Major Release 04MAY
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=454
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 21:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Major Release 04MAY
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: Major Release 04MAY
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 16:55
|
MAJOR RELEASE 04MAY Hi all, Major update today - lots of new functionality, some bugfixes, some general changes to things. MAGE WARS - ADDITIONAL MANA SPEND All spells - with the exception of self-cast spells such as Runes or Geomancy "Spirit of..." spells - can now be topped up with additional Mana at the casters' wish. This means that the caster is in control of the amount of spell power that goes into the spell; and consequently that more powerful magics can no longer simply be brushed aside by players who wish to be rid of their ill effects. We expect this to reduce the tit-for-tat spell casting and massive accumulated mana pools substantially. We also expect this to provide new relevance to the Lunar Phases. Basically, if you want a spell to stick (and to be painful to remove), top it up. If you want a spell to *really* stick, get an Elf to cast it, at a full moon, with a Level 20 Mage Tower. To top up your mana and increase spell power, simply enter the amount of mana you wish to add to a spell in the "Additional Mana" box on the spell itself. This is also a heads-up. We are introducing 2 new "school-less" spells that anyone will be able to cast, having researched them:
The reason we are delaying the release till then is to allow casters who do not wish to be identified ample time to cancel their existing spells. ARMY COMBAT REPORTING - SCOUTS Defeated armies no longer report the precise composition of the opposing force. If no one survived, how could you know the force composition? In practical terms:
DIPLOMATIC (LEVEL 2) QUESTS Yes - they're here. There's a new Quest Skill - Diplomatic Contacts - to research to unlock them, which you can find in your research summary under "Quests". Be prepared to be surprised - some of them aren't, strictly, NPC (non-player-character) quests. You should also be prepared for "random" instancing - where the same quest might have slightly varying fulfillment conditions - as well as random reward fluctuations. Some of the quests have escalations, and are multi-part. Diplomatic quests at this level require a combination of the diplomatic unit skills (no quest will require more than either basic or advanced scouts, or a basic spy), and might also require some previous Quests skills (such as trade). The number of new quests available is currently limited to make sure the mechanics work as intended - we will release more L2 diplomatic quests over the coming days before moving on to Military Quests (Level 3 Quests). Once we are satisfied that Diplomatic & Military Quests are working as intended we will move on to the advanced levels of all the Quests (Trade, Diplomatic & Military). ALLIANCES
SPELLS
We hope you like. Best wishes, GM Stormcrow |
Replies:
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 19:14
| reserved |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 19:56
well, mainly very nice but;
Not sure about the point of these. identify magic - level 3 is a very low requirement, and i think you should be very determined to know who it was - a considerable tariff on it. not that i'm the sort of chap who casts anonymous spells; eh, laura? lol. Dispel magic - i think the present mechanic of simply casting a similar spell, with the chance of success, is working very well. I hope at least it will have an equal failure rate. tbh, most such spell casting is only done for rankings since almost always the cost outweighs the success. (eh, lc?, lol). How about an extra tarriff to report actual success eg resources diddled? Bow |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 19:59
Um - the caster sets the tariff/failure rate - that's the point...? |
bow locks wrote:Posted By: Kevlar33
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 20:03
| you are forgetting the second condition- you have to match the spell power- so if you Don't want them to know who you are, spend a lot of mana |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 20:22
I'm glad to see this come in but I still feel it's floored. If, like me (being an Elf), you are wood rich and clay poor (and also relatively richer in stone and iron than clay), trading any resource for clay is a form of profit making since clay is more valuable to me. This new rule unfortunately does not take this into account. Any chance of another re-think?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 20:34
In my mind this corrects the arbitrary shortcoming of being unable to fix blights cast upon your own cities. It also doesn't mean you have to be blight-strong to get out of a blight, and thus can keep that school slot open for something else. |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 20:34
| And what about those that offer up less of a resource to trade for something they need to provide an incentive to those who are considering who to trade with (e.g. I offer 1000 wood for 900 clay)? Do they get a minus score for what might otherwise be thought of as a legitimate bargaining strategy? I think a more balanced approach would be better suited. Though it is no use simply basing it on shear bulk, since like you say this can be easily used to artificially boost a score, it should still play a part. Certainly rather than base it on goods leaving a city (as I believe it was previously) it would make more sense to base it on those coming in. This certainly makes a nod in the direction of profitability since those players bringing more goods in than out will achieve a higher score than those they are directly trading with. Could there perhaps be a solution where actual profitability exerts a modifier on the amount of trade? Say, if 1000 goods come in for 500 going out, the 1000 is doubled to 2000 due to the 100% profit made on the trade (or something like that)? Dunno, just a thought. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 20:51
|
Following up on james, suppose one took profit as a ratio to resources gained vs resources lost, capped between 0 and 1. "Unfavorable" trades would have no impact, and favorable trades would be scaled down according to how favorable they were. Trade 900 x for 1000 y (a resource of equivalent value), and get score of 1000 * (1000-900 / 1000) = 100; The other party, trading 1000 y for 900 x gets score of 900 * (900-1000 / 1000) < 0 = 0; This is still exploitable, but I don't think any decent system can totally escape that. If resources have a normalized value, this would at least be reasonable assessment of non-contextual benefit gained...and an exploit is going to at least be a lot of work, trading vast quantities, keeping caravans busy, risking loss to storage capacities, or juggling advanced resources that are highly valuable and desirable to loot by blockading. I question the intellect of players going for a high trade score. When the ability comes to take home looted resources from intercepted caravans, that score is just going to be a target on your back. |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:11
Blockade does currently send the intercepted caravan with goods back to the blockader's city (although the caravan is "lost") Or are you thinking of a further dynamic?
