09Aug11 - Diplomatic Visibility Changes
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2249
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 21:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 09Aug11 - Diplomatic Visibility Changes
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: 09Aug11 - Diplomatic Visibility Changes
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 22:42
|
DIPLOMATIC VISIBILITY CHANGES The new world map allows us to offer greater flexibility in gameplay and strategy, the first change we are releasing today: The release of the world map brought moving units which continuously update their position; and the visibility range of your towns being applied to all diplomatic units rather just those attacking your town. Town Visibility Regardless of you current town focus you have a visibility radius around all your towns of;
In addition to this we have now added two extra type of visibility: Sovereignty Visibility To this visibility range, we have added a visibility radius around all the sovereignty squares you own of:
Diplomat Visibility Your moving diplomatic units now also have a visibility radius in which they can see other moving diplomats. These radii are as follows:
This visibility radius travels with the diplomats and will cause any other diplomats in their radius to be visible on the world map - which they remain in this radius. We hope this; and the future changes we will shortly be bringing in will lead to some interesting strategies. Kind regards TC |
Replies:
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 22:47
|
Assassins, Sabos and Thieves have no visibility? This would allow a victim-player to try to track a diplo by launching his own diplo along the return path. I dunno how well that would work, though.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 22:52
|
"(5 + Town Consulate Level/2) + (Visibility Discoveries * 2) squares" Visibility Discoveries - being plural implies that there are other visibility discoveries beyond Inquisitive Populace. I would appreciate any additional information others have on these additional discoveries. Edit: I have no idea why the text didn't wrap.
|
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2011 at 23:54
|
The_Dude wrote:Posted By: threefoothree
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 02:31
| do you think we will be able to occupy a space for dips in the future so to set up a network of visibility? |
Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 07:32
|
A "Tracker" unit should be able to attempt following. Of course, this is a skill that could be added to existing dip units, esp. Scouts or Spies. It would be fun to have to send units out, not knowing if they will "pick up the trail." |
Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 09:12
| Woah Your idea is so cool 3f3!!! I'd love to have a spy network. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 15:50
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 16:04
maybe watch towers will be introduced later? now sovereignty can do a little in that aspect but it is very expensive for just one square visibility
|
Posted By: Dakota Strider
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2011 at 23:30
|
I agree with the idea of thieves moving through the countryside, relatively unseen. But, this concept only makes sense when thieves move in very small numbers. When thieves start to move in bands of tens, hundreds, or thousands, they no longer become a stealthy group of individuals, but become a small army of pillagers. And this is when they have their packs empty. Adding 50 to 76 pounds of plunder to each thief as they make their escape, should increase their chances of being followed, by any halfway competent tracker. My suggestion would be, that for every 10 thieves in a group, they become visible 1 square further away than normal. There is room for compromise on this, but game balance should be the most important aspect. This would lead to different strategies for those sending out thieves. Larger players can still send hordes of thieves out. They can do it in one large group, and take the chance of being noticed much more easily. Or they could send them out in many groups, but in small numbers. If all of these small groups attack the same target, they increase the chance of being successfully followed. Or they could split up amongst multiple targets, and greatly reduce the chance of being caught. Defensively, it gives newer or smaller players a better chance at surviving theft attacks, or at least not be greatly harmed by them. And for all I know, with these new rules, modified with this increased visibility modifier based on thief group size, may still be able to move relatively unseen across the countryside. But at least it would give those attempting to track them a fighting chance to follow. |
Posted By: scar
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2011 at 13:23
|
why pick on the thieves,the only role they play in the entire game is just that..thieving! pinning them back with more hurdles takes away their speciality whether its in small teams or large. Restricting their numbers relative to the size of the town/city they attack, might be more appropriate, ie that the larger the town the more you can send would be fine, having to keep sending groups of thieves out in small numbers is just simply making too much work on the keyboard, not mention very tedious. restrictions on size of attacking thieve armies relative to town targets would also safeguard the smaller town without killing the concept of using thieves. but TBH why restrict them at all? this is a game of all sorts, there will always be victims and besides, from what ive seen in the GC, people always gang up and track any would be perpertrators and get their justice one way or another as it is. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2011 at 16:18
| awesome sauce |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2011 at 23:29
|
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2011 at 01:58
|
On the surface it's a good idea, however i agree with scar, this would make it really hard to get away with thieving a large player and really easy to get away with thieving a new player. Could we have a more realistic game mechanic for thieves where the more you send the less likely you are to succeed? Ie success chance = (Thief attack strength) * (target pop) / (no. thieves sent)^2 / (total thief defence) / (no. attacks in 24 hr period) |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2011 at 02:06
|
arrrgh! would you people stop it with the math already? The GRE is OVER!!! |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2011 at 05:54
| Maff are gud. 1 and 1 are 2. |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2011 at 10:18
|
just make sure they are vulnerable to assassination or even vulnerable to be attacked by other scouts (no two scouting parties could occupy the same square). |
Posted By: JohnnyBravo
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2011 at 15:13
|
I would love to see these ideas implemented. I would like to have confederations or at least alliances share the visibility. (i.e. a spy goes past my town and all alliance or confed buddies can see it.) |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 13 Aug 2011 at 15:16
It could also be 11. -------------  |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2011 at 20:59
Or 10. There are only 10 kinds of people and only half of those understand this. |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2011 at 21:07
So, with a level 5 sov with building, you get 5 squares visibility from that square? Will this be further than the town range for anybody, I wonder. A level 10 consulate gives 10 squares even without discovery. And you would NOT have a level 5 sov more than 5 squares away, as far as I understand the costs of that. Can just as well remove that part of visibility, I say. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 01:48
|
@Nesse: I dare say, perhaps there might be cheaper far-away-Sov-squares in the future, maybe even as a start for (already mentioned) spy networks...? In this times of changing, who knows...? (with a slight nudge to some GM's who indeed might know...  ) |