| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
GM ThunderCat 
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
 Topic: Siege & Blockade mechanics change
Posted: 05 Nov 2012 at 00:57 |
 JimJams wrote:
GM ThunderCat wrote:
So if you have an army on the square it will tell you what they are doing. If you don't it will tell you if its a siege, blockade or occupy; with siege taking priority over occupy. |
I am good with this design, but it doesn't do it, actually. Check siege stats page in herald, go to the square and you will find no siege camp:
you can find many others... |
This is now resolved.
|
 |
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 16:52 |
JimJams wrote:
Check siege stats page in herald, go to the square and you will find no siege camp |
Caveat, IIRC the H siege page is delayed by an hour. Some days ago I saw an interesting siege info in the H, checked it on the map, and found only the occupation after raze scenario surrounded by lots of occupation after siege armies.
Can't wait to test this blitz-siege strategy against an inactive player "soon"...  |
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 15:40 |
GM ThunderCat wrote:
So if you have an army on the square it will tell you what they are doing. If you don't it will tell you if its a siege, blockade or occupy; with siege taking priority over occupy. |
I am good with this design, but it doesn't do it, actually. Check siege stats page in herald, go to the square and you will find no siege camp:
you can find many others...
|
|
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 00:14 |
JimJams wrote:
SC, I don't think a city need scouts to know it is sieved. Scouts should be mostly to get fine detail about the army. In fact actually scouting a strong camp is virtually impossible (if reinforced with defending scouts). So we should be able to rely on graphics and tooltip to know if a camp is a siege camp, a blockade or just an occupy camp.
I think on this matter most (if not all) Illy players could agree. |
The square should currently tell you: What your army on square is doing > Sieging/Blockading > Occupying
So if you have an army on the square it will tell you what they are doing. If you don't it will tell you if its a siege, blockade or occupy; with siege taking priority over occupy.
If you are the defending city you will know the location of the siege from your siege page, from the movements page and because you will not have an army on the square so the square will tell you its a siege.
|
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
Posted: 03 Nov 2012 at 21:19 |
SC, I don't think a city need scouts to know it is sieved. Scouts should be mostly to get fine detail about the army. In fact actually scouting a strong camp is virtually impossible (if reinforced with defending scouts). So we should be able to rely on graphics and tooltip to know if a camp is a siege camp, a blockade or just an occupy camp.
I think on this matter most (if not all) Illy players could agree.
|
|
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 03 Nov 2012 at 02:16 |
|
Thank you, SC.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 03 Nov 2012 at 01:21 |
Thanks for your Petition, JimJams - it's useful - however, it's a different issue (although related to the same topic, ie sieges and blockades).
This pretty much highlights the danger inherent of using the forums to report and to attempt to "escalate" "issues", especially when many different issues, based on incomplete knowledge, are conflated together.
To summarise, what's now been presented is that: - On the world map, when you tooltip over a hostile encampment next to your city....
- When there are multiple armies on the square, it may not show that this grouped army encampment contains a sieging or blockading army, but may simply read "hostile encampment"
I'm not sure at all whether this is a bug or intended behaviour. I personally would have assumed that the first army of many (with different orders) to arrive would be the "intention carrier" for the square, and that the purpose of scouts in Illyriad would be to further investigate the intentions of hostile armies. The player at the receiving end gets an email if a siege army arrives on a neighbouring square - regardless of in which order it arrives - and the email contains its location. The player at the receiving end can see the presence and location of a hostile siege army at any time via the Siege Summary page.
However, the issues raised in the aforementioned Petition and this thread are substantially different, concerning whether: - Sieges and blockades can share the same square
- Siege encampments appear to hit/hitting from blockade camps
- Siege encampments appear to hit/hitting from squares where there aren't any siege engines, or
- Siege encampments appear on the Siege Summary page where they're not present
None of these things are happening as far as Petitions presented or server logs show; although, again, if anyone has any evidence of this happening, please share via the Petition system.
Regards,
SC |
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
Posted: 03 Nov 2012 at 00:16 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
Starry wrote:
Yes, he forwarded your reply, perhaps you would explain why, after the first siege was destroyed, he checked the siege tab and it showed a siege army on the blockade square. That siege was also actively hitting his city. Your reply does not show a siege on that square, so where did the second siege come from? It is not working as intended, anyone involved in recent sieges (there's and ours) has noticed squares mislabelled.