|
|||||||||||||
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:14
First thing, I'm afraid you have your maths wrong. I don't want to split hairs (though will), but 1000*(1000-900/1000) does not equal 100 (though I can see what you are trying to say - you need some more brackets in there - technically speaking this equation is equal to 999100). Anyway, if I understand what I think you were meaning to convey, (and I may be mistaken), you appear to be multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by it which doesn't really move things on. So yes, of course 1000-900=100. A proper discussion for this should be denoted algebraically other wise things will get very confusing (I'm sure it's absolutely crystal clear so far!) Secondly, since your second equation results in a value < 0, this should equate to a negative score. Not 0. Thirdly, I don't agree with you. Just because someone has traded more goods for less, they should still receive a score, but one that is just less than it would have been for a more profitable transaction.
Rubbish. If trade were a more complex entity in this game, it could add a whole new dimension to it. If trade scoring becomes something a shrewd and astute trader chases, it could potentially lead to a non-military base of power. We're all for a more diverse world are we not?
|
Posted By: Tinuviel
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:20
Superb! I love this game! 
|
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:23
|
I'm glad you're enjoying it. Sorry, I perhaps should have started that last post with the (totally sincere) words "With all due respect". I'm certainly not trying to be bitchy here and would certainly appreciate a proper discussion on the topic. As long as my esteemed and honoured leader, Diablito, doesn't get in on the thread, I'm sure we can keep things pretty civilised, no? (no offense D) |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:32
I love the changes! |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:32
|
Of course rules are rules. We can talk x, y and z until we're blue in the face and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. But hey, if it does, pretty damn cool that we can effect the rules we're playing by eh? Come on, let's have a bit more of that community spirit! :-) |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:34
And I wonder why that would be?
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:47
New quests, new things to research, new magic.... etc etc. I LIKE IT! I got bored of the same quests, new quest is .I had nothing to research, and now i have. New magic schools, yesss?? Do i need to say more jameswherever? :) |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:50
|
I should add that we will seek player opinion on trade score & ranking, and try and reach a fair and balanced measure of what a trade score should actually represent, and how we can reflect that most accurately - historically and going forward - for everyone. Whatever we reach will apply retrospectively. Our goal (with all scores) is to make sure that everyone understands: a) what the score represents, b) that artificial manipulation of the score is limited if not impossible, and c) that it represents a fair picture of an individual's achievements in a particular area vs: i) an arbitrary picture of what we, the developers, think a score should represent, and ii) some slightly onanistic version of what some players would wish their score to represent Personally I'm all in favour of scores and ranking being fairly organically coded, with a certain amount of self-regulation and self-adjustment, human-driven wherever possible. But let's see what everyone comes up with. I'll open a thread over the next day or so, regarding Score & Ranking issues. Best wishes, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 21:52
No Wuzzel, of course you don't. Sorry, got so caught up in the whole trade thing that forgot for a moment there was anything else that had changed! Of course, they are all wonderful amendments and I very much look forward to exploiting, sorry, I mean using them to the full (as soon as I've finished researching them that is). The more like this the better. Keep it coming Stormcrow (with a special mention to Thunderclap as well). Yours humbly James (wherever)
|
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 22:03
|
regarding the spell changes - oops, being a bit thick. regarding trade, clearly madjack66 has it by offering 4000 wood 4000 clay 4000 stone and 4000 iron for 1 food. (this is a very pleasant diablito free zone btw, lol) |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 22:05
What the heck does onanistic mean? (answer truthfully now)
|
Posted By: Sarky
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 22:19
|
Hmm the trading dynamic is still flawed with the new proposal. All that will happen, (well with two honest traders) is that for exchanges 2 trades are set up.
so say a person wants 10000wood for 10000iron
one person will set up the trade for 1 wood for 10000iron the other 1 iron for 10000wood.
