. alliances at war are more likely to detect each other's thieves, alliances in confederacy have embassies in each other's cities, making diplomatic units easier to smuggle in and out. It's not so much a response to the current situation as it is a way to keep things interesting and continue the real-world-modeling approach. As for a "Customs" office or similar, I really like the idea overall, but think the effect should be narrow in focus. In other words, it only protects against named threats, and the fewer threats are named, the more effective the defense against them. This would increase the value of human vigilance, the ability to counter individual bullies, and by extension the value of social coordination with diplomatic operations to diffuse the effectiveness of the Customs office. The game needs more opportunities for active participation/timely reactions to trump other strategic avenues as it is. ____ One would think laurachristine would want to speak up in this thread, being so fond of using thieves as she is. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 18:24
|
Am loving the suggestions so far. Keep them coming, and I'll try and distill it (over the weekend) into a specific proposal that we can then look at. |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 19:19
| I have a sneaky feeling you are going to get one hell of a 'suggestion' about saboteurs in, oooh, 1 hr 18mins and 8 secs, lol. |
Posted By: Arbiter
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 20:11
|
1 Reduce the advanced thieves' ability to carry the more advanced items to like 5 per unit, keep the resource stealing as it is.. Maybe buff the carrying capacity of soldiers? Sarky had some nice ideas about this:
2 Saboteurs do not influence research. 3 Saboteurs do not cancel buildings, but instead delay them by 30min per saboteur or 60min per advanced saboteur up to 2x the original build time remaining (You don't want them to delay a 1d build that has 5min left by 1d..) 4 Instabuild stays, or gets replaced by a +50% build speed version THAT LASTS the same way as the 20% resource boosts. ::edit:: Brainfart removed from below <3 5 Add an advanced rune that has a % chance (set by the caster) to use charges on a certain unit type, for example: 20% basic diplomatic units, 40% military units, 40% advanced military units Could have a slider interface thingie? And research that gives you more oomph! Also: Make the new runes superchargeable! Some people have more than 30k mana, would be a nice idea to allow to use 1k-2k of that to supercharge the runes, like 10% extra oomph per 1000 mana for the better ones and 10% per 100 for the lesser ones? Could also increase spell upkeep by same percentage ;) And the spell would cost more twice the basic one because it would be so spiffy. 6 Add an Internal Security building. Make it require a high consulate, so one needs to make some effort to get it. It should give something like 2% chance to detect ANY diplomatic mission per level, and enable the user to set his diplomatic defense priorities. Maybe another slider interface? For an example of the mechanic: Every type of diplomatic unit counters their own type at full strength. If you set "Focus on thieves: 50%" every non-thief diplomatic unit will use HALF their defense capability when detecting/destroying thieves. Thieves will do 100% since they will be fighting their own kind. This, while not a very balanced formula, has great potential and will allow people to decide which units they really really don't want inside their base. It will also give a chance for people without saboteurs or assassins to at least try to defend against them. To avoid abuse, perhaps add a 24h timer on setting the focus and a cap at 75% focus? Yours, Arbiter p.s. Wall of Text critically mauls you for over 9000. ------------- We're the White Company, if something gets in our way we shank it with a ten foot spear. |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 22:32
|
its not right that a lower development town has absolutely no defence against a higher development town. eg, if you dont have as high a level of diplos you have no defence (except runes, but meh, they are easy to overcome). think of soldiers. someone more developed will always have the advantage, but not an 'i win' card. thus lower diplos must have an effect on higher diplos. per soldiers; if i see adv thieves coming - then i have to be able to mount a defence with more lower thieves, not stand helpless. yes - if more diplos - more chance of detection - thats obvious, but put a 24hr timer counter on it too. what about police? at consul 5 start introducing police - who find spies / thieves / saboteurs. upgrade them to gestapo (ooops, lol) eek, i've said enough. dont let saboteurs be indefensible against and kill 10rs research, stop that NOW. Bow |
Posted By: Arbiter
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 00:17
Read before posting.. We have already mentioned 95% of what you said, with better grammar ;) The idea of a police unit (guardsman?) that only does anti-diplo work is very nice, though! Maybe use my idea of an internal security building (guardhouse?) for an overall bonus and add your idea of hireable guards? Wouldn't even necessarily need the "focus" idea I blabbed about (though it'd be quite splendid to have). -Arb- ------------- We're the White Company, if something gets in our way we shank it with a ten foot spear. |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 16:33
|
this is completely daft. now laura has saboteurs, she can send one against me an hour and destroy my building projects, such that i can never upgrade and defend against her. this is genius gameplay and needs rolling back. I can only defend with saboteurs, which i cant build cos she can destroy every building project. writing - wall - end. i dont care about the 5000 of each resource, but i am now totally defenceless. i can do nothing. i wait 9 hrs for rune - she sends scouts to kill it in one hour, then just washes and repeats with saboteurs. role back needed. this is end of gameplay here. This is fact, not tears. well, its tears too of course, but tears for the game.
