Caravans

[celebaglar]

Jean-Yves said:

No, at the moment it's just a fixed set of gfx as supplied by you above. I think that to have 3 sizes (a-la-army) would be relatively simple to do. Just provide the gfx tiles!

That's not what I meant. What I was saying was that if there are two caravans immediately ahead, would one get to see two pack horses instead of one?

I can of course provide the gfx for different sized caravans since I already said the design can be expanded or reduced quite easily. Do you want the existing one to be the "large" or "medium" sized one?

[sparrowhawk]

Celebaglar said:

That's not what I meant. What I was saying was that if there are two caravans immediately ahead, would one get to see two pack horses instead of one?

Ah, sorry. Yes, since each caravan is in fact a "lord" record, if there were 3 ahead of you you would see 3 pack-horses.

I can of course provide the gfx for different sized caravans since I already said the design can be expanded or reduced quite easily. Do you want the existing one to be the "large" or "medium" sized one?

Good question. Medium I think, otherwise the small set would be too tiny.

What range of store levels do you think each set should cover?

[Ringthane]

Twenties?

Hey, no foul talk about that giantess ;D

[celebaglar]

@mads,

I can see your point and to a certain extent I share your view - not perhaps in terms of desecrating LoM, since I think that can be improved upon, but certainly in terms of having too many changes in too short a time. The balance of the game isn't quite as good as it was before stores were introduced, for instance.

OTOH, seeing the features have been introduced, anything that helps restore the balance is a good thing. I didn't expect to see caravans until well after 1.0, but I do think they will help balance out the game and restore some of the lost dynamism.

Incidentally, the transportable stores thing was probably initially my idea, so don't blame Matija.


@j-Y

I agree with Mads that the battle algorithm still needs work. For instance, aside from the obvious bugs, the amount of losses is too low. This means that when armies are ambushed, they can usually get away relatively unscathed, and the disease factor makes it very hard to ambush with a really huge force.

Again, however, I do understand the need to keep up the interest in development and how adding features is often more stimulating than trying to fix hard-to-pin-down bugs or imbalances. I also agree that you need to go with a public release fairly soon. There's no reason why problems can't continue to be fixed after that.

Keep up the good work! ;D

[sparrowhawk]

Celebaglar said:

he amount of losses is too low. This means that when armies are ambushed, they can usually get away relatively unscathed, and the disease factor makes it very hard to ambush with a really huge forceD

Do you have a feel as to how much greater they should be, expressed as a percentage, say?

eg 10%, 25%, 100% greater?

That would be easy to change.

JY

[celebaglar]

Jean-Yves said:

Good question. Medium I think, otherwise the small set would be too tiny.

OK, that was my feeling too. I'll fire up the Gimp in a few hours and see what I can do.

What range of store levels do you think each set should cover?

Well, it sort of depends on what the max would be, but given an assumed max of 100 stores per caravan, I'd suggest 0-20 for small, 20-60 for medium and 60+ for large.

Of course, if the small scale gfx for the small caravan are virtually invisible, would that be a bad thing?

[celebaglar]

Jean-Yves said:

Do you have a feel as to how much greater they should be, expressed as a percentage, say?

eg 10%, 25%, 100% greater?

That would be easy to change.

JY

I think Mads can give you a better estimate there, as he has played more games (and turns) recently than I have, but my limited experience would venture towards somewhere like 50% more at least. That would start to make a defeat actually hurt the loser.

[Natmus]

Jean-Yves said:

Mads,

I appreciate that you may be frustrated with some aspects of the game.

Come on, if you read the last paragraph you should be able to figure out I was speaking tounge-in-cheek. Or at least I hoped it would be obvious.

I have actually done some small work on the battle script today, and have fixed the bug whereby lords themselves only ever kill 1R/1W. Not great progress but the battle script is something that has to be handled with kid gloves:

Chris has sent me an alternative battle method that I plan to try out before trying any wholsale change to the existing code. It's simpler and is based on LOM/TME.

I'll see how that goes. But it won't be complete anytime soon.

Thus a dilemna. Launch with an imperfect model. Or continue testing for another x months. Personally I am tempted to go for the former. People have been hearing about MU for long enough - it's time they got a chance to try it for themselves. I honestly don't think that the battle algorithm, flawed as it is, will put too many people off. At least I hope not.