Both get lovely scores and the materials they need.
At the very least if you go this route you should NOT give scores for trading between two of your own towns!
Having said that not sure I can think of a better dynamic. I think no matter what strategy you take will be overcomeable especially in line with how many people have two accounts.
People with two high ranking accounts could trade between them all day in the above fashion and gain very high scores. Or just two people who trust each other.
The current dynamic encourages players who are donating resources to other players to do it via the marketplace. i.e the player wanting goods can put up a market request offering 1 of anything and then list what they want.
Then the person who choses to donate gets a score based on what they donate in exchange for their generosity. But fair enough if you want to remove this.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 22:22
Ok, first, yes I did forget a set of brackets, but yes the value would be 100 when they are inserted. 1000*((1000-900)/1000) => 1000 * (100/1000) => 1000 * .1 => 100 Second, I already clearly showed in my notation that the second value would be less than zero. I also described why the result should still be 0 "...a ratio to resources gained vs resources lost, capped between 0 and 1..." max((900-1000)/1000, 0) => max(-.1, 0) => 0 Trading more resources for less has contextual benefit, but that's not an easy thing to measure. If you have a practical algorithm for accurately weighing contextual benefit in all it's complex nuances, then I'm all ears. As for the rest, I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but maybe you can do a better job of explaining how showing that you frequently juggle expensive resources via trade will not make people want to blockade you to intercept those resources. I'm all for non-military aspects of the game, but nature will balance itself and always involve military to some degree. No one will be truly exempt, unless it be by very brilliant diplomatic maneuvering which likely pigeonholes the player into a very specific and permanent role. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 22:44
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=onanistic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=onanistic Let's just say "self-celebratory." |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 23:02
|
Well thank you for clearing that one up Stormcrow. I shall have to drop it into casual conversation at the next opportunity.
Hmm, okay. I've just drunk a bottle of wine so am currently unable to deal with the intracies of later arguments but just need to clear up a point that I feel sufficiently intact to tackle (don't worry, I'll come back to the others later). Yes the value is equal to 100, but you are still multiplying and then dividing by 1000. This is pointless unless the value 1000 in each instance has been derived from two separate places. i.e. if the equation were formed under different circumstances the two '1000' values would/could be different (am I making sense here?! I doubt it). Anyway, if you can express your proposition algebraically we can remove all of this confusion. I think I'm going to spend a little time working on this and I will come back with something as soon as I have it. On the secondly point, I understand your notion of capping the modifier between 0 and 1 but can not see a logical reason for doing so - it's pretty arbitrary really. Hence my comment. Well, it's past my bed time so I'm going to hit the sack. Back tomorrow. Yours respectfully, sincerely and most honourably, James |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 23:06
|
P.S. HM, you always sound so serious and/or cross. Lighten up a bit won't you? x
|
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 23:11
|
'I weep for you,'the Walrus said: 'I deeply sympathize.' With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, |
Posted By: jameswherever
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 23:19
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. If I didn't know better, I might think you were suggesting we were talking utter sh*te! |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 01:06
|
I am serious. I am not cross. See demonstrative smiley. (demonstrative smiley: )QED EDIT: added "QED" |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 01:30
I am cross though and not serious  |
Posted By: xilla
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 02:12
Just off the top of my head, it would be better maybe to have the trade score depend not only on the profit from the trade, but also on the productivity of your town in the traded resources. So like the more you produce in that resource, the less your score is augmented by the trade. For example...umm a=offered materials b=received materials c=productivity of the offered resource score added s=(a+b) * (1-(a/b)) / c (very rough, probably a better solution) Anyway, for this example if say you offer 200 wood for 300 iron and your productivity in wood was 10/hr a=200, b=300, c=10 ===> s=16.67 a=200, b=300, c=50 ===> s=3.33 a=200, b=300, c=100 ===> s=1.67 a=200, b=300, c=500 ===> s=0.33 a=900, b=1000, c=10 ===> s=19 a=900, b=1000, c=50 ===> s=3.8 a=900, b=1000, c=100 ===> s=1.9 a=900, b=1000, c=500 ===> s=0.38 a=9500, b=10000, c=10 ===> s=97.5 a=9500, b=10000, c=50 ===> s=19.5 a=9500, b=10000, c=100 ===> s=9.75 a=9500, b=10000, c=500 ===> s=1.95 The only real way to exploit this would be to directly transfer to the town then trade, while at low level, so ur productivity has to stay low which is unviable as well as incredibly long-winded. I don't know. Theres probably a much better equation to use but im just demonstrating a general idea |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 02:14
| I'm only briefly scanning over your post, xilla, but I think you're on the right track. But I must get back to my regularly-scheduled ritual sacrifices to the code gods. |
Posted By: MFrance
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 02:19
|
Personnally I don't give a damn about scores and ranking, but just curious.. how does it work when trading books and weapons against resources?