|
||||||||||||||||
Posted By: Diablito
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 16:42
|
There there buddy, we're just doing some game testing! Think of all the good you're doing :D |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 16:46
|
In fact, more to the point, its dishonest; with a store of over the amount of resources my vault can possibly defend against, and with no hope of a building completing in time, i have to spend real life money via prestige points to initiate and complete construction. Devs, i think you need to do something immediately. else i'll have to sue lc for the rl value of 3 prestige points, at 2 quid for 75, lol. Bow lol - diablito - i agree with you! we is testing!!!1 |
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 16:56
Erm, HonouredMule did it to me first! I rushed through getting them to defend, then they got bored and wanted to play :) So H? started it .... talk to your alliance members before you go blaming me (again) <3 xx ------------- Cake |
|||||||||||||||||
Posted By: Arbiter
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 17:13
Took you a bit longer than 1h 18min didn't it? :) ------------- We're the White Company, if something gets in our way we shank it with a ten foot spear. |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 17:43
|
lol, im not blaming you laura, just crediting you - if you think i should credit mule, then fine! the mechanics are broken - you cant blame the players. Stormcrow has admitted the description is wrong - i await more.....hint hint... Bow |
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 17:56
|
like what? your building back? it was a description mistake not a game mistake... would you rather I was able to destroy research right now? whichever way round it is your still going to moan :) xx ------------- Cake |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 18:09
|
no, i made preparations for the game description. just stating what happened. and yes, if the description was wrong i might ask for recompense, is that not understandable? Bow |
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 18:14
|
*whiney biatch* :P hehe xx ------------- Cake |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 19:19
|
The current state of play
is: A player (assuming a wave of cheap throwaway units to clear out a rune or a rune in cooldown) who is being attacked by saboteurs - and does not have saboteurs of his or her own already built - has literally no gameplay option ahead of him except to buy and spend prestige on instabuilds. I don't believe this is acceptable, balanced or good for the game. I think many of the changes suggested in this thread are very good ones, but now that saboteurs are in play (and because the original description for saboteurs, basic and advanced, was the wrong way round for which I entirely accept responsibility) I think the only sensible way forward at this current moment is to either: a) Disable Saboteur Units until we can implement some defenses against them for player who do not have Saboteur units, or b) Swap the Basic and Advanced Units back round (again) so that it's research queues for basic and buildings for advanced. I've chosen option a) as the lesser of 2 evils, and this is now in effect. This does rather reprioritise the changes to Diplomatic units suggested in this thread and so I will be making some decisions on this tomorrow am with the changes going into effect the day after, on Sunday the 28th of March. I will post the changes in this thread tomorrow. I will be returning the 3 buildings to the building queues of the 2 players who have lost them so far due to sabotage. If these 2 players have started rebuilding the buildings lost, I will refund the resources used in their construction. Any players who have either built saboteurs or have saboteurs currently building are advised to hold onto them until reading about the changes tomorrow. If you send them out on missions they will achieve nothing, but still might be lost to defences. We are genuinely sorry for any inconvenience caused by this decision, but we hope you will agree that it is very much for the good of the game. Thanks, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 19:56
|
I bow to your divine wisdom, oh stormcrow. I might think that in terms of balance you could give laura back the 75 thieves i toasted to allow the saboteurs through! |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 20:53
|
The real cost of saboteurs was production time, so when refunds for existing saboteurs are given, I hope they are in the form of conversion to other diplomatic units or a commensurate speedup in existing production queues. Return of resources/gold spent would not be an equitable refund for their loss. As for defense against saboteurs, I think the Customs office idea could fill that role nicely, especially if selective defense allowed people to optimize their defenses responsively against known enemies. In terms of implementation, there could be a logarithmic scale applied to the defense bonus by position (i.e. for the n'th specified enemy, player gets log n * % defense bonus against that enemy). Enemies named by blanket identifier (i.e. alliance) could have that defense % divided by a constant (say, 10), and enemies named more than once (i.e. named by alliance and named later by player) would be only affected by the strongest listing, and not the sum of separate listings. The percentage of bonus would be determined by the level of the building itself. LC, no hard feelings, but I couldn't exactly compete with you on thieves, right? Naturally I'm going to find a more favorable attack vector for retaliating in defense of my alliance. My success in that venture is now being reversed, so I think you're emerging pretty lucky, all things considered. |
Posted By: LauraChristine
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 21:25
|
I do not mind at all :) I wasn't even asking for a refund ...... All is well :) xx ------------- Cake |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 12:49
|
CHANGES TO DIPLOMATIC UNITS, OTHER THINGS Firstly, I strongly suggest you read the whole thing through at least once before responding to individual points. Individual items that might not make sense to you on their own might well be modified by changes to other things further down the list. 1. CHANGES TO UNITS BASIC SCOUTS
As it says. We will not be introducing a prestige-based reduction to research time. 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY UNIT CARRYING CAPACITIES Military units will have their carrying capacities varied by unit type and race. The ranges will be:
4. CHANGES TO CARAVAN CARRYING CAPACITIES Caravans will receive technology-based uplifts in carrying capacity as follows:
This change favours small diplomatic missions' chances of succeeding, and increases smaller towns' chances of detecting a hostile mission, which is as it should be.
