.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)
-   -   MP: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=49229)

Man with No Name January 21st, 2013 05:35 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbz (Post 816529)
Personally I think its quite silly to require of someone to remove an assassin from what he should be doing(a.k.a assassinate) just because somehow he picked up a soul contract)

I would say it is unfortunate rather than silly. As in it is unfortunate that you are forced to change your plans because something unwanted and out of your control happened. But that is the reality of a situation like this. It does not matter if the original plan of the player (when buying the merc at the sieged fort) was to leave it behind to assassinate when the army moved away. The realities of the situation, and the changed nature of the Terminus unit (due to the unwanted Soul Contract), meant that the player had to change their plans, or directly cause an exploit if they didn't. (although it would certainly have helped to tell the affected player how to break the fort-lockdown. But I'll come onto that later)

You can say it is silly that a single Scout unit can block an entire army. And it is silly. But silly or not that is what can happen unfortunately, and players need to accept the responsibility for not exploiting the flaws in the game engine. As if the players themselves do not accept the responsibility, then who will? Because someone has to or MP games could become highly disrupted by players using exploits (if it were not the players responsibilty to make sure they don't use them)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbz (Post 816529)
So to save yourself some more arguing, next time you are about to use a scout unit with a soul contract tell the person you are using it against how to counter the unwanted effects from it - a.k.a the patrtol/break siege thingy.
this way you can be happy killing off his commanders and he can be happy that he is not locked by a supposed exploit.

I think it would be difficult to get players to agree to that solution. As in many cases it would mean you would be telling your opponent your exact plans.

As in this example the Ulm player would have needed to be told that the sieging army was moving away (very useful info to know), and that there was going to be an assassin with a Soul Contract left behind.(always useful to know if there are hostile assassins in your provinces). I think a lot of players would be reluctant to give away such important strategic info to their opponent. But maybe I am wrong here and players will freely tell their plans to their opponent in advance, and the location of their assassin units. That is unrealistic I would say.


The only real solution is for players to be made aware of this exploit, what causes it, and then have the onus of responsibility placed on the players themselves to make sure they do not intentionally engineer situations where this exploit is almost certain to occur. Which is what happneed here, as the orders issued were unlikely to result in any other outcome, and I don't see how any other outcome could have been expected given the actions undertaken (those actions being moving the sieging army away, and leaving the Soul Contract assassin behind). Not unless the Ulm player did not ever attempt to break a token siege. Which sounds like it wasn't the case as the sieging army moved away, I guess because it feared a significant break siege attempt.

This exploit can be directly compared to move-blocking. As there the onus is on the player not to intentionally move-block other players, and I see no reason why this exploit does not fall into the same catagory, and so dealt with in the same manner. As both are based on a flaw in the game engine that allows a player to interfere with another players actions in a non-meaningful engagement, and at insignificant risk and cost. The only real difference is that with the fort-lockdown there is another exploit that can be used to counter it, which is not the case with move-blocking. (although that only applies if there is more than one commander unit in the sieged fort. As one has to break siege, and the other ordered to patrol. If there is only one commander, then AFAIK the siege can not be broken)

jimbojones1971 January 21st, 2013 08:45 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Good to see that this is now resolved.

Ragnarok-X: I understand that there may have been some ambiguity. For future reference, this is an exploit - even though it does notably reduce the use of the commander. Chalk it down to bad lack on your part.

Tiavals January 21st, 2013 10:40 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
As a curiosity, how do you people feel about the old "leave one soulless behind to hold up an entire fort full of mages and giants while leaving your sieging army elsewhere" trick? Clearly if the people inside the fort had any initiative, they would kill the soulless in seconds and retake the almost empty province. But it's not an exploit in the same way the auto-spawning stealth unit is. Is it unsportsmanlike to leave a single worthless unit to hold a fort down? It is somewhat like move-blocking, since you're using very few resources to hinder a huge part of the enemy army.

Admiral_Aorta January 21st, 2013 10:45 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
There's not really a problem with doing that, since you can just break the siege and kill the unit and you're good to go. I've never heard of anyone taking issue with doing that anyway.

jimbojones1971 January 22nd, 2013 12:33 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I'm not aware of this being an issue. I do it reasonably often, and have had it done to me fairly frequently also.

HoleyDooley January 22nd, 2013 12:54 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Agreed, this is not an exploit, but a clever move.

Nothing stopping the army breaking siege at any time.

Tiavals January 22nd, 2013 10:15 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Good, I do it all the time, just wanted to check that it isn't considered a bad thing. :)

bbz January 22nd, 2013 05:22 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HoleyDooley (Post 816550)
Agreed, this is not an exploit, but a clever move.

