vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+ ? [Archive]

vfb

March 26th, 2008, 09:32 AM

Omnirizon said:

vfb said:
IMO Vengeance of the Dead is buggy too, for including undead kills in its dead count. It's the souls of the dead you slew coming back to haunt you. So when you double up, where the heck did those extra undead come from?

Its the same mechanics as reincarnation. If reincarnation is true, than how does the population of the world increase? The person living now is only the soul of someone who lived before. They don't die and create a soul of their present life in addition to their last one. So as population increases, where are all the extra souls coming from?

Well, obviously reincarnation as you have interpreted it is logically inconsistent: If "the person living now is only the soul of someone who lived before" and "the population of the world increases" are mutually exclusive, and we know "the population of the world increases" to be true, then "the person living now is only the soul of someone who lived before" is false. In conclusion, Bandar must take death scales. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

To get back to the point, there's no need for Vengeance to be inconsistent like this. If undead kills aren't counted towards the kill count for the raised souls in Vengeance, then everything will be fine.

kasnavada

March 26th, 2008, 09:58 AM

Errr...

The people killed in the dreamed caused by the spell shouldn't be counted, that's true even from a logical point of view. Think of it : the guy that got killed now has two, three or more soul ! It's completely illogical !

triqui

March 26th, 2008, 10:20 AM

kasnavada said:
Errr...

The people killed in the dreamed caused by the spell shouldn't be counted, that's true even from a logical point of view. Think of it : the guy that got killed now has two, three or more soul ! It's completely illogical !

That might work as a partial solution (at least it avoid the cummulative aspect, and allow you to retire the character for a while, until you have access to better equipment, like more MR). However, it still makes VotD the most powerful anti-character overland spell, when you compare the resarch cost and gem cost. It is much better than mind hunt for example.

kasnavada

March 26th, 2008, 10:50 AM

I do not agree with that. VotD won't ever be able to kill a researcher in a province, while mind hunt can. It is however more powerful than mind hunt when the targetted person has killed many people.

triqui

March 26th, 2008, 01:13 PM

but it is not that hard to put a couple lizard shamans in your research provinces to counter mind hunt (if you dont have astral yourself). What can you do to stop VotD kill your pretender in turn 15?

thejeff

March 26th, 2008, 01:23 PM

I agree it is currently abusive, since it's cumulative and kills the target on timeout.

If either of those were fixed, a decent SC pretender should be able to survive hordes of lousy undead chaff indefinitely.
It should rarely work on a pretender with an Antimagic amulet even now.

kasnavada

March 26th, 2008, 01:24 PM

Taking a non-SC pretender makes it pretty much immune.

I'm not arguing that the spell is not powerful enough or anything, nor defending it. In fact, after having read the entire other post you necroed, I quite agree that something is flawed by design in that spell. Thematically speaking : the dead shouldn't be able to avenge themselves with more than 1 soul, and maybe not more than once. Furthermore, there is no real counter apart from hoping that MR will resist the spell (which is not a counter at all), and it is really quite cheap... Another idea would be to put rituals "behind" movement in initiative order, or give a chance for ritual targetting moving units to fail (50% chance ? or more for fast movement / units ?). But that might change the gameplay too much.

triqui

March 26th, 2008, 01:50 PM

taking a non-sc pretender makes your pretender inmune, but still leave your other non-pretender SC vulnerable. It is not a pretender-killer, it is a SC killer. It does not work on non-SC, but on SC it is pretty much uncountereable. I dont have a problem with SC dying (they die constantly to other spells, like mind hunt), but i dont like it to be uncountereable no matter of what, and i dont like it to be so damn cheap. The ice on the cake is that it actually *shouldnt* work that way, as the rules say that the *Attacker* loses in 50 turns, not the defender. (i agree you neet to have a turn limit, becouse other wise 2 characters spaming raise dead with enough reinvigoration can stall the game forever and never be able to kill each other. But if the rule says *�ttacker* lose in 50 turns, the it should not be the defender the one that dies)

Foodstamp

March 26th, 2008, 01:54 PM

kasnavada

March 26th, 2008, 01:57 PM

There might also be, just to give numbers, a total of 1 billion souls in many places, with "only" 1 million "alive". Leaving place for extension.

Agrajag

March 26th, 2008, 02:23 PM

Yeah, there could be a lot more available souls then souls "in use". The more people there are, the less time it takes each soul to reincarnate.

As for a counter, how about a sufficiently strong fire shield? If it is strong enough to kill a soul in one hit, then all the souls will be annihilated fairly quickly, as a new soul comes to take the place of a killed soul in the same turn it is killed. (I've never tried VotD, so I don't know how tough the undead are to see if such a thing is possible/viable)

NTJedi

March 26th, 2008, 02:43 PM

triqui said:
Is the game stalled at round 75? I die? (i guess the ghosts dont run or break morale in round 50, do they?)

It's my understanding the undead from the dream do not flee at turn 50... thus at turn 75 your mage/commander flees and is auto-killed.

This has a few issues which are just logically wrong:
1) Being auto-killed while fleeing during an assassination. Historically and logically incorrect.

2) Successfully fleeing during a dream should at worst cause the target to awaken... maybe with the battle fright affliction.

3) Killing these undead within a dream should not count as kills. This results in one soul being doubled or tripled and appearing in future VotD castings.

4) The battle turn limits... as I understand are 50 the attacker retreats, 75 defender retreats and 100 all attackers are killed. As computers become more and more powerful it would be nice if us gamers had the option of adjusting the battle turn limits. Currently every game we play has this all powerful organized union which forces non-golem attackers to retreat at 5pm... and then forces non-golem defenders to retreat at 8pm. I hate this organized union.

Cor2

March 26th, 2008, 04:27 PM

vfb said:
IMO Vengeance of the Dead is buggy too, for including undead kills in its dead count. It's the souls of the dead you slew coming back to haunt you. So when you double up, where the heck did those extra undead come from?

When you wack a soul of a previous victim they split into two equal souls. I thought this was obvious! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif We all know that there is no law of conservation of souls! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 09:01 AM

NTJedi said:
3) Killing these undead within a dream should not count as kills. This results in one soul being doubled or tripled and appearing in future VotD castings.

Actually, killing the avenging soul should be SUBSTRACTED from the future VotD castings. I killed you. Your soul came back seeking revenge. I killed your soul. You are definitely dead, period. You dont have "extra souls" to spare to keep avenging you forever.

Omnirizon

March 27th, 2008, 09:58 AM

maybe these are just "dream" souls. So each soul killed is implanted in the killers mind for each time it was killed. During the VotD dream, each one of these killed soul implantations is attacking the dreamer, not the soul itself.

Its a mind thing man!

Zeldor

March 27th, 2008, 10:27 AM

The sad thing is that works only on living killers, you do not have a spell that could do similar harm to undead and demons, so it favors many nations.

kasnavada

March 27th, 2008, 11:12 AM

Another idea I wrote in the other thread would be a "ritual of forgiveness" which gives your unit 0 experience and 0 kills again.

Evil Dave

March 27th, 2008, 11:31 AM

Omnirizon said:
maybe these are just "dream" souls. So each soul killed is implanted in the killers mind for each time it was killed. During the VotD dream, each one of these killed soul implantations is attacking the dreamer, not the soul itself.

Yup. I came across a description of a real-world thing much like VotD, and I think the Devs used it as the basis for the spell. After battle, some New Guinea tribesmen have nightmares where they are cut off from their friends and are battling all the people they've killed recently. It's apparently related to what we call "post-traumatic stress disorder". Lawrence Keeley mentions it in War before Civilization.

Foodstamp

March 27th, 2008, 12:46 PM

I have a great fix for this problem. Let's don't fix it! Do we really want to limit how we can kill Supercombatants? Do you really want to create an endgame where as soon as a Supercombatant is equipped, the player can breathe a sigh of relief because he has won the game, the rest of the turns just being an exercise of moving around the map flipping flags?

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 12:50 PM

Zeldor said:
The sad thing is that works only on living killers, you do not have a spell that could do similar harm to undead and demons, so it favors many nations.

Demons are affected by the spell. My Moloch is. However, demons and devils have several other weakness as well (like banishment). Normally i consider the trait "undead" or "devil" as a negative one. That's why undeads and demons tend to have better stats for the same cost than other characters.