By the way, thanks for the new features, guys. you did a great job. I'm happy about magic idenfying and all..
..MF |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 15:34
|
quest diplo missions. rrrrrrrrrr. just rrrrrrrrrrr. you know why. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Bow |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 17:31
/me isn't sure whether "rrrrrrrrr" is a good thing or a bad thing... hopefully a good thing :) |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 18:18
|
its a bad thing. The three part baron thing that cost me a few rangers and only got me a paltry 10 leather and 5 spears, followed by 5 failed missions to find the stupid daughter, which was only successful with 10 scouts, and for what, three books? 3 books? 3 books? a three part mission with losses and failures for 10 leather and 5 spears? Bow |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 20:18
|
Diplomatic Mission Report - A Path Through The Marshes lost one scout (horse etc) gained two horses. sheesh, i guess i should celebrate a 100% mark up? Maybe i just expected something a bit more. seriously, its just not worth maintaining this stuff just for this. Im doing part 2 of the baron thing again - my scouts will be off for three hours. Its not the percentage, or the time - its the relative volume. i dont mind losing 100 scouts and gaining 200 horses - thats useful, but one at a time at this period of the game is meaningless. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 20:36
| The quests really seem to be more for killing time, "fun," or scorewhoring than being a useful means to anything else. |
Posted By: xilla
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 21:00
Maybe we should wait until everything is released before firing off complaints |
Posted By: jimbo_hawkins
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 21:07
QFT I view the quests as something to do while I'm waiting for my buildings to finish upgrading - plus it passes the time while I'm on conference calls. I don't expect to win the game with what I get back from the quests. Heck, I don't even really expect them to be a fair trade off. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 22:12
Yes, yes you should.
qft. I think people are expecting, perhaps, a little too much of level 2/20 quests. By all means, complain your heads off when level 19/20 quests reward you (nett) 2 horses or 1 leather armour. But anyone expecting "2/20 = maximum pwnage and everything I want for free" was setting themselves up for a disappointment. What you're seeing here is the diplomatic quest mechanism in action. At level 2. Out of 20 levels of quest. |
Posted By: Cirthalion
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 23:36
|
My thoughts regarding the trade ranking.
Allowing it to be based purely on shipping quantities favoured internal logistics over actual marketplace transactions. Changing from this was good... the score is trade not logistics.
I am not sure that the current proposal of points based on surpluses is quite right either. What of tying this to the average volume of the open market transaction in question? This would allow us the best features of both point systems. Players with large trade transactions will be rewarded. Players who sell marked up goods will be rewarded.
My thought is that the surplus only approach will primarily benefit subsidised trades among allies to artificially boost rankings. Actual mercantile players greasing the wheels of Illyriad on the open market may have their efforts overlooked.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 05:15
LOL |
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 08:04
|
Thanks for the reply, oh stormcrow. i guess we have just been waiting so long for something to happen here!!! What you're seeing here is the diplomatic quest mechanism in action. At level 2. Out of 20 levels of quest. Well get on with it then, lol! Bow |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 09:49
 |
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 23:01
|
Maybe i am looking at the wrong place, but i still cannot find the identify magic, and dispell magic at the magic research. Is it already working? Thanks |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 21:08
Hi Raritor, Apologies - the Identify and Dispel magic spells have been temporarily delayed. We're looking at a release of these spells tomorrow afternoon. Best wishes, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 22:56
| Can't wait :D |
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 08:38
| Thank you |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 22:29
|
The release of Identify and Dispel has been pushed back till Tuesday afternoon - other issues have got in the way; and we don't like releasing code just before bedtime! My apologies to all. SC |