Nothing stopping the army breaking siege at any time.

Isn't it the same thing with the soul contract? You leave one commander (who will spawn a devil) Then the guy inside the castle attempts to break the siege and then you order break + patrol. The off-side is loosing 1 turn of recruitment(since you might not have known that your opponent has a soul contract in that province. (which i guess in a war is quite big).

Admiral_Aorta January 22nd, 2013 05:29 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
No because unless you know about the move and patrol hotkey you can't break it.

HoleyDooley January 23rd, 2013 07:35 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbz (Post 816578)
Quote:

Originally Posted by HoleyDooley (Post 816550)
Agreed, this is not an exploit, but a clever move.

Nothing stopping the army breaking siege at any time.

Isn't it the same thing with the soul contract? You leave one commander (who will spawn a devil) Then the guy inside the castle attempts to break the siege and then you order break + patrol. The off-side is loosing 1 turn of recruitment(since you might not have known that your opponent has a soul contract in that province. (which i guess in a war is quite big).

Thx BBZ, but I understand that already...did some research to find a resolution to the issue of Soul Contract.

My response was to leaving some dirt bag to besiege a fort whilst your main army moves off some where else.

jimbojones1971 January 27th, 2013 02:45 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Having some PC problems (just moved to Ubuntu from Vista), will be late with this turn. Hence the extension.

jimbojones1971 February 2nd, 2013 09:22 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I'm feeling a bit off, going to add +8h to the clock and try and get the turn done soon.

Ragnarok-X February 3rd, 2013 06:43 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Just for the grand lolz i will post a funny one-turn story of the recent past once its lights out for me (Man).

jimbojones1971 February 12th, 2013 06:11 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Sweet. For my own part, I am contemplating writing a "how to play MA T'ien Ch'i to achieve maximum mediocrity" guide, as apparently I am a master at that.

Admiral_Aorta February 12th, 2013 06:13 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Is that related to Man's miraculous comeback by any chance?

Ragnarok-X February 12th, 2013 12:05 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Comeback ? not quite. Im just wrecking as much havoc as possible since the last ? 10 turns. Quite effective id wager. now if just anyone would have earned my 150 gems + items by offering help. bummer.
Since its my last turn now, the story is the following. 5 Mages of mine charmed 4 fully kitted Iron Angels in a single battle. that was fun.
And i almost killed TC pretender had a mage not gone off-script. doh.

enjoy.

jimbojones1971 February 13th, 2013 07:27 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Yes, off script mages are the bane of this game - but also add to the interest value :-)

jimbojones1971 February 20th, 2013 04:34 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Added +12h to the clock for Ulm.

Ragnarok-X February 23rd, 2013 09:15 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
So, at least Tiavals now realize what i told him like 20 turns ago was the truth :D

Tiavals February 23rd, 2013 10:38 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X (Post 817763)
So, at least Tiavals now realize what i told him like 20 turns ago was the truth :D

What was that exactly, I forgot?

Ragnarok-X February 23rd, 2013 02:00 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
It could have been even more than 20 turns, turns been fast for me. basicly, i told you (among others) that you should think about Ulm and the SCs he has already.
That was before another 750+ gems via globals alone poured in.
If you played your current turn, u probably got the reference.

Tiavals February 23rd, 2013 02:30 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Well, I saw less than 30 SCs and they were just Zmeys and Iron Angels. I guess there's more hiding somewhere, ready to strike?

Ragnarok-X February 23rd, 2013 03:12 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I dont think so and that wasnt the point.

jimbojones1971 February 27th, 2013 02:35 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Man, when we are talking casually about 30 SCs you can see just how different the end game really is.

Ragnarok-X February 27th, 2013 05:45 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I have no idea why both you and tiavals are talking about 30 SCs though. Who came up with that number ?

jimbojones1971 February 27th, 2013 06:30 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I was just quoting from Tiavals post.

Tiavals February 27th, 2013 08:23 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X (Post 817976)
I have no idea why both you and tiavals are talking about 30 SCs though. Who came up with that number ?

I came up with the number based on the battles with Ulm. Roughly 30 different SCs roam my provinces per turn. Thus, I assume it's all he has, for why would he wait? Also, suppose 2 new appear per turn, and I kill 2 per turn, it means it won't change

Ragnarok-X February 27th, 2013 03:52 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
See, just a post and it suddenly makes sense. Got it.
I just checked the graphs and it seems my first impression was wrong. I thought Ulm has the game, but apparently you have a big advantage in gems and provinces, despite no globals. Just when i figured to donate my gems to a greater cause. doh.