Whatever the outcome of the casualty resolution the attacker will suffer some casualties, but it is likely to be less than the current (100%) casualty figure.6. NEW RUNES SUBSCHOOL - TARGETTED RUNES
This will be a single subschool of runes (of 4 different strengths).OTHER THINGS
Limited siege (based around a new Bombardment technology) will be the ability to build and attach siege units to an army and send them off with the army on an attack or raid mission, with the opportunity to strike and level down opponent city buildings when they arrive. We believe this will help revitalise armies and military engagements (as Gathering resources has done), and will encourage people to build up defensive armies.CHANGE DATES The changes will start going live from Sunday the 28th of March onwards. Saboteur units have had their upkeep cost zeroed until we put them back live. Sabotage units will not be switched back on until the changes to the diplomatic unit resolution algorithm have gone through. The remaining items will happen next week. WHAT TO DO IF YOU CAN'T OR DON'T WANT THE ADDITIONAL UNIT UPKEEP We understand that players may not wish (or be able) to support the additional unit upkeep cost of these changes. We are allowing players with these units the following options:
The units you wish to swap *must* be at home in the unit pool and not out on a mission. Swaps/destroys will occur throughout the day tomorrow, and are available up until midnight Monday the 29th, so make sure these units are at home if you wish to take advantage of this. Best wishes, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 17:28
|
Oh, one addition I neglected to include on the first post is as follows: 7. BUILD COST REFUNDS IN THE EVENT OF SABOTAGE
So a building costing 100 resources that is sabotaged as soon as it has begun constuction would received 80 resources returned to the town. The same building sabotaged half way through it's construction would receive 30 resources returned to the town. |
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:11
| isnt monday the 29th? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:20
It certainly is 
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:22
| Can you please clarify the cost being refunded for diplomatic returns? Would players be refunded the old cost (of no real value) or the new cost? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:32
| We're going to have similar problems with being defenseless against offensive magic spells when they come into play. Is there a blanket defense against negative spells provided by the Mage Tower? And what will stop me from soon sending waves of destruction against smaller towns? Does the vault protect against magic spells as well, or will such destruction be thorough and crippling indeed? |
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:37
oh, and that would make sunday the 28th :P |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:37
|
The old cost. You received utility as advertised out of the theft units you chose to build (and continue to do so up until the point the costs change tomorrow). On the saboteur front we are aware that you have spent gold in the meantime on upkeep, but then again, we are only talking about between 24hrs and 48hrs worth of upkeep on these units produced. Frankly I'm surprised that we're offering unit refunds at all, and I don't want anyone to take this as a precedent for when things get nerfed (as they inevitably will be) in the future. The only factor that persuaded me to offer refunds on these units was my mistake in the unit technology description, otherwise these units would not being refunded at all, but the option to delete would be made available. For the avoidance of doubt, the unit "refund" option is unlikely to be offered at any point in the future for reasons anything other than critical errors in the code, and certainly never for purely game balance purposes. I'm also fairly impressed that your psychic abilities were strong enough to divine that the game team were internally discussing the possibility of offering unit refunds before any public announcement was made. But I guess that's another issue altogether, sadly one that will be pursued. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:39
doh! |
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:40
|
2. INSTABUILD TO BE REPLACED BY 50% REDUCTION
IN REMAINING TIME As it says. We will not be introducing a prestige-based reduction to research time. -------- Will there be a limited number of times in which you can execute this 50% reduction in build time, or is this purely a revenue enhancement? If there is no limit (like in the caravan situation) then this changes nothing other than to make instabuild cost more. A revenue enhancement is certainly well within the rights of the providers of the game, just think it should be called out for what it is, not implying that it in anyway changes the game balance (except to make folks willing to keep paying have even more advantage.) U |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 18:59
I would disagree that it doesn't change game balance in that it makes it difficult for prestige-paying players to completely avoid the chance of being sabotaged - which is what the current instabuild does. We are not intending to introduce a limit to the number of times the spend can be used, but the returns do diminish with each spend, which we regard as the limiting factor here. Yes, we do understand that this might mean more revenue for the game, but we do also think it provides a game balance purpose as well (ie preventing people cheaply 'defanging' saboteur units). The cost of reducing a 12h build to (eg) 11m 15s would require 6 spends; and we believe most prestige-payers will therefore be more judicious in its use. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 19:23
|