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 12:55 PM

Foodstamp said:
I have a great fix for this problem. Let's don't fix it! Do we really want to limit how we can kill Supercombatants? Do you really want to create an endgame where as soon as a Supercombatant is equipped, the player can breathe a sigh of relief because he has won the game, the rest of the turns just being an exercise of moving around the map flipping flags?

This is not an "endgame" spell. It is thaumathurgy 4. It can be cast easily on turn 15 against any awake pretender (it has been on my game). Do you suggest that only valid strategy should be imprisoned pretenders for scales or dual bless?
In endgame there are much better options than VotD anyways. Mind hunt KILLS you if you fail the MR, instead of making you to fight against ethereal zombies.

kasnavada

March 27th, 2008, 12:57 PM

There are a lot of other ways to take care of supercombattant in a battle, and a lot of threads speak of it... what you basically said here is that if I choose the wyrm as pretender and give him a few anti-magic items, I already won the game. Pardon my bluntness, but it's stupid.

The proposed fixes would also have other repercussions that you can take advantage of.
Example : 20 artillery mages with 50 kills each are forever protected as long as an SC is there. If every ghosts comes back only once, that means that the next casting of the spell will kill one of those artillery mages, which have lower MR and, for most of them, have simply no chance to beat up that many ghosts without a meat shield.

Besides, relying on that spell only to kill SC means something else. That whoever has that spell and the mages to cast it has won the game against an opponent that uses SC. That's about as balanced as the imaginary "invincible" first SC you speak of.

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 01:09 PM

kasnavada said:
There are a lot of other ways to take care of supercombattant in a battle, and a lot of threads speak of it... what you basically said here is that if I choose the wyrm as pretender and give him a few anti-magic items, I already won the game. Pardon my bluntness, but it's stupid.

Exactly. There are SEVERAL ways to kill them without needing to exploit a BUG in a spell that make the defender lose the battle at round 75 instead of the attacker as the RULES SAY.

The proposed fixes would also have other repercussions that you can take advantage of.
Example : 20 artillery mages with 50 kills each are forever protected as long as an SC is there. If every ghosts comes back only once, that means that the next casting of the spell will kill one of those artillery mages, which have lower MR and, for most of them, have simply no chance to beat up that many ghosts without a meat shield.

Right.
If you remove the kill when you fight them in the dream, as i suggested, after one single round of combat the big bad SC will have 0 kills, and the next spell will affect the combat mages.

Besides, relying on that spell only to kill SC means something else. That whoever has that spell and the mages to cast it has won the game against an opponent that uses SC. That's about as balanced as the imaginary "invincible" first SC you speak of.

They are relying on it to kill the SC becouse it is the fastest way to do so by far. It is only 360 research points away from the start of the game, easy to do at turn 15-17.

People need to realize that some nations (like bogarus), really NEED an awake pretender SC, if only for early expansion and protection versus bless/elefant rushes? How in the hell are you going to defend yourself in turn 15 against a rush with bogarus if you dont have an awake SC? With your late age precision 8 *shortbows*?

I dont want SC to completelly rule the game from start to end. But awake combat pretenders should be a viable strategy, and this spell pretty much destroy it with no chance of survival, not becouse of the spell, but becouse of the BUG in the spell.

EDIT: rereading your post, i think you are actually talking to the poster above me, not me, so sorry for my previus post :p. I edit properly

Foodstamp

March 27th, 2008, 01:17 PM

You guys are assuming a lot. Can you point me to the MP thread where someone with MP experience has complained because an enemy is spamming VoTD against him?

An opponent's SC has to make it into the hall of fame to be a realistic target. Then a nation that actually has the paths to cast the spell has to find the SC and cast at that province. Then the nation that casts the spell has to hang tight with the SC, following him around the map to know where he is, to cast the spell again and again. This is really only feasible if the SC is in the casters provinces, because one misstep by the spotter scout and the SC is safe.

The spell is not stupid, the spell has never been an issue in any of my MP games. If it needs any tweaking, it needs to be fixed where when an Immortal dies to it while targeted in his own dominion, he goes back to his capital. As it stands now, it seems the combat takes place in a neutral zone, causing immortals to die. There does not need to be counters to the spell that nullify it or completely protect an SC. I should add, if the SC has any amount of magic resistance, the spell fails frequently.

If you guys do succeed in your quest to nerf fun and unique spells in this game such as Vengeance of the Dead, what is to stop the same player from spamming Horror Mark on your precious SC? Maybe we should nerf that too seeing how it is equally a death sentence, and even worse for a pretender. Maybe after that, you guys can petition to get rid of "Curse" or have it made curable. I mean, it is not fair that you created that supercombatant pretender just to have some indy shaman curse it forever. Hopefully by the time your done, all we will have is generic fantasy game spells like magic missile and fireball.

I guess in short what I am telling you is:

"Cry more noob."

kasnavada

March 27th, 2008, 01:21 PM

Duh. The OP is victim of this and started the thread. Not to mention all people in the other thread just a few post before.

There is no "assuming" anything here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

And the reason is that it's an abuse :
- the fleeing attackers rout but stay,
- automatic "turn limit" kills the SC, not a game action.

The automatic turn limit is something that doesn't make sense. Comparing it to curse and horror marks is ridiculous ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Finally, personnal attacks such as "cry more noob" defeats the point of answering... it justs destroys your credibility.

Foodstamp

March 27th, 2008, 01:23 PM

Duh, he has about a month of playing the game under his belt. Maybe when he has two months, he will equip an amulet of antimagic.

kasnavada

March 27th, 2008, 01:31 PM

Why I am wasting time here... That point about the anti-magic amulet has already been countered in the 10 pages of this thread and the other one.

Foodstamp

March 27th, 2008, 01:46 PM

I am too lazy to look through all these tears, but I guarantee I can show you several posts explaining to you two how to counter the spell.

The game should not be "I don't want to counter this spell so nerf it please."

The beauty of this game is the complexity, the counters, the counters to those counters etc. I would think a fan of the Dune series would appreciate such a system of complexity.

Tuidjy

March 27th, 2008, 01:47 PM

I have killed enemy SCs with Vengeance of the Dead very, very early. I was
playing a rainbow bless with MA Ermor, and I think I had it before the end
of the first year. I attacked a province with neutral dominion with a
bunch of mage/priests, set them to preach for the turn and retreat in combat.

The enemy Pretender came, and routed the priests, but on that turn the dominion
was 3 for me. I cast a few VoD. The pretender, a Virtue, failed her second MR
check, and died. Note that it was not because of the bug, but because of her
encumberance and her 100+ kills. But still, there was no way she was going to
kill them all in 75 turns. And even if she had some form of quickness and
reinvigoration, next time, there would have been 200+.

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 01:49 PM

You guys are assuming a lot. Can you point me to the MP thread where someone with MP experience has complained because an enemy is spamming VoTD against him?

Sure. Wish granted
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=541714&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
(althoug i think you should had used your only wish to find cancer's cure for example)

An opponent's SC has to make it into the hall of fame to be a realistic target

Which bassically menas "using the SC". Also notice that the spell is DOUBLED every time it is cast. I got 5 casts in a turn...

If it needs any tweaking, it needs to be fixed where when an Immortal dies to it while targeted in his own dominion, he goes back to his capital.

It needs to be fixed so it actually follow the rules (ATTACKER loses in turn 50, not the defender). The sentence "the army of Ryleh is routed" can be read clearly. Just that the fact there is no leader retreating and the troops are a special form of undead that need no leadership to fight made the designer forgot to add a way to the army actually being defeated in that turn

f you guys do succeed in your quest to nerf fun and unique spells in this game such as Vengeance of the Dead, what is to stop the same player from spamming Horror Mark on your precious SC?

Nothing at all. Notice that I'm not advocating that SC should be invincible. I'm saying that the BUGS in the GAME should be fixed. This is a bug. Like Mist of deception is. Probably related bugs (mindless special units created by a spell that do not die when they have no leader). I dont want a dull game, but i do want a game as free of bugs as possible.

"Cry more noob."

Oh, that's insightful. At the very least it shows your own level of reasoning i guess.