Tiavals February 27th, 2013 05:56 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X (Post 817991)
See, just a post and it suddenly makes sense. Got it.
I just checked the graphs and it seems my first impression was wrong. I thought Ulm has the game, but apparently you have a big advantage in gems and provinces, despite no globals. Just when i figured to donate my gems to a greater cause. doh.

But the graphs for the game aren't on?

Admiral_Aorta February 27th, 2013 06:02 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Apparently the Llamaserver is showing the score tables, even though it's not supposed to when score graphs are turned off in game.

Tiavals February 28th, 2013 09:24 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral_Aorta (Post 817998)
Apparently the Llamaserver is showing the score tables, even though it's not supposed to when score graphs are turned off in game.

Oh right, that. It only affects games that were in play during the time llamaserver had some problems several months ago.

Ragnarok-X February 28th, 2013 02:08 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
yep, the hickup caused scores to be shown for all games run at that time.

Admiral_Aorta February 28th, 2013 05:36 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I'm going away for a couple of days later today, can I get a pause on the timer?

jimbojones1971 March 1st, 2013 06:09 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral_Aorta (Post 818034)
I'm going away for a couple of days later today, can I get a pause on the timer?

Sure, no worries. I have a man flu so I've extended this turn, will add a pause to the next one after my turn is in.

Ragnarok-X March 20th, 2013 05:55 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
So, how is the game going ? Can you sure information, Tiavals ?

Tiavals March 21st, 2013 05:38 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X (Post 818624)
So, how is the game going ? Can you sure information, Tiavals ?

You can check the llamaserver for that.

Admiral_Aorta March 28th, 2013 03:27 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Tip for Ermor: don't cast rain of stones on top of your extremely large army made up mostly of fragile undead and fragile mages.

Tiavals March 28th, 2013 04:12 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral_Aorta (Post 818817)
Tip for Ermor: don't cast rain of stones on top of your extremely large army made up mostly of fragile undead and fragile mages.

Yeah, that was, kinda, well, dumb. :D

I had given orders for the titan to enter your fortress with a few other titans and such, the plan was to rain your mages to death, so it came as a bit of a surprise that you had your own little force attacking the army before I could enter. :doh:

Sometimes I really hate the combat AI, given that the rain of stones was useless against your raider and completely destroyed my own army. :)

jimbojones1971 March 28th, 2013 10:52 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
It is infuriating at the time, but it is also adds greatly to the amusement value of the game (once the pain wears off, at least!).

Admiral_Aorta April 13th, 2013 09:54 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Tien Chi has staled the last 2 turns, do we need a sub?

Tiavals April 13th, 2013 06:17 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Seems to me that we might as well make Ulm the winner. I doubt we could do anything to stop him at this point even if the whole world worked against him.

But if you guys think there's a chance, then of course we should seek a sub for Tien chi. Except he's our host, so there's not much we can do about it. If Jimbo has vanished, I think it means we can't change the email address of a player and thus can't replace him?

Admiral_Aorta April 13th, 2013 07:39 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I think I agree that Ulm wins. Is there any objection to ending the game?

HoleyDooley April 14th, 2013 07:45 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
yeah,I am just waiting to put up a HUGE Arcane Nexus to put the final stamp on victory. I doubt you guys can stop me from here.

No objection to calling it finished at this point.

ghoul31 April 14th, 2013 07:34 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Yea lets end it.

Grats to HoleyDooley

Admiral_Aorta April 14th, 2013 11:40 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Hmm, if Jimbo's not here then we can't actually end the game, can we? Unless we get llama to remove it or something.

Tiavals April 15th, 2013 09:27 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Good point. I don't think we can?

Admiral_Aorta April 15th, 2013 09:44 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I've sent Llamabeast a message asking for some assistance.

Admiral_Aorta April 15th, 2013 05:52 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Ok, Game finished.

jimbojones1971 April 15th, 2013 07:15 PM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
Thanks Admiral. Congrats to HD - epic and hard fought win!

Sorry for being an absentee landlord. I'm going to have to wind down my Dom3 participation for a while, as I can't seem to get my s*** together enough (due to other things) to do it justice.

Tiavals April 16th, 2013 03:34 AM

Re: ThePantokratorNeedsAWife - Intermediate CBM1.94 - Submit Pretenders
 
I'm curious why you betrayed me Admiral_Aorta, could you enlighten me? I was taken completely by surprise there. :)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2022, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.