Author Topic: Battle spam lock  (Read 3404 times)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Battle spam lock
« on: December 25, 2015, 05:37:11 PM »
Moved to here from calm zone, as this is where it belongs.

That spam tho.

Lann

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
  • Karma: +16/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2015, 04:43:57 PM »
I'll be the first to admit the tactic is annoying.  I also have yet to understand how people with no soldiers and no seeming access to militia can suddenly spawn an army out of no where unless they're using mercenaries.  I think the thing I dislike is how disadvantaged I personally am given my limited time schedule.

But while I believe something should be done to try to make this game a little less time-demanding during war (because I simply cannot play during weekends and holidays-- which is when and where I got destroyed every time), I read the rants against Weaver and don't agree with any of them.  Honestly, Weaver is playing to the best he can, given his situation.  And he's done a damn good job.  He's made his mark and every active duchy in the Empire will feel that presence long after he's gone.  It occurred to me not long ago, that every Duchy has lost vassals and family members.  I lost 2 vassals to this war, 3 family, a bunch of estates (which I willingly parted with since I knew I couldn't afford to defend them), and about 900 men.  I made mistakes and got punished HARD for them, I'd daresay, more than any other person in this war.  None of you lost territory quite like I have.

But the thing is:  I'm not complaining about it.  Me and Weaver share a very similar perspective.  We both accept that in war, NOTHING is unfair.  That if there's a tactic that can be used, it WILL be used.  I may not like it.  I may wish for some things to be changed in the game because I think it's cheesy as hell and because my limited time prevents me from participating as I'd like.   But while a tactic is there, you simply CANNOT expect people not to use it.  Going into war expecting a nice, gentlemenly conflict is a self-defeating goal.  War never has been that way, not in or out of a game. 

As The Mittani, the leader of the largest and most successfully player coalition in Eve Online has said, "War is not for nice people....  It is, by its very definition, an act of cruelty....  This is because war for conquerable [territory] is a test of organization against organization; the ultimate goal is to keep your own [players] logging in and fighting, while discouraging your adversary's [players] from doing the same..."  He argued that during war, you hold NOTHING back.   That any organization going to war but choosing to limit what tactics its willing to employ could still win against an inferior organization and shatter its will, but would be hamstrung against an equal opponent willing to use every available weapon.    Considering how many wars of thousands of players he's lead and come out successful in, he's pretty much the Sun Tzu of MMORPG warfare and worth listening to. 

I'll admit, when I entered this war, I did tie my hands a bit, but for roleplay reasons.  My character hoped to end the conflict with minimal damage to infrastructure and few lives spared.  He hoped to confront Weaver directly in Whisperreap and leave with a resolution.  But when he arrived, reinforcements failed to show... then Karas Kommagene and Bann Aeneiria died in an assault on Gahlen.  And well... everything went to hell.  With not enough men to take the walls of Whisperreap and Weaver's knights closing in on Westhold, he had to turn back.  But he was too late.  At that point, the war got messy. 

Martyn ordered his vassals to round up every available man and meet up in Ironhill.  Then once again, an opportunity arose and even a message from Weaver came in offering to meet once again in Whisperreap.  Believing enough respect and trust existed between them, despite them being on opposite sides, Martyn marched for Whisperreap again... to find it abandoned.  At that point, he realized Weaver was going to treat him as an enemy and lie if he had to to ensure victory.  And likewise, Martyn stopped holding back himself.  Of course, shit got fucked up because the Christmas holiday started up and I just COULDN'T log in when I needed to.  But that's how the cookie crumbles I suppose.  Lost men to starvation because of that.  Also wasn't expecting soldiers to come out of nowhere to defend Westhold but I really should have reinforced it instead of keeping my other nobles close to the watchtowers.  Weaver, you gotta tell me how you did that.  Was that really mercenaries?  It surprised the hell out of me lol. 