Maybe when he has two months, he will equip an amulet of antimagic.

I'm pretty sure you are aware that amulet of antimagic is construction 4, and this spell is thaumaturgy 4, so in order of your brilliant suggestion be able to be used the nation
1) need astral
2) need to rush to construction 4 as soon as the other nation rush to thau 4
3) need to have better and faster research than the VotD caster, which might be impossible depending on the nations compared research mages
4) even if you run as much as the other guy does, you need 1 turn to craft the item and 1 turn to equip it, and only 1 turn to cast VotD, so it still beats you
5) it is reported that the out of combat spells reduce the MR (see the link). Being it a WAD or bug, it is there.
6) penetration items also are available.
7) it cost 3 damn gems, it is easily spamable for the right nations
8)the original poster in the original thread that i linked you at the starting of this post had MR 25.
9) did i say i did not have an amulet of mr?

Karlem

March 27th, 2008, 01:49 PM

It's funny Foodstamp. I think opposite to you about the fact that inmortal units really die to this spells is a good thing not a bad one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif: Everything should be killable. But not because they reach a 75 turn limit.

OmikronWarrior

March 27th, 2008, 02:06 PM

Vengeance of the Dead is definitely a better spell than mind hutn, but it does have its limits.

1) A nation needs access to a combined Death and Astral Mage (3S,2D) to cast the spell. Not a lot of those floating around.
2) It requires an MR check. Pretenders have a base MR of 18, meaning assumming no other modifiers the spell will only work 8% of the time. The use of Penetration boosters is obvious, but so is the equiping of MR boosters. Finally, dominion will alter MR.
3) If the MR fails, the avenging dead still have to kill the unit. IF the unit is an SC, chances are he or she will be equiped to deal with masses of low level troops. Obviously, the spell become more powerful with each casting, but this combined with the MR check is enough to balance the cost of the spell.

Personally, I think its almost better suited for picking off evocation mages than SC's. But as players have mentioned SC's rarely need any further help than what they've already got.

Foodstamp

March 27th, 2008, 02:09 PM

I'm pretty sure you are aware that amulet of antimagic is construction 4, and this spell is thaumaturgy 4, so in order of your brilliant suggestion be able to be used the nation
1) need astral
2) need to rush to construction 4 as soon as the other nation rush to thau 4
3) need to have better and faster research than the VotD caster, which might be impossible depending on the nations compared research mages
4) even if you run as much as the other guy does, you need 1 turn to craft the item and 1 turn to equip it, and only 1 turn to cast VotD, so it still beats you
5) it is reported that the out of combat spells reduce the MR (see the link). Being it a WAD or bug, it is there.
6) penetration items also are available.
7) it cost 3 damn gems, it is easily spamable for the right nations
8)the original poster in the original thread that i linked you at the starting of this post had MR 25.
9) did i say i did not have an amulet of mr?

Really, this is the best argument you have? You have equal chance of getting to magic resistance items as your enemy has to cast the spell. On top of that, for him to spam it, he needs multiple mages that can cast it. Not many nations can pull that off. The scenario you list step by step above is not unbiased in the least bit. It is infinitely easier to forge an amulet than it is to spam vengeance of the dead.

So while you try to point out how impossible it is for you to counter this spell, I would argue that it is more difficult to get the spell going. And you are trying to tell me that your SC failed his MR against all attempts with an amulet of antimagic you had equipped. I am calling shenanigans here, you did not mention an amulet until I did, and if you are being honest about having one, then that is some pretty terrible luck and will not likely happen to you in future games.

To the MR 25 comment. I have used this spell in quite a few games, as I love to play R'lyeh. And to hit an MR that high would be close to impossible without penetration items. For every time I have had the spell work on a powerful target, I have had it fail numerous times. Sometimes when people get butthurt over game mechanices, they have a tendency to remember the event a little different than it actually happened. I am guessing in your case an Amulet was added in retrospect, and in the other guy's case, the ratio of success/failure is probably a bit skewed.

Or maybe you are right. You guys have found the end-all-be-all I win spell in this game. Many people will read this thread and from here until the game is patched to fix this heinous spell, it will be the focal point of every strategy conceived from this point onward.

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 02:17 PM

OmikronWarrior said:
Vengeance of the Dead is definitely a better spell than mind hutn, but it does have its limits.

1) A nation needs access to a combined Death and Astral Mage (3S,2D) to cast the spell. Not a lot of those floating around.

Utgarde, LA ryleh, and MA ermor comes to mind. And honestly i dont think this is a good argument. Mist of Deception, in it's buggy state, it is completelly overpowered and exploitable. Even if there are fewer A6 casters than there are S3D2 ones.

2) It requires an MR check. Pretenders have a base MR of 18, meaning assumming no other modifiers the spell will only work 8% of the time. The use of Penetration boosters is obvious, but so is the equiping of MR boosters. Finally, dominion will alter MR.

If you read the original post i linked, MR is not as good as it reads vs this spell, and being easily spammable, it is not a guarantee of nothing. Beyond that, It is Thau4. Antimagic items are Cons4. Not that easy of a counter, plus several nations do not have astral or earth2 easily achieavable.

3) If the MR fails, the avenging dead still have to kill the unit. IF the unit is an SC, chances are he or she will be equiped to deal with masses of low level troops. Obviously, the spell become more powerful with each casting, but this combined with the MR check is enough to balance the cost of the spell.

Actually, they don't need to kill the SC at all. THey only need to hang around dying in masses until turn 75 bell sounds.

I dont see it as help needed for SC. I see it as a bug problem, and a bug exploit. Same bug than Mist of Deception for that matter: mindless units without a leader *should* crumble. This zombies should not be mindless, or should need a freddy krugger type. Either way, they should rout in turn 50 as every other single attacker does.

triqui

March 27th, 2008, 02:27 PM

On top of that, for him to spam it, he needs multiple mages that can cast it. Not many nations can pull that off.

That's completelly pointless. Not a lot of nations can pull off a Mist of Deception + Wrath skies + returning home combo, and it still is a overpowered combo for those that can. The fact that only a few nations can benefit for this tactic is an aggravated insult. It makes those nations to have access to a very soon and very fast to research anti-awake spell that you have very little chances to survive against due to a bug in the combat resolution. That only some nations can abuse it is what make it less widely known, nothing more.

BTW, Supercombatants probalby dont need further help. But late age ryleh does not need it either, that for sure...

And for the last time, i'm not asking for a nerf to the spell. I'm asking it *works* as the *rules* say it *should* work. Which means attacker loses in turn 50 if defender manage to survive.

thejeff

March 27th, 2008, 02:29 PM

Simplest solution to VotD would be to add leaders for it. Maybe 1/20 or so, so that it's not too easy to just kill the leader to win. Make them as indistinguishable as possible so it's hard to target them. Same size, also mindless, etc.

Then, they'll rout at turn 50 and the chaff will start to disintegrate.

lch

March 27th, 2008, 02:43 PM

Ohhhhhh! Another Vengeance of the Dead thread! When I thought everything that could be said about it has already been done so.

The easy fix to the whole dilemma would be: The devs hack the spell so that the kills from the VotD assassination attempt does not count towards the units kill count.

NTJedi

March 27th, 2008, 11:04 PM

I believe VotD should be adjusted not because of balance reasons, but because events occur which do not make any sense.

This has a few issues which are just logically wrong:

1) Being auto-killed while fleeing during an assassination. Historically and logically incorrect.

2) Successfully fleeing during a dream should at worst cause the target to awaken... maybe with the battle fright affliction.

3) Killing these undead within a dream should not count as kills. This results in one soul being doubled or tripled and appearing in future VotD castings.

4) The battle turn limits... as I understand are 50 the attacker retreats, 75 defender retreats and 100 all attackers are killed. As computers become more and more powerful it would be nice if us gamers had the option of adjusting the battle turn limits. Currently every game we play has this all powerful organized union which forces non-golem attackers to retreat at 5pm... and then forces non-golem defenders to retreat at 8pm. I hate this organized union.

Zeldor

March 28th, 2008, 01:46 AM

NTJedi:

Actually Golem vanishes when his turn limit comes. He just suddenly stops to exist.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 08:28 AM

NTJedi said:

I believe VotD should be adjusted not because of balance reasons, but because events occur which do not make any sense.