Instabuild, though I cannot truly defend it, was an immense convenience. One could leave resources accumulating for long periods, then sit down and spend them all building stuff in the course of 30 seconds--then leave again, to do other things. But I disagree that build time reduction helps fix the saboteur problem. He who is willing to spend enough can cut down days of production into seconds. Only the convenience (and the affordable cost) is lost. The window for saboteur attacks is negligible. I can't decide whether to get rid of my saboteurs altogether of keep some. They no longer pose any value for use, only for defense against possible use by others, should I desire to save money by letting construction run overnight or during absences. Then again, I already see the real-world cost of playing this game starting to spiral. Perhaps I should let my position and power slide while more zealous players spend their way to the top. ____
Not so much psychic as attentive:
How fair would it have been to reverse the results of an effort into which I invested significantly, cut me off from expected future benefit, and then leave me with a worthless investment? This sets an unfortunate precedent indeed, but I think the need for equitable correction on both sides of the conflict was necessary and I appreciate that this need was recognized. While I read between the lines a little, I did so backed by knowing your team is reasonable and tries to be fair. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 19:58
|
We could allay a huge raft of fears regarding in-defensibility of small cities were diplomatic units allowed to be sent as reinforcements like military. Such would revive the otherwise waning belief in the usefulness of specialization as well. Those just starting could still find peace either by special protection or by seeking haven in an alliance. The current diplomatic issues appear resolved, but perhaps this is an ideal to remember when facing future balance issues, be they with diplomacy or magic. |
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 20:26
found the answer in the diplomacy help thread :P duh |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2010 at 00:56
I was actually referring to such spells as "Plague of Locusts" (Destroys a portion of food, livestock and horses at this city) which I have and could use now. If I did, what could anyone do to protect themselves against that, and does the vault protect against such magic effects? If I chose to use it as often as possible on a single target, would the target be required to endure the effects without any counter besides asymmetric pressure? Would they be unable to protect their resources long enough to save the amounts needed for certain building upgrades or other progress? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2010 at 17:13
|
Item 1 of the Changes to Diplomatic Units has gone through, with one exception. Saboteur units currently cost no Gold Upkeep whatsoever, until they are turned back "on" and can be used for missions. We're testing the diplomatic combat algorithm changes at the moment, but don't want to rush this - and want to make sure it provides what we expect it to provide in a wide variety of scenarios. So, it is unlikely that Saboteurs will be back online today - and to this end we do not believe that paying the increased upkeep is fair or necessary until they become productive units once again. Once saboteur missions are renabled then the upkeep will start again. |
Posted By: Tracy Scoggins
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2010 at 17:33
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! BOOOOOOO! BOOOOOOOOOO! *throws eggs* Next we'll need training manuals to wipe our damned asses too.. BOO! From +something to -62 gold thanks to this -_- -Arb- p.s. BOO! ::edit:: Added some more BOO! |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2010 at 21:29
|
I think "training manuals" is a poor choice of label. Everyone needs training. How about "notebooks" or "report books?" Scouts and spies need to take careful notes on everything they observe, and the latter must also memorize those details to better blend with their new environment. And thieves have to...cook the books? Perform tax evasion? |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 19:29
| Also - given that it's reasonably easy to judge from trajectory where a scout is coming from and that by sending one military unit in attack mode I can get a full report on the makeup of an army, what's the point of scouts (aside from cannon fodder against runes)? |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 20:15
There are up coming changes that should make them more hidden on the map; and sending an army in is clearly a hositle action |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 00:33
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 03:19
|
It's a small matter to simply not level up a commander...or to put all upgrade points into defy death. Bottom line is that there are various scenarios where tiny military assaults can thwart even the strongest of efforts into keeping one's activity or status a mystery. Most other games will not show the enemy's unit counts in when no one comes home and/or when the attacker's forces are a tiny fraction of the defender's. Now that encampments can be scouted, there's no need to allow city defenses/privacy to be overcome in this vaguely "exploity" way. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 09:17
|
Yes, agreeing with HM here. I don't think the victorious player's specific troop counts should be reported back to the losing side during: a) a completely failed military engagement, b) an engagement where only commanders survive, c) an engagement where the Raid stratagem is used by the attacker Which should suffice - and actually cuts both ways. Any objections? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 12:42
|
I object! Because, um... Hm, I can't think of anything. You know, it's awfully difficult to be contrary when you agree with me. Do you know how hard it is to form a coherent argument against my own reasoning without forming a contradiction? Jesting aside, that looks perfect. |