But anyway, the mistakes I made were the mistakes I made.  I can't blame anyone other than myself for that.  And I can't blame Weaver from using tactics I don't like because anyone can and I probably would too if I were able.  If anything, that's something Tom needs to find a way to fix.  Or maybe we can help Tom... I don't know.  We'll figure it out I suppose.  In the meantime, I'm just trying to learn what I can for next time. 

But anyway, thank you Weaver for the RP you've generated in this war.  I'm sorry I couldn't participate more in that regard.  Like I said, the holiday session is a bitch for me and it's still not over.  :(  But it's been fun.  Look forward to seeing how all this ends. 
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 04:45:43 PM by Lann »

LGMAlpha

  • Guest
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2015, 05:43:02 PM »
Despite my rather adamant stance in the previous thread, I'm somewhere in between it and Lann's post. I don't really think what we saw a few days ago was intended behavior, or in good faith from an in game perspective, but there isn't any particular rule against it. If this game was like most other browser based games, in that the in game setting is less meaningful, I'd have absolutely no problem using it.


I think it's Tom's intention to expand the action queue system, and that would really improve the game. Being able to set orders to travel to x and join a certain character in battle. Or to have an queue order to engage a certain character on sight. I'd also like to see a more visible notifier that troops are starving.


I don't think anyone can deny that Weaver has opened up a tremendous RP potential with the war. I look forward to rebuilding and dealing with the politics of that.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 06:06:27 PM by LGMAlpha »

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2015, 06:09:17 PM »
Everything that you think is not in the spirit of the game should be brought up to discussion, and might lead to code changes.

But aside from that, unless it is an obvious cheat, hack or exploit, what the game allows should be considered allowable. It's like the rules of a sport: If you think they suck, propose an improvement. But until that improvement has been agreed upon, those are the rules.

Lann

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
  • Karma: +16/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2015, 10:06:11 PM »
Everything that you think is not in the spirit of the game should be brought up to discussion, and might lead to code changes.

But aside from that, unless it is an obvious cheat, hack or exploit, what the game allows should be considered allowable. It's like the rules of a sport: If you think they suck, propose an improvement. But until that improvement has been agreed upon, those are the rules.


Indeed.  And that's the thing.  I know of nothing to improve the battle system that wouldn't require a lot of work on your end.  Which is why, even though I sort of dislike parts of it, I haven't suggested anything and why up until now, I haven't even taken part in the discussion.  I wish I could be more helpful, Tom.

Weaver

  • Guest
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2015, 11:33:10 PM »
I did wait for you at Whisperreap the second time around, but it took a while. I did not expect Kommagene to come so hard on Locust Court- and I had to help Winters defend it, by giving her gold and troops. I actually saw you when I crossed out of Whisperreap, but I didn't have the forces to engage you or face you. I figured I'd just run back to Whisperreap, and no one would notice I was gone.

Then things got extremely complicated. Westhold got attacked, and my window of fighting endurance was shorter and shorter. This got even more complicated when I could not enter Locust Court due to a permission list bug. It ended up with me setting what soldiers I had in Locust Court as militia, running to Westhold, realizing 'Holy balls I am fast', and recalling some of the soldiers at very low percentages. And then mercenaries as well. That's what really turned the fight at Westhold.

But once that was done, and with the amount of soldiers I had, I got stuck in between Locust Court and Westhold, and there was no way I was going back to Whisperreap- as it had already fallen by then. Well, more like, as you said, been abandoned. In a way, I knew I would eventually have to give up Whisperreap, but I feel, even without the circumstances, Weaver would've possibly refused to fight you if it looked like you would charge the walls suicidally, IE: Not enough troops. I had a good 300 or 400 soldiers in Whisperreap after all. Mostly heavy infantry.

And aye, I agree, near the end of the war, I managed to defeat mostly every army except the Kommagenes. What was intended as a delaying tactic has become a go-to move for most operations, simply because we cannot see past the fog of war, and never know when someone else might join to ruin our fight. Which is what almost happened when Garamon gave his troops to Sarpedon, when we had him dead to rights. That was well-played.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2015, 11:56:54 AM »
I did wait for you at Whisperreap the second time around, but it took a while. I did not expect Kommagene to come so hard on Locust Court- and I had to help Winters defend it, by giving her gold and troops. I actually saw you when I crossed out of Whisperreap, but I didn't have the forces to engage you or face you. I figured I'd just run back to Whisperreap, and no one would notice I was gone.