This has a few issues which are just logically wrong:

1) Being auto-killed while fleeing during an assassination. Historically and logically incorrect.

2) Successfully fleeing during a dream should at worst cause the target to awaken... maybe with the battle fright affliction.

3) Killing these undead within a dream should not count as kills. This results in one soul being doubled or tripled and appearing in future VotD castings.

4) The battle turn limits... as I understand are 50 the attacker retreats, 75 defender retreats and 100 all attackers are killed. As computers become more and more powerful it would be nice if us gamers had the option of adjusting the battle turn limits. Currently every game we play has this all powerful organized union which forces non-golem attackers to retreat at 5pm... and then forces non-golem defenders to retreat at 8pm. I hate this organized union.

If you did not become auto killed when you fled from assasination it would be very hard to use assasins except on commanders moving with armies. Every player would put all important commanders not currently headed for combat on retreat.

Zeldor

March 28th, 2008, 08:49 AM

johan osterman:

Nah, you wouldn't do that if they would land in neighbouring province. If enemy decided to retreat commanders it would be rather more useful than getting some random kills with assassins.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 09:38 AM

Zeldor said:
johan osterman:

Nah, you wouldn't do that if they would land in neighbouring province. If enemy decided to retreat commanders it would be rather more useful than getting some random kills with assassins.

Which is why I wrote they would put the orders on important commanders not heading for battle. Such as mages researching, casting rituals, site searching, forging. All those would become immune to assasination and assasination spells.

vfb

March 28th, 2008, 10:18 AM

We just need a new battleground for assassinations ... the dead end street the assassin cornered the victim in!

I suggest:

battlemaps/drkalley.d3m
battlemaps/clifedge.d3m
battlemaps/latrine.d3m

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 10:31 AM

If you did not become auto killed when you fled from assasination it would be very hard to use assasins except on commanders moving with armies. Every player would put all important commanders not currently headed for combat on retreat.

That's true. And the turn limit is necesary to avoid game-staling(for example a assasin witn spam-skellie trying to kill a mage with spam-skellie, both with reinvigoration)

But still, the ATTACKER should flee if turn 50 is achieved. That do not happen with VotD, and it is wrong.

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 01:12 PM

johan osterman said:
If you did not become auto killed when you fled from assasination it would be very hard to use assasins except on commanders moving with armies. Every player would put all important commanders not currently headed for combat on retreat.

I actually addressed a solution for this within another thread. What should be done is the assassin should be placed on the defenders side of the battlefield and the defender on the attackers side of the battlefield. This means the commander/mage would have to run past the assassin while retreating.
If the commander does successfully retreat it still ends up in a different province if one is available plus any units under its command would have been left behind. This provides an effective assassination while still being logically and historically accurate.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 02:29 PM

NTJedi said:
I actually addressed a solution for this within another thread. What should be done is the assassin should be placed on the defenders side of the battlefield and the defender on the attackers side of the battlefield. This means the commander/mage would have to run past the assassin while retreating.
If the commander does successfully retreat it still ends up in a different province if one is available plus any units under its command would have been left behind. This provides an effective assassination while still being logically and historically accurate.

I'm not sure why the current assasination is so 'historically and logically' inaccurate though. As vfb suggested an assasination could be taken to represent a scenario where the assasin has attacked a victim where the victim is cornered, with no possibility of escape.

A problem is that assasinations take place in a province that has no neighbours, and neighbours is a function of the map file. Which is why they die when they flee. It is not trivial to add neighbours ingame, and I very much doubt that JK would want to fiddle with it. It is the sort of change that is likely to introduce new bugs and problems. I guess that goes for switching positions on the battlefield as well.

Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 02:37 PM

johan osterman said: I'm not sure why the current assasination is so 'historically and logically' inaccurate though. As vfb suggested an assasination could be taken to represent a scenario where the assasin has attacked a victim where the victim is cornered, with no possibility of escape.

It's historically inaccurate because there have been assassination attempts in history where the target has fled successfully! Within dominions it's impossible and thus historically inaccurate.

johan osterman said:
A problem is that assasinations take place in a province that has no neighbours, and neighbours is a function of the map file. Which is why they die when they flee. It is not trivial to add neighbours ingame, and I very much doubt that JK would want to fiddle with it. It is the sort of change that is likely to introduce new bugs and problems. I guess that goes for switching positions on the battlefield as well.

I understand it's very very unlikely we'll see a change within the current game. The issue is important to mention in hopes of providing a more logical and historically accurate game events for future versions(Dom_4) and any other project(s) Illwinter may be working.

johan osterman said:
Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Since the retreat is the result of a turn limitation it's not death from fear or death from being lost in the dreams. A target which is killed because of a turn limitation is wrong and illogical.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 02:38 PM

johan osterman said:
Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Is this an official point of view from developers? I mean, the spell is working as it is supposed to work (attackers do not rout at turn 50, and defender die in turn 75)?

I'm asking becouse that might be an easy and clean solution for me. If that is *how* the spell is supposed to work, i have exactly ZERO problems with it. I might find it a spell too good for it research cost, but i also find thunderstrike too god for it research cost, and wont ban it from my game. My grief is that, as i understand it, the attacker not disolving in turn 50 was unintended.

So if VotD is offically working as intended, my problem with it vanishes.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 02:38 PM

triqui said:

If you did not become auto killed when you fled from assasination it would be very hard to use assasins except on commanders moving with armies. Every player would put all important commanders not currently headed for combat on retreat.

That's true. And the turn limit is necesary to avoid game-staling(for example a assasin witn spam-skellie trying to kill a mage with spam-skellie, both with reinvigoration)

But still, the ATTACKER should flee if turn 50 is achieved. That do not happen with VotD, and it is wrong.

I guess this work this way because the VotD is placed in a province. Then the victim is teleported there. As the dead are allready in place theyr are considered the defenders. In order to change the defender attacker situation it might be that you would have to have created 2 provinces. 1 where a commander is teleported. 1 where the dead starts. Then move the dead would have to move from their province to the province of the victim. I think it is possible that this would not be accomplishable without major changes to the turn sequence and turn resoluation. Which I know from experience that JK is extremely reluctant to do. Once again because it is the sort of situation that is very liable to break old things and introduce new bugs.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 02:40 PM

As the dead are allready in place theyr are considered the defenders.

I dont think so. In my battle report, the dead are in the left side of the screen. My SC does the first movement. And on turn 50, i get a "the army of Ryleh is routed" message. Just that the undead do not rout at all (or vanish like golems do)

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 02:46 PM

triqui said:

johan osterman said:
Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Is this an official point of view from developers? I mean, the spell is working as it is supposed to work (attackers do not rout at turn 50, and defender die in turn 75)?

I'm asking becouse that might be an easy and clean solution for me. If that is *how* the spell is supposed to work, i have exactly ZERO problems with it. I might find it a spell too good for it research cost, but i also find thunderstrike too god for it research cost, and wont ban it from my game. My grief is that, as i understand it, the attacker not disolving in turn 50 was unintended.

So if VotD is offically working as intended, my problem with it vanishes.

Well it is working as intended, it is not bugged.. Perhaps it would be desirable that the dead where the attackers. Or that the dead not count as kills or what have you. But those things are not trivial to accomplish. There has been debate abnout this spell since dom 1 days. And JK has resisted all attempts to convince him to change it in either of those ways.

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM

Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM

triqui said:

As the dead are allready in place theyr are considered the defenders.

I dont think so. In my battle report, the dead are in the left side of the screen. My SC does the first movement. And on turn 50, i get a "the army of Ryleh is routed" message. Just that the undead do not rout at all (or vanish like golems do)

Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 02:52 PM

johan osterman said:
Well it is working as intended, it is not bugged.. Perhaps it would be desirable that the dead where the attackers. Or that the dead not count as kills or what have you. But those things are not trivial to accomplish. There has been debate abnout this spell since dom 1 days. And JK has resisted all attempts to convince him to change it in either of those ways.

Thanks. That finish all my grief with this spell, period http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

PS: i still would like it worked other way around, but if it is WAD, it is not an exploit to kill anyone with it. So I'm fine with it.

