Print Page | Close Window

27MAR14 - Exodus bugfixes

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5493
Printed Date: 15 Oct 2019 at 19:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 27MAR14 - Exodus bugfixes
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: 27MAR14 - Exodus bugfixes
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:19
Hi everyone,

A rework of some of the exodus code now means that any city exodusing should no longer have blockades, sieges, or diplomatic unit attacks remain for very long after the exodus has begun.

There's now a "clean up" process that runs every 5 minutes that basically checks to see if there are any inbound military or diplomatic units to a city that is currently in exodus.  If there is...
  • Any military units in motion to a city that has begun exodus will have their orders (whatever they were before) changed to attack the square where the city was previously located
  • Any diplomatic units in motion to a city that has begun exodus will have their orders remain the same, simply targeting the square rather than the city
Whilst a temporary fix has been in place for sieging armies for a while, I've repatriated any armies currently blockading other (exodused) towns from unfeasible locations.

As it takes a city more than 5 minutes to exodus to any location (even a next door square), this should sort out any units currently in motion to an exodusing city.  I would, however, recommend that anyone exodusing a city whilst under attack should make sure that the next inbound hostile unit is at least 5 minutes away before initiating exodus, to ensure that the clean up routine prevents the blockade from landing.

Best wishes,

GM Stormcrow



Replies:
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:33
Hi SC,

nice to see this bug fixed.

What exactly would happen, if the hostile units aren't more than 5 min away?

I mean, it would be realistic, if they hit anyway, as the refugees didn't run fast enough =)
But apart from that, would it cause anything in the code to break, or is there additional safety?

kindest regards,
Hora


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:38
Hi Hora,

In terms of encampments, sieges would be cleared up (as there's another process that sorts out "unfeasible sieges", and they take 12hr minimum to set up) but blockades (that take effect instantly) may not be cleared out.  

I'll certainly look at clearing blockades as well in the future.

Cheers,

SC




Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:47
Ah, yes, that was the tiny gap I had in mind...  
perhaps you could add a (e.g. 5 min) set up time to blockades, so you wouldn't have yet another high frequent routine, but could integrate both blockade and siege check into the movement check?
(might be I speak only gibberish due to my lack of in depth knowledge of Illy programming... Confused)


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:54
Anyone who waits til the last 5 minutes to exo in front of an approaching blockade deserves what they get ...

Just kidding, but while I expect that WILL happen at some point, it will probably be rare enough that it won't be a huge issue, so this fix should clear up 90% plus of any remaining issues with Exodus under incoming attack.

Thank you for making things better!


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 21:58
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Ah, yes, that was the tiny gap I had in mind...  
perhaps you could add a (e.g. 5 min) set up time to blockades, so you wouldn't have yet another high frequent routine, but could integrate both blockade and siege check into the movement check?
(might be I speak only gibberish due to my lack of in depth knowledge of Illy programming... Confused)

No, not gibberish at all Hora!  It's just that anytime we introduce another step (ie a siege army arrives at a location and then has to wait X time before Y happens and then Z bombardment happens every hour thereafter) there's a very very small chance for things to get scrambled / lost etc in the handover points.  

It shouldn't happen that way, but it occasionally does - as per the "inexplicable database weirdness" as both ourselves and our db vendor are describing the supposedly-unrelated-but-actually-not herb regeneration/stuck army issue that occurred earlier this month.

In that event we managed to accomplish the impossible, apparently, by getting a NULL value into an explicitly NOT-NULLable column in a table.  This is kinda the database equivalent of whatever the inverse of winning a Nobel prize would be - and both ourselves and our db vendor are hard at work trying to discover how we/you (the players) managed to do it.

So keeping systems independent from one another as much as possible is quite a good strategy in the current circs, until we have a proper explanation of how this event was even possible.

Best wishes,

SC



Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2014 at 22:53
Thanks for the explanation, now I'm even more impressed on the work you Devs are doing.

Maybe you should put an exorcist on the payroll to deal with the DB? Wink

Best of luck with finding the error!


Posted By: jordigui
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 18:02
Thanks.
But this does not fix the EXPLOIT that H? is continuously using of exodusing a city to a square that is occupied by an enemy army.
This does not only not prevent the city to settle, but the enemy armies reinforce the city.
Please revise again the exodus and prevent this exploit.


Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 18:25
One should get warning from armies approaching their sovereign squares.
This is terrible EXPLOIT that you can just sneak upon a town.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 21:17
Exodusing cities setting down on top of enemy armies is not an exploit, it's a feature of exodus as described.  Any troops in the city will fight troops on the square (if they are not NAP'd or confed) and then the city will set down.  This is different than settlers, which would bounce in this situation.

It does mean that people have to be quick with messengers.  On the other hand, any armies in the Exodusing city would be attacking without the benefit of the wall, as I understand it (since wall has only a defensive bonus).


Posted By: jordigui
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 22:31
It is an EXPLOIT, because armies in the city are currently not fighting the enemy troops on the square. The exodused city just settles in the square and the enemy armies on the square reinforce the (enemy) city.
And this is used continuously by H?. So they are clearly using it as an EXPLOIT that is AGAINST how exodus is described.
What would happen if the troops in the city loss against the enemy army? is the city conquered?


Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 23:24
Yep it's a total nonsense. How is it possible that the game allow a player to exo on a sq held by an encampement from an alliance he's at war with????????????????


Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:16
Why is it nonsense?   If the city is free to move within the rules of exodus and especially if they have Sov 5 on that square why is that not a good defensive move?     At least it's creative. :P

Edit:  Of course, if you used it, I can bet you wouldn't be complaining about it.  It works both ways and no the enemy forces do not fight the city, they reinforce it.  :D


-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule



Posted By: Lyken
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:21
All's fair in war and naps... or something like that.

While the problem should most definitely be fixed as soon as is possible, we'd not even know about it had they not discovered and used it. I applaud you sirs/madams!


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/123034" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:33
It is not an exploit, read the rules for exodus, it all works as intended now.   The enemy armies had no claim to that square, there was no siege in process only occupying armies, blockades had been cleared.   No exploit, just a creative move or would you like to continue taking blocking all creativity in this game?  

-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule



Posted By: Capricorne
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:55
Well, I won't argue about exploit or not. Yes it strictly obey to the exo rules and I must admit it's creative.

What I think is just that we've spoted a specific case that the dev hasn't even figure out when they wrote the exo rules cause really, do you think that it's logical to succeed in exodussing a city (just imagine it) on the top of an ennemy encampement without a single fight??? Do you think that it's logical that armies sent to occupy this sq before the city move ends up reinforcing an ennemy city instead of attacking the garnison?

To me there's just something wrong there.



Posted By: Count Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:55
Well, it's really for the devs to decide whether it's working as intended.  That argument could have been made about NPCs reinforcing player encampments.  Whether a city should be allowed to exo to an occupied square or not, I'll leave up to the developers to decide, but you have to admit it can hardly being working as intended to have enemy units reinforcing the city as a result.  


Posted By: Lyken
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 01:56
I think the issue to these people is less that it's possible, and more that NAP/confed armies reinforcing a tile block any further hostile action by friendly forces upon that tile. It's fair enough that the rules of exodus allow for it, but the consequences of such have clearly not been examined closely enough, likely due to the lack of the tactic being employed.

If it's to be a 'working as intended' feature, it should at least be balanced... as it is there is little risk to the town in making the maneuver, which makes little sense if you think about what's actually going on... you've just ordered your town dismantled only to be re-constructed on top of the enemy's camped forces!

...but hey, what do I care? Have fun with it while it lasts!

edit:: perhaps the results of the subsequent battle should determine the cities fate? Would certainly make more sense...


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/123034" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 02:47
I have re-read the moving cities announcement thread http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/29sept11-moving-cities_topic2495.html and it appears that I remembered the peace of the camp conditions incorrectly.  Stormcrow clearly states in that thread that peace of the camp will prevent the army from the city from attacking any army on the square.  So it appears that the mechanic is working as intended.

Stormcrow also said in that thread that he believed they needed to give additional consideration to changing those mechanics in the case of a city landing on a hostile army.  So Stormy, how about some reconsideration?

By the by, that thread is an amusing glimpse into the history of Illy featuring such luminaries as StJude, Celebcalen, HonoredMule, Starry and Kumomoto (as well as some contributions by yours truly).  Remember all that stuff?  Makes me smile now, seemed so serious at times then.