Then things got extremely complicated. Westhold got attacked, and my window of fighting endurance was shorter and shorter. This got even more complicated when I could not enter Locust Court due to a permission list bug. It ended up with me setting what soldiers I had in Locust Court as militia, running to Westhold, realizing 'Holy balls I am fast', and recalling some of the soldiers at very low percentages. And then mercenaries as well. That's what really turned the fight at Westhold.

But once that was done, and with the amount of soldiers I had, I got stuck in between Locust Court and Westhold, and there was no way I was going back to Whisperreap- as it had already fallen by then. Well, more like, as you said, been abandoned. In a way, I knew I would eventually have to give up Whisperreap, but I feel, even without the circumstances, Weaver would've possibly refused to fight you if it looked like you would charge the walls suicidally, IE: Not enough troops. I had a good 300 or 400 soldiers in Whisperreap after all. Mostly heavy infantry.

And aye, I agree, near the end of the war, I managed to defeat mostly every army except the Kommagenes. What was intended as a delaying tactic has become a go-to move for most operations, simply because we cannot see past the fog of war, and never know when someone else might join to ruin our fight. Which is what almost happened when Garamon gave his troops to Sarpedon, when we had him dead to rights. That was well-played.

Which should also be impossible. The system was changed some ago so that combatants can not assign troops, and I thought at the same time you were prevented from assigning troops to combatants.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2015, 12:12:13 PM »
Which should also be impossible. The system was changed some ago so that combatants can not assign troops, and I thought at the same time you were prevented from assigning troops to combatants.

Correct. If you find this possible, report it, please. Being in battle should prevent a lot of things.



Weaver

  • Guest
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2015, 12:36:32 PM »
I dunno, I've seen that you can assign troops to people in combat without problems. I don't really see a problem with it. I do see a problem with assigning troops from someone in combat, to someone who isn't.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2016, 04:33:34 PM »
Correct. If you find this possible, report it, please. Being in battle should prevent a lot of things.

Is it intentional that troop that is in combat already can be attacked indefinitely by those who did not join the battle? It looks really illogical and seemingly serves only to bypass designed chance of weaker to evade when fighting with incomparably lower force.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2016, 10:15:39 PM »
Is it intentional that troop that is in combat already can be attacked indefinitely by those who did not join the battle? It looks really illogical and seemingly serves only to bypass designed chance of weaker to evade when fighting with incomparably lower force.

What? Sorry, can you write that again in different words? My brain kind of fails to parse this sentence.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2016, 12:05:28 AM »
What? Sorry, can you write that again in different words? My brain kind of fails to parse this sentence.

He asks if it is by design that a character already under attack in one battle can have new battles initiated against them.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2016, 11:03:50 AM »
He asks if it is by design that a character already under attack in one battle can have new battles initiated against them.

Absolutely, yes. Otherwise, for someone who sees two enemies fighting each other, there would be no option to attack them both, he would have to choose a side and fight with one of his enemies, or sit it out and not fight anyone. But what he most likely wants to do is fight them both.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2016, 11:19:26 AM »
Absolutely, yes. Otherwise, for someone who sees two enemies fighting each other, there would be no option to attack them both, he would have to choose a side and fight with one of his enemies, or sit it out and not fight anyone. But what he most likely wants to do is fight them both.

The problem is when 4 or 5 enemy nobles, each with 3 or 4 times your own force constantly stagger battles so you can not escape.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Battle spam lock
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2016, 11:26:09 AM »
You can set evade and travel. No matter how much they overlay you with battles, you will always move a little between battles, while they need to regroup. With a little luck, you can escape from this. However, it is absolutely intended that if you are surrounded by superior enemies, you are in a very difficult situation. Anything else would be comical, wouldn't it?