PS: i still believe the attackers are the dead. They get the "rout" message. They just do not disolve like golems do.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 02:54 PM

In response to NTjedi

It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 02:57 PM

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I understand the turn has to end. However to kill because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong. A commander/mage powerful enough to survive 50+ rounds during an assassination deserves to live... based on history and logic.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 02:59 PM

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I dont get it. How is so? I mean... the turn 50 attackers "should" retreat. Even attackrs that do not retreat (like golems) die. However, in this spell, the attacker do not retreat or die. How is it that this is there to make sure turns end? Wouldnt the turn ends regardless if the attackers could retreat or vanish, like golems do?
EDIT: answered before your edit, didnt know you were speaking to nt jedi. My question remains, though.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 02:59 PM

NTJedi said:
Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

I agree with that. Actually, anything that would have a turn limitation is bad.

Solutions : you could :
- add a cumulative 1 damage from fatigue every turn beyond 50 (this has its own issue, I'm not too much in favor of it),
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun),
- or anything else.

The fact that it doesn't make sense that the dead multiply when killed in a dream could be logical in a "dominion" sense, I mean, he did kill them again and could dream of them again. The fact that people just die suddenly when a turn limit is passed ? That cannot make sense.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 03:02 PM

kasnavada said:
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun)

That does not work. Two combatants with spam skelleton and enough reinvigoration can fight forever. Two lighting inmune combatants with lighting damage whips cant kill each other, ever. The game HAS to have a hardset turn limit. The cummulative fatigue might work, but so does the regular turn limit. The only doubt is what happens when a unit that reach its own turn limit rout, does not rout.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 03:05 PM

The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

It could require (a lot of) work from the devs, but I don't take that in consideration when I propose things, because I have no clue of whether it's hard to do or not.

Please reconsider what you wrote in regard to what I wrote. With what I say, there are ways to finish the battle.

Foodstamp

March 28th, 2008, 03:09 PM

The battle would still not resolve in the examples Triqui gave. As far as the fatigue goes, are you suggesting the fatigue rises after the turn limit until the participants die? If that is the case, the outcome would be exactly the same as the current turn limit system.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 03:14 PM

kasnavada said:
The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

So when the battle ends, who hold the province? Who can rais the taxes, or recruit there? Where does the attacker goes? What about assasinations? would they last for several months or years? It is just not viable. At the end of the turn, resolution must be done. Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 03:18 PM

I'm sure the community could brainstorm ways of improving assassination battles to make more sense, I've provided several good starting examples. Unfortunately we're not going to see anything changing with Dominions_3.

Hopefully assassination battles will be improved within DOM_4 to be more logical and historically accurate.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 03:20 PM

It is not likely to be a dom4 in the foreseeable future.

NTJedi

March 28th, 2008, 03:22 PM

johan osterman said:
It is not likely to be a dom4 in the foreseeable future.

I realize we won't see a DOM_4 for at least 4 years... maybe 10 years, but based on the success of DOM_3 I believe it has a good chance of happening.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 03:39 PM

triqui said:
Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, nor change the tax, nor recruit in it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

That is ONE solution among many that make it work. It could require too much changes to game mechanics. I propose it anyway, who knows, maybe it'll be there for dominions 4.

Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

For the fatigue system : just make it so the damage is taken unit per unit in order of initiative, or taken attacker first, then defender, solves the problem.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed, and have multiple solutions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif Can't you just try to say "that won't work unless you do this and this ? maybe this would solve the problem too ?" instead of purposely blocking the discussion with "that doesn't work". That's how discussions advance. Ho, and don't take it personally. Other people on forums do this. I never understand why.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

EDIT : somethings that didn't make sense.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 04:01 PM

kasnavada said:

triqui said:
Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, change the tax, control it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

I dont think that makes any sense from a thematic point of view. Two warriors fighting in the same province for years with no rest? That destroy my suspension of disbelief.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

I still it does not make sense from a game design point of view. Games HAVE rules to avoid infinite cycles for a reason. Chess have a rule to end the game if there is a perpetual check situation for example.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed,

Becouse of a science principle called "occam razor". It *^might^* be possible to get a solution that avoid every possible danger and exploit in a perpetually stalled province (imagine a battle like that in someones capitol...). The point is.. WHY bothering with it? Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner. The only problem is when some unit does not behave as it is supposed in the turn limit (like not retreating at turn 50). Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months.

Foodstamp

March 28th, 2008, 04:16 PM

Here is a quick fix for you guys so you will not have to deal with Vengeance of the Dead. Copy what I have typed below into a new notepad document, "save as", "all file types" novotd.dm. This mod takes VOTD out of the game. Go into preferences, choose mod options, select this mod.

#modname "No VotD"
#domversion 3.15
#description "This mod eliminates VotD"
#version 1.0
#selectspell 660
#school -1
#end

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 04:22 PM

Foodstamp said:
Here is a quick fix for you guys so you will not have to deal with Vengeance of the Dead. Copy what I have typed below into a new notepad document, "save as", "all file types" novotd.dm. This mod takes VOTD out of the game. Go into preferences, choose mod options, select this mod.

#modname "No VotD"
#domversion 3.15
#description "This mod eliminates VotD"
#version 1.0
#selectspell 660
#school -1
#end

I think JO has just said that it works as it is intended, so my grief with the spell vanishes completelly. It is not that i dont like the spell or i dont like to lose SC. My problem was that, in my opinion, the spell was working buggy. If it is not, i dont have any problem with it, as i dont have any problem with mind hunt. I might like the spell more working differently, but as long as it work WAD, I'm comfortable with it.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 04:30 PM

Triqui :
Reinvigorisation and regeneration could make a person involved not sleep during a whole month. It's magic. Once again, you see a block where there is none.

About the fact that "Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner.", in your opinion maybe. In my opinion, it's messing the game up, because somehow, as was said by someone else : "why do all troops stop to fight at 5pm and golems stop at 8 pm ?".

The Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is the right one. In case you don't know, it's not always true, that is the very definition of a "principle". Check wikipedia if you do not trust me, especially the "Controversial aspects of the Razor" section. Also, I personally do not care at all about the simplest solution. I propose solution(s) that make sense in a certain mindset, and whether it's complicated or not is not taken into consideration. Then whoever is in charge decides to implement it or not. That's also the reason why I do not try to destroy the solutions of other people because they do not make sense to me.

"Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months."
That is what "contested" means. It's not a weird limbo... and it's done in other strategy games too. I really do not see what is shocking you, but, I respect your opinion. It's not like I'm going to convince you to like it. I can only show you that it can work.

Again, I say that the solutions I proposed here are only proposals. I'll contradict you if you're saying that they don't work when they do, but if your prefer another one, feel free to take time to think about it and post your solution. It's far more productive and useful than wasting your time by trying to destroy the other solutions that works, only because you do not like them.

Once again, I do not mean harm. It's just something that I don't understand in people behaviour. Bashing a solution that works instead of finding another one that also solves the problem seems like a waste of time to me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Foodstamp

March 28th, 2008, 04:30 PM

The mod gives you the option to create new MP games without VotD if you like. I am also willing to create a mod that eliminates everything that you guys are deeming exploits in other threads:

Vengeance of the Dead
Mists of Deception
Sickle whose Crop is Pain
Twiceborn

I can't mod out the retreating after casting enchantments or prevent people from hexediting files.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 04:36 PM

kasnavada said:
the other solutions that works

That your solution "works" is (quoting you know) ONLY YOUR OPINION. I firmly believe your "solution" does not "work" at all for the reasons i mentioned before.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 04:39 PM

Foodstamp said:
The mod gives you the option to create new MP games without VotD if you like. I am also willing to create a mod that eliminates everything that you guys are deeming exploits in other threads:

Vengeance of the Dead
Mists of Deception
Sickle whose Crop is Pain
Twiceborn

I can't mod out the retreating after casting enchantments or prevent people from hexediting files.

Problem is that twiceborn is not an exploit per se. It is a useful and cool spell, that some specific nations/units can exploit to gain an extra adventage (a limited form of inmortality) through a bug. i preffer just to sign a gentleman pact about not using twiceborn on demons.