Good for perspective!


Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 03:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have re-read the moving cities announcement thread http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/29sept11-moving-cities_topic2495.html and it appears that I remembered the peace of the camp conditions incorrectly.  Stormcrow clearly states in that thread that peace of the camp will prevent the army from the city from attacking any army on the square.  So it appears that the mechanic is working as intended.

Stormcrow also said in that thread that he believed they needed to give additional consideration to changing those mechanics in the case of a city landing on a hostile army.  So Stormy, how about some reconsideration?

By the by, that thread is an amusing glimpse into the history of Illy featuring such luminaries as StJude, Celebcalen, HonoredMule, Starry and Kumomoto (as well as some contributions by yours truly).  Remember all that stuff?  Makes me smile now, seemed so serious at times then.

Good for perspective!

It should not be changed, the rules of the game are being followed.   There needs to be enough flexibility in the game for people to be creative, isn't that what you are always espousing?   This is a sandbox and the players find new uses or strategies in the game?     Just because the use of this strategy went against your "group" does not dictate change, there needs to be some room for players to fight a war with new and innovative ideas.   You cannot have it both ways, Rill.   Destroy the ability for players to use their imagination in this game and you doom the game to boredom and predictability.  You don't see H players demanding change for some of the ways your group are using the game mechanics and trust me, there is a very long list of creative strategies being used on both sides.


-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule



Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 04:54
Starry, did you read the thread?  Stormcrow is the one who said he thought it should be changed, although by a method that fell short of destroying the city on arrival.  I can understand why they didn't choose to prioritize this question, but I can see both sides -- those who wanted it changed and those who didn't.

If you do read the thread, you were one of the people most vocal about this very mechanic before.  In both cases -- then and now -- I have mostly focused on how the mechanic is actually working rather than expressing a strong opinion about how it should work.  What I think most important is that people are able to consistently predict what will occur (that is, what game mechanics will occur if Player X does Action Y, rather than being able to predict what Player X might do), and then as you said, to interact with that creatively.

Edited to clarify that the game mechanics, rather than the players, are what should be predictable.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 07:55
verb
verb: exploit; 3rd person present: exploits; past tense: exploited; past participle: exploited; gerund or present participle: exploiting
ikˈsploit/
1.
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).

noun
noun: exploit; plural noun: exploits
ˈekˌsploit/
1.
a bold or daring feat.

so call it an exploit if you like, that seems quite accurate based on this definition. it's part of the published workings of the game. players can agree or disagree that it makes any sense, alongside all the other various rules in illyriad, but let's not pretend that the devs will be changing it as a result of public consensus on the forum. Stormcrow's game, his rules...and, at least for today, this manoeuvre is within them.



Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 13:18
+1 Angrim

Yes, Rill, I read your post, did you read mine?   Obviously not, the fact is the Devs have not felt it needed to be changed.    Just because you don't like a tactic does not mean it needs to changed.  I agree with Angrim, iIlly is not YOUR game, perhaps you should give the Devs credit for allowing players room for creative game play which has been the hallmark of this game from the start.

Exodus has been used defensively in battle since it was released, this is no different and well within the rules of game mechanics.




-------------
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule



Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 17:31
I think running away is a valid option when an enemy is approaching, but I have never liked the way exodus works. It should not be possible to just move away without leaving anything behind. At the very least some ruins and stragglers, and it would be a major job to tear down walls and remove fields and quarries. The siege army should get some spoils in that situation.


Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 19:28
Originally posted by Miklabjarnir Miklabjarnir wrote:

I think running away is a valid option when an enemy is approaching, but I have never liked the way exodus works. It should not be possible to just move away without leaving anything behind. At the very least some ruins and stragglers, and it would be a major job to tear down walls and remove fields and quarries. The siege army should get some spoils in that situation.

There is actual a glitch/bug with exodus that will do just that.  I have had crafted material drop from my cities inventory to be left behind as spoils.   


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 21:47
This is an announcements thread.  Perhaps discussion of what people think about a related but different game mechanic (how exodused cities behave when they land on occupying armies) should be adjourned to the suggestions/game enhancements forum.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net