You don't show that siege army on the square yet it was hitting his city, could we get an explanation on that please?
Edit: If you see nothing wrong with the siege on his city then we will adjust how we siege cities in the future :)
|
We don't discuss the details of other player's petitions with third parties.
Both the server logs as well as the player's own emails from the system (siege setup emails, bombardment emails etc) contained in his mailbox directly contradict each and every one of the public assertions you make above.
If there are any other examples (or 'floods' of example, even!) of "hidden" sieges or sieges stacked on top of blockades, please do encourage the players involved to get in touch via the Petition system.
If any player believes there is a problem, they should open a Petition.
What I'm not interested in is a protracted game of "Chinese Whispers" in a forum thread started less than 6 hours after the original petition was submitted, insisting that systems and mechanics are at fault when all the evidence submitted thus far shows that the systems are not at fault, and is plainly in view in both the petitioning player's mailbox and in my responses to their petition. This is a disservice to everyone involved, including the player.
Starry wrote:
Edit: If you see nothing wrong with the siege on his city then we will adjust how we siege cities in the future :)
|
As said, I've replied to the Petition and if the player involved can provide any evidence of where anything I've said is incorrect then I'll gladly and happily look into this further and get whatever is broken fixed. So far nothing at the system-end appears to be broken in any way, and no evidence has been supplied to show that anything is broken.
If you are aware of and can point specifically to something that isn't working as intended, I would advise in the strongest possible terms against deliberately exploiting a broken mechanic.
Regards,
SC |
Storm, may be the petition you received was not well done, but the problem is real and I am sending you a petition with precise data, so you can check yourself and see what is going there.
Everyone please, we are all playing this beautiful game and trying to solve any issue we find. Personally I am reporting any bug I find, good or not for me, and I am happy with devs feedback, usually quick enough when I am able to write down a good petition with data.
Stop please turning every bit of word in a political issue. It's boring.
|
|
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 02 Nov 2012 at 23:51 |
I wonder if Starry is complaining about the World Map Pop Up when a player clicks on a Stack on the map.
The pop up will give varying descriptions of the stack. Sometimes it varies between siege, blockade, and reinforcing armies. Often it shows reinforcing even when one comes to the city by seeing it listed on the Siege Stats screen. In this situation, a 3rd party can not detect from the World Map which square is the Blockade or Siege Encampment Square. Though I have been seeing this for weeks so I figured it was intended by the Devs.
I could be wrong about Starry's complaint, though. So please excuse...
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 02 Nov 2012 at 23:31 |
Starry wrote:
Yes, he forwarded your reply, perhaps you would explain why, after the first siege was destroyed, he checked the siege tab and it showed a siege army on the blockade square. That siege was also actively hitting his city. Your reply does not show a siege on that square, so where did the second siege come from? It is not working as intended, anyone involved in recent sieges (there's and ours) has noticed squares mislabelled.
You don't show that siege army on the square yet it was hitting his city, could we get an explanation on that please?
Edit: If you see nothing wrong with the siege on his city then we will adjust how we siege cities in the future :)
|
We don't discuss the details of other player's petitions with third parties.
Both the server logs as well as the player's own emails from the system (siege setup emails, bombardment emails etc) contained in his mailbox directly contradict each and every one of the public assertions you make above.
If there are any other examples (or 'floods' of example, even!) of "hidden" sieges or sieges stacked on top of blockades, please do encourage the players involved to get in touch via the Petition system.
If any player believes there is a problem, they should open a Petition.
What I'm not interested in is a protracted game of "Chinese Whispers" in a forum thread started less than 6 hours after the original petition was submitted, insisting that systems and mechanics are at fault when all the evidence submitted thus far shows that the systems are not at fault, and is plainly in view in both the petitioning player's mailbox and in my responses to their petition. This is a disservice to everyone involved, including the player.
Starry wrote:
Edit: If you see nothing wrong with the siege on his city then we will adjust how we siege cities in the future :)
|
As said, I've replied to the Petition and if the player involved can provide any evidence of where anything I've said is incorrect then I'll gladly and happily look into this further and get whatever is broken fixed. So far nothing at the system-end appears to be broken in any way, and no evidence has been supplied to show that anything is broken.
If you are aware of and can point specifically to something that isn't working as intended, I would advise in the strongest possible terms against deliberately exploiting a broken mechanic.
Regards,
SC
|
|
Tweet
Siege & Blockade mechanics change