VotD is WAD, so no problem with it, and i dont have a problem with the sickle. MoD is already banned in most games i think.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 04:43 PM

Your "arguments" are, I quote you :

It *^might^* be possible to get a solution that avoid every possible danger and exploit in a perpetually stalled province (imagine a battle like that in someones capitol...). The point is.. WHY bothering with it? Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner.

Unless I somehow forgot how to speak english properly, what you said is : "It would probably work but involves lots of changes."

Am I wrong ? I will have to relearn English all over again if I am though. That would be a pain.

For your information the system that I speak about already exists in other games : an example would be planet ground fighting system in MOO3. This game has issues too, but whatever, they are off-topic.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 04:48 PM

kasnavada said:
Unless I somehow forgot how to speak english properly, what you said is : "It would probably work but involves lots of changes."

Am I wrong ? I will have to relearn English all over again if I am though. That would be a pain.

Yep, you'll have to relearn English, or i'll do. Becouse we read the sentence completelly different. What i said is:

While it *might* be possible to find a way your solution works (which it still DOESNT, hence the "might", which is even marked with *^ ^* to stress it), it is not worth the effort.

Shortly, in my opinion, your solution does not work. It *might* (or might not) be possible to find a way that it *could* work in an hypothetical future, but it is not worth the effort (once again, in my opinion)

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 05:03 PM

Triqui... reread with a cool head what you just wrote later on please...

Kuritza

March 28th, 2008, 05:06 PM

johan osterman said:
Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

And there's a rather simple solution - replace these undead with another type of chaff, not mindless. Incredibly brave, like morale 30+, but not immune to rout. Make a special 'avenging soul' creature for VotD, maybe make it slightly tougher to compensate. Problem solved - on turn 50 souls flee, victim wakes up victorious.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Triqui... reread with a cool head what you just wrote later on please...

Done. I stand on what i said.

Your solutio, as you has proposed, does not work.

I believe that, with enough effort, you could find a way it could work (or not). Currently it doesnt.

That effort is pointless, becouse even if you find a way it works, it is still inferior to the hardcap turn limit.

So i dont see why we should spend a lot of hours trying to make a way your proposal *might* work in a future, just to get a 2nd rate solution that is still, in my opinion, inferior to the hard cap limit.

Foodstamp

March 28th, 2008, 05:12 PM

Kuritza said:

johan osterman said:
Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

And there's a rather simple solution - replace these undead with another type of chaff, not mindless. Incredibly brave, like morale 30+, but not immune to rout. Make a special 'avenging soul' creature for VotD, maybe make it slightly tougher to compensate. Problem solved - on turn 50 souls flee, victim wakes up victorious.

This sounds like a simple fix to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 05:12 PM

Kuritza said:

johan osterman said:
Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

And there's a rather simple solution - replace these undead with another type of chaff, not mindless. Incredibly brave, like morale 30+, but not immune to rout. Make a special 'avenging soul' creature for VotD, maybe make it slightly tougher to compensate. Problem solved - on turn 50 souls flee, victim wakes up victorious.

I think the problem is not that they are mindless. The problem is that they are leaderless. Golems are mindless i think, but vanish on turn 50.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 05:19 PM

I think that I put triqui in a mood where he will just refute any solution that works.

I like your solution foodstamp, it certainly the simplest found so far.

triqui

March 28th, 2008, 05:26 PM

kasnavada said:
I think that I put triqui in a mood where he will just refute any solution that works.

I like your solution foodstamp, it certainly the simplest found so far.

Nope, i would refute any solution that DOESNT work. Like yours :p

Kuritza solution might work, but i think the problem is not that they are mindless, it is that they dont have a leader. So changing them to non-mindless wont work, unless you make a leader for them.

johan osterman

March 28th, 2008, 06:05 PM

As I recall they are all leaders.

kasnavada

March 28th, 2008, 10:00 PM

Nope, i would refute any solution that DOESNT work. Like yours :p

You have refused the solutions because you do not like them, not because they fail to achieve the wanted result : "getting rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which cause the problem here. Maybe I should have stated the objective of the solutions I proposed before. I simply thought that vengeance of the dead before the time limit causes no problem, and that the combinaison with the time limit causes the problem. Therefore I set out to destroy any way I can that time limit.

As I said, this system I propose exists in other games and but a copy of something that works. But let's examine more closely how does the system I proposed work ? Here is an example.

Player1 is in possession of province called A.
Player2 is in possession of province called B.
Both attack a province called C.

Month 1 :
The attack ends up because of the time limit (let's say 50 turns). With the system I propose, the game saves all parameters (fatigue, position...) once the 50 turns end.

As far as I know, the game calculates the battle turns one after the other (that's what the turn counter and review of battle suggests), and passes every units one after the other in order of initiative, so restarting a fight means getting a new turn, and getting reinforcements would basically work like a summon. In short : restarting a fight every turn just means saving all parameters somewhere it can be taken again (which the game does at the end of every battle turn anyway) and running a new turn.

I might be wrong on that point of course, but it doesn't matter much. Even if it doesn't work that way, enabling a battle to restart just means storing informations and reloading it, before resuming the battle script.

Month 2 :
The province is in contested mode. That means the things I've written above are in effect (no one controls the provinces, both armies are in the province, no one can recruit and so on). I know that it currently doesn't exists, and that currently the provinces always have a controller. That's the very reason that cause the system to be a solution : it changes the game. That seems pretty obvious, if you do not change anything, the problem will not solve itself.

But the problem is not here anymore : since reinforcements can arrive during turn two, the battle results, locked before the reinforcements, don't have the same result. It could be anything from another lock to a victory on either side. Let's take the example of the 2 mages that skelly spam during the first month. During the second month, one of them is joined by a few priests that spam banishment, while the other is left alone. One mage wins.

Since other units can join the battle, the situation where there was a "infinite" battle never occurs unless both player want to. That shouldn't happen because it's bad for both players to block the game that way. Another idea to place here is fatigue : after all, the characters have been fighting a whole month. Well, months in dominions seem to last 1 day anyway, since there can only be 1 battle in an entire month and without magic help, the battle happens always during a single day (the sun never sets) and always during the day. Items that enable you to spend the entire "month" without sleeping are therefore nothing special, especially since it could be a side effect of using those items at all. For all I know, those items are put off so the people can sleep on usual days.

Another proposition that could be added for this idea : adding a cumulative malus to fatigue when the battle lasts for more than a month, to simulate the stress of battling for long. A special affliction or malus to morale might also work. That would be good for balance reasons.

Now, tell me, what in the concept I propose is so flawed that it doesn't "work". I hope that this time I won't get stupids answers like "you change the game" or "it's not going to be this way because it requires too much work", because it's off-topic. The only way I can put those arguments in single terms would be : saying that you can't sit on a chair with 4 legs, because the current chairs have a single leg and it's too complicated to make chairs with 4 legs. That's the reason why this argument (the only one you have put, apart from the fact that you don't like it) has no weight in my opinion. In simple terms again, you can sit on both.

I'm interested only on the concept, not the realisation. What is it, in that system, that does not "gets rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which is the objective of that change ? I truly wish to know that.

By the way, if others than triqui could also try their luck and point out something that doesn't work, I'd be glad to hear it. After all, I could really be wrong, but since the only counter-argument that was opposed was off-topic... Thanks in advance.

In the case of VoTD, this change would mean that the victim of that spell would be locked in a nightmare for a few game months when the spell penetrates the spell resistance, and he would then come back (if he is powerful enough to beat all the ghosts of course), rather than die.

triqui

March 29th, 2008, 01:56 AM

kasnavada said:
You have refused the solutions because you do not like them, not because they fail to achieve the wanted result : "getting rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which cause the problem here. Maybe I should have stated the objective of the solutions I proposed before. I simply thought that vengeance of the dead before the time limit causes no problem, and that the combinaison with the time limit causes the problem. Therefore I set out to destroy any way I can that time limit.

The problem is that you dont seem to understant where the problem lies. The only problem is vengeance of the dead, not the turn limit, period. There are NOT unlogical kills caused by time limitation anywhere in any other moment. At turn 50 the attacker RETIRES (not die) and in turn 75 the defender retires if the attacker havent done so (he might be paralized for example). They dont die, so there is no "unlogical kills" needed to be solved. You are messing with an akward solution that requires to change the game mechanics (like no recruiting, or taxing, a province) to solve a problem that does not exist. The only problem is that, during VotD, the attacker does not retreat as it is supposed to do, period. So fix the VotD, not the entire game

Now, tell me, what in the concept I propose is so flawed that it doesn't "work".

It would need an entire encyclopedia, but i will state just a few.

In your example you conveniently made the fighters attack a third uncontrolled (Since both attack it) province. What if one of them is attacking a province controlled by another player? The province go "uncontested", as you said. Fine. Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense. First, not every character would have it equipped before they enter in a locking battle, mainly becouse they might not know that the battle will be locked. If you mean that everybody has such items "freely", well, then you have just erased Vengeance of the Dead from the game (As the spell attacks you while you sleep, its a nightmare).

Your proposal is complicated, absurd, destroy the suspension of disbelief, is unthematic, do not really resolve the problem of VotD (one month sleeping? ), it's akward and weird, will provoke more bugs and problems, it still might produce infinite loop battles (VotD with a SC that only does poison damage -the UD are inmune- and has more than enough regeneration and protection to be unkillable in 50 turns, just to point an easy one), do not have any single adventage over a hard cap turn limit, is hard to implement, and is just copied from a different game that has completelly different basis.

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Feel free to answer or not, i wont waste more time to restate that your idea is not worth it, the hard cap limit is 1000 times better.

Reay

March 29th, 2008, 02:55 AM

So the souls do not suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50 because they are all leaders? Mindless also never rout, so it seems VOTD is working as designed otherwise they would not have made the souls all leaders.

Oh well I'd prefer if there was only one or two leaders so the souls would all suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50. I guess the developers can argue thematically that this is a dream and therefore can justify time out kills.

Rathar

March 29th, 2008, 03:04 AM

/beatsadeadhorse.

Dude Triqui, you are being a condescending weenie.

kasnavada

March 29th, 2008, 04:39 AM

That's the reason why I asked for the input of others, since he seems to be the only one to see impossibilities where there is none.

Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

Yes, so what is the problem exactly if no one controls the capital province ?

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

. That's the very reason I also suggested a fatigue mechanism for battle that last months, as a balance mechanism...

Also, you seem to forget that Dominions is not made from one single province but a lot of them. The war around would go on, even if 3 or 4 provinces are blocked.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense.

Sigh... as is magic or in the most part all fantasy or science fiction games. I mean, gods walking the earth ? battles that are always fought during a single day in daylight ? If you are to remove all that doesn't make sense, you are going to remove just everything. It's to the devs to decide whether it make sense or not.

As far as I know, it might make sense to them that all troops fight in a single day in daylight in a month and all attackers rout at 5 pm and troops that can't rout die at 8 pm.

Your proposal is (...)

Who do you think you are ? All those point are for the game creators to decide, not you ! As far as I know, it's not written "johan osterman" nor "Kristoffer O" in your name tag. You simply do not know whether the solution I propose is whatever you call it, because it's not your decision, and AFAIK, it's not anything you (or I) can know about...

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Again, I don't care if you think it sucks. I don't care about it being awesome. I don't care if it's complicated. The only think I'm interested in is whether it works, or not.

Since you seem bent on the idea that it doesn't, and I think the opposite, I asked for other people to point out which one is right.

Sad to see that only a few care ! Well, of course, after a page of discussion, I would also be reluctant to join and write some more...

Kristoffer O

March 29th, 2008, 04:48 AM

Be civil, please.

Rathar: I would have preferred if you said "Dude Triqui, you come out as unreasonably condescending", or something similar. The weenie part is unnecessary.

Agrajag

March 29th, 2008, 06:01 AM

Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

kasnavada

March 29th, 2008, 06:27 AM

The game currently doesn't support 3 way fights. The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

Ideas : instead of having two sides, you would have the first two 'first' sides fighting each other and having the third one coming from the side. Or, to keep a closer "layout" compared to what exists now, from the back of one of the nations involved (the 3rd attacker could chooses which one ? as a bonus ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif). Or something else.

Rathar

March 29th, 2008, 08:06 AM

My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

Anyways..

It has seemed to me that this idea in general and the topic that there are certain "way messed up bugs if you take advantage of them" has been dominating the airwaves recently.

Personally, I think that as long as you spell out the 'Rules' ala Velusion(Really simplistic, common sense structure imho) style then anything goes. Use common sense.

If someone uses a "known" bug then say "uh, thats a known bug. Would you like to reconsider? Due to x,y and z?"

We aren't using Napoleonic law folks.. At least most of us!? Be less quick to judge your neighbors. Give people the benefit of the doubt. If they lie, you get the karma!

At any rate!..

I think that VOTD should peak at actual "in game" souls I.E. those which have been slain during the "normal" game phase. This increase due to slaying the dead is BS!" "Total BS!" he said.

Agrajag

March 29th, 2008, 08:34 AM

kasnavada said:
The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

So basically, completely redesigning and implementing one of the most basic parts of the game?
This (well, all of your change, really) will not happen in a patch. Dom4 is not anywhere in sight (ie it isn't even planned to be released sometimes eventually in the uncertain future).
So why bother with it?
I can understand that it's fun to fantasize, but you have to realize and understand that this is just a fantasy.

Kuritza

March 29th, 2008, 09:13 AM

triqui said:

Kuritza said:

johan osterman said:
Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

And there's a rather simple solution - replace these undead with another type of chaff, not mindless. Incredibly brave, like morale 30+, but not immune to rout. Make a special 'avenging soul' creature for VotD, maybe make it slightly tougher to compensate. Problem solved - on turn 50 souls flee, victim wakes up victorious.

I think the problem is not that they are mindless. The problem is that they are leaderless. Golems are mindless i think, but vanish on turn 50.

AFAIK golems vanish on turn 75, when all troops get autokilled. So nonmindless leaderless troops still might rout, it has to be checked.

kasnavada

March 29th, 2008, 09:22 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif I've been saying that it won't happen since the start. Check post #592492 : "It could require (a lot of) work from the devs". My next posts also say it :
(autoquote)
"That is ONE solution among many that make it work. It could require too much changes to game mechanics. I propose it anyway, who knows, maybe it'll be there for dominions 4."
"I hope that this time I won't get stupids answers like "you change the game" or "it's not going to be this way because it requires too much work", because it's off-topic."

I don't have the vanity to decide whether the adjustements would really require too much work, however. I've never seen or modified the dominions 3 code, after all.

If you say "it won't happen because the workload could be too much", I would just have said yes, and left the matter pass as I intended. If someone says "it doesn't work because the workload is too important", it's simply wrong. A solution can work even if it is not put in place, even if another one is better. For example, you can cross an ocean with a plane, a boat, a bridge, or a tunnel. The tunnel and bridge will probably never be put into place because it would take too much ressources, but the tunnel and bridge solution still works regarless.

I didn't answer again and again because I want this solution to be in the game. I answered because the arguments that were put to silence it were wrong.

Agrajag

March 29th, 2008, 09:32 AM

I'm not saying you said something that is incorrect, but are you sure that multiplayer-daydreaming about Dom4 is really on topic in a thread about VotD?

kasnavada

March 29th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Yes, it belongs here, since it does solve what others and I see as the "problem" in VotD as a side effect. The time limit problem.

I agree that it's not enough to monopolise the discussion for pages though. I didn't intend to have to explain how it worked for pages, but had to because someone didn't get the difference between "it won't happen" and "it doesn't work".

/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

Some people here are not natives (myself included). Using the right words for the right meaning avoids pointless misunderstandings, especially on a forum.

triqui

March 29th, 2008, 10:23 AM

Agrajag said:
Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

point, game, set and match.

And that's just the point of the iceberg of the several and several bugs and complications you could get just becouse you try to introduce a *completelly unnecessary* mechanism to fix something that *is not what is broken*

Start to think about how many complications you could find: several nations fighting there, several ritual combat spells there, people entering an breaking sieges, etc.

What about this?
instead of a third army joining the battle (which would be "solved" by the army entering the battle from a side), TEN different armies join the fight. From 10 different nations (using flying, teleport, cloudtrapeze, and what not). How do you put them in combat? 3 x side?

Or what about this:

2 armies fighting a contested province, in a long, draw battle (2 strong SC very hard to kill). Suddenly, one of the players attepmt an assasination. That also becomes a locked battle. Other player (from a third nation if you want), cast vengance of the dead, which target the same SC. It also becomes a lock battle. So now we have a character that is fighting THREE DIFFERENT locked battles in the SAME PROVINCE, for SEVERAL MONTHS. And we have not even started to playtest it with the really complicated issues.

What about if 10 assasins try to assasinate the same SC, which happen to lock the first one battle. Do the assasins stay there sitting on a rock waiting their turn? do they gangbang the SC (assasins should fight alone) Do the SC enter 10 different locked battles?

Sorry to burst your bubble again but *it doesn't work*. Doesn't. In present tense. It *might* work in another game (be it dominions 4 or The sims 3). In this game, with this ruleset, it does not work.

triqui

March 29th, 2008, 10:24 AM

Rathar said:
My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

I, myself, didnt find it an insult. I understood it as it was, so no problem from me there.

thejeff

March 29th, 2008, 10:31 AM

Nah, he's right, technically. There are workarounds, or fiat solutions for all these issues. It could be made to work.

But it's a huge fundamental change to the way dominions combat works, that would introduce all sorts of unforeseeable weirdnesses and exploits, in addition to whatever you think of here. All for the sake of fixing a small isolated problem with much simpler solutions.

And it's not going to be implemented anyway.

So can we please stop talking about it.

You're arguing semantics now. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. It is at all practical? No.

Agrajag

March 29th, 2008, 10:53 AM

kasnavada said:
Yes, it belongs here, since it does solve what others and I see as the "problem" in VotD as a side effect. The time limit problem.

Then I will disagree, will then state that perhaps this is better suited to a thread like "Dom4 wishlist" and conclude by leaving the issue before this thread becomes too much of a meta-thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

kasnavada

March 29th, 2008, 06:06 PM

Then I will disagree, will then state that perhaps this is better suited to a thread like "Dom4 wishlist" and conclude by leaving the issue before this thread becomes too much of a meta-thread

Well, somewhere above, someone said that this issue about VotD was discovered and debated during dominions 2, so... putting a wish that could possibly be granted only for dominions 4 didn't seem strange to me.

Sorry all for monopolising the thread for so long about a side issue, now that I got answers from other people, I've nothing to add. Whoever reads will have enough information to make it's own decision.

Gregstrom

March 30th, 2008, 04:17 AM

For the sake of suggesting a solution that could work now with less awkward re-coding, I'll throw this into the mix.

Have the dead that appear be units called Vengeful Spirits. Have 6 varieties, with sizez from 1 to 6. The different sizes would represent different numbers of kille (graphics for the larger units would need to show a sort of monster formed from congealed spirits). Say Size-1 = 1 kill, size-2 = 5, 3=10, 4=25, 5=50, 6=100. The larger spirits make up relatively small proportions of the whole force - i.e. for 500 kills you might get 1 of size 6, 3 size 5, 4 size 4, 5 size 3, 10 size 2 and the rest size 1.

Bigger spirits would have better stats, with the size 6 units being able to make an SC slightly nervous. Give them all Morale 30, which I think means they won't autorout before turn 50.

vfb

March 30th, 2008, 05:01 AM

It is much simpler to just ignore kills in a VoD battle, for the purposes of the SC kill count. Then you don't double up the souls. And it still makes sense.

Congealed spirits sounds like some kind of drink I'd rather avoid.

Gregstrom

March 30th, 2008, 05:10 AM

That assumes that ignoring kills is a simple thing to do. I'm guessing that if it was a 5 minute quick fix to do that, someone would have done it.

Also, this works around the auto-kill on turn 75 'feature' of the spell.

If you want to look at congealed spirits irl, try pouring Baileys into Creme de Menthe.

vfb

March 30th, 2008, 07:36 AM

I didn't say it's a five minute fix. But it's an extremely easy fix, especially compared to what you are suggesting. The code already knows if a battle is an assassination, since that's what determines the result of fleeing (death versus escape).

I don't really care about the 75-turn death feature. I just don't like the souls doubling up. It doesn't make sense, and it conflicts with the spell description.

Gregstrom

March 30th, 2008, 10:33 AM

Err, from JO's post earlier, the death on escape happens because the assassination is a battle occurring on a province with no neighbours and not because assassinations run on a special instance of the battle code.

I dislike the 75-turn death feature because it's apparently the cause of many of the kills against even well built SC's. After a certain point it's impossible to kill that many soulless in the requisite time period and death is guaranteed even when it's otherwise unreasonable. The doubling up feature on VotD accelerates a process that can happen anyway.

vfb

March 30th, 2008, 11:28 AM

Oops http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif! I shouldn't have made that assumption. I still think it would be easier to simply use a flag indicating that the battle is an assassination. We need that anyway so assassination battles can ignore any scripted Retreats. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I can see why you and other people dislike the 75-turn thing. I'm in the "death is part of the game" crowd on that issue though.

Gregstrom

March 30th, 2008, 12:20 PM

I agree that death is part of the game. The death at turn 75 thing is, well, inelegant. And perhaps a bit too arbitrary. Past a certain kill count, it turns VotD into a Mind Hunt that specifically targets that SC you really want to kill instead of the chaff commanders surrounding him, and the casting mage can't even be caught and Feebleminded by other Astral mages. All for 3 gems.

Actually, you might not need the assassination flag to disable retreats. Just tell the AI 'if the province has no neighbours, don't retreat'.

fictionfan

May 16th, 2008, 10:53 PM

Actually the spell Vengeance of the Dead has never worked for me. It has always been resisted. SC's about all ways have hight MR because otherwise they are charmed,enslaved or paralyzed.

Loren

May 16th, 2008, 11:13 PM

Gregstrom said:
I agree that death is part of the game. The death at turn 75 thing is, well, inelegant. And perhaps a bit too arbitrary. Past a certain kill count, it turns VotD into a Mind Hunt that specifically targets that SC you really want to kill instead of the chaff commanders surrounding him, and the casting mage can't even be caught and Feebleminded by other Astral mages. All for 3 gems.

Actually, you might not need the assassination flag to disable retreats. Just tell the AI 'if the province has no neighbours, don't retreat'.

No--this opens up the possibility of an infinite battle. What happens when you have two guys who can't hurt each other? I've seen it happen--two casters who never did anything to each other. One was summoning skeletons, the other was smiting them.

My take on it: So long as the number of real hp's (critters that entered the battlefield, not summons) on the battlefield goes down the battle continues. If nothing is happening then you retreat those who can retreat. You only kill if retreating doesn't resolve the situation.

Jack Simth

May 16th, 2008, 11:24 PM

Loren said:
No--this opens up the possibility of an infinite battle. What happens when you have two guys who can't hurt each other? I've seen it happen--two casters who never did anything to each other. One was summoning skeletons, the other was smiting them.

My take on it: So long as the number of real hp's (critters that entered the battlefield, not summons) on the battlefield goes down the battle continues. If nothing is happening then you retreat those who can retreat. You only kill if retreating doesn't resolve the situation.

That'd do it. You'll want to put a turn count on there before it starts checking for nondecreasing HP, though - you don't want your entire army routing on turn 2 because nobody happened to be in range to shoot at the other guy...

Loren

May 17th, 2008, 03:30 PM

Jack Simth said:

Loren said:
No--this opens up the possibility of an infinite battle. What happens when you have two guys who can't hurt each other? I've seen it happen--two casters who never did anything to each other. One was summoning skeletons, the other was smiting them.

My take on it: So long as the number of real hp's (critters that entered the battlefield, not summons) on the battlefield goes down the battle continues. If nothing is happening then you retreat those who can retreat. You only kill if retreating doesn't resolve the situation.

That'd do it. You'll want to put a turn count on there before it starts checking for nondecreasing HP, though - you don't want your entire army routing on turn 2 because nobody happened to be in range to shoot at the other guy...

I was thinking to start checking at maybe turn 50 and it should be a peak over 10 turns, not round by round. After all, you can have a case of hurt, healed, hurt, healed. So long as the peaks are declining the battle will eventually resolve.