.

Being serious for a minute, I think the old one actually worked quite well, apart from the 'double jeopardy' thing, which when we found it turned out to have a reasonable simple solution. The reason for the wholesale change of algorithm eludes me, as it seems to be more trouble and no solution to the problems of the old one.

And speaking more generally, sometimes I feel that adding things on when trying to even out a balancing problem can be dangerous. Instead of keeping it simple, things get more complicated and finding the right balance becomes even more hard. Instead I would keep the solutions as simple as possible, trying to use the existing variables in stead of adding a new layer. But I suppose that's a never ending fight between a hard core code monkey and a hard core end user solutions man.

[Natmus]

Celebaglar said:

Incidentally, the transportable stores thing was probably initially my idea, so don't blame Matija.

Oh!

Sorry, Matija.

[Matija]

I might have suggested something of the kind, either coming to it independently, or subconciously echoing the idea I saw and forgot about. Anyway, it is a logical extension of stores, and we won't know how it influences the game until we try it.

And Mads, all the criticism on my account is quite deserved, no need to appologise. And, rest assured, I will eventually play all those games I stalled. However, if you feel that, after all that time it's beside the point, I will resign them, just say the word.

[Natmus]

Matija said:

And Mads, all the criticism on my account is quite deserved, no need to appologise. And, rest assured, I will eventually play all those games I stalled. However, if you feel that, after all that time it's beside the point, I will resign them, just say the word.

Heck no, no resignations! I'm going to win one of them, you the rest, but I fully intend to deserve my one win, and really make you fight for winning the rest.

But I admit that I have begun using journals in those games, as I quite forget what's going on in them from turn to turn.

[Natmus]

Celebaglar said:

I think Mads can give you a better estimate there, as he has played more games (and turns) recently than I have, but my limited experience would venture towards somewhere like 50% more at least. That would start to make a defeat actually hurt the loser.

I hate to say this, I really do hate to say this, but I have said it before, so you have heard me say it before, and therefore it will really be no surprise that I say this, so I just come out and say it and what I have to say is this: Reset it to the old values!

In terms of damage I think that would be around 50 percent, perhaps a little more, but simply put I would like the old values back with a slightly lesser span between the damage riders and warriors inflict.

[sparrowhawk]

Natmus said:

Come on, if you read the last paragraph you should be able to figure out I was speaking tounge-in-cheek. Or at least I hoped it would be obvious.

Yes, but you did say that you were letting off steam, albeit steam gathered elsewhere. I was just trying to explain that I am indeed trying to look into the outstanding issues, but I can't turn things around as fast as I would like. Anyway, I still love you, you rascally little mouse

Being serious for a minute, I think the old one actually worked quite well, apart from the 'double jeopardy' thing, which when we found it turned out to have a reasonable simple solution. The reason for the wholesale change of algorithm eludes me, as it seems to be more trouble and no solution to the problems of the old one.

And speaking more generally, sometimes I feel that adding things on when trying to even out a balancing problem can be dangerous. Instead of keeping it simple, things get more complicated and finding the right balance becomes even more hard. Instead I would keep the solutions as simple as possible, trying to use the existing variables in stead of adding a new layer. But I suppose that's a never ending fight between a hard core code monkey and a hard core end user solutions man.

Actually I spend most of my time in front of clients trying to deliver solutions that meet their needs! But I agree that I am a code-monkey at heart, and this game is my outlet for doing more coding than I get to do at work ;D.
Also, almost all of the changes to MU have been instigated following debates within the forum, and the main reason that I have implemented them are that in my mind (and I think in the mind of many others), the old way of doing things went thus:

Start
recruit
recruit
recruit
etc
search at liths for courage
search at liths for courage
search at liths for courage
etc
Form large army mass
Form large army mass (optional, a single super-army was common)
Get Utterly Invigorated at stronghold
Get Utterly Invigorated at stronghold
Get Utterly Invigorated at stronghold
etc
Big fight
The end.

I was getting bored with this formula. So the big changes since then (alliances, impassable mountains, 1 item per search location, stores, disease, and now caravans) have all been made with a view to making the above scenario less likely.

You'll be glad to know that there are no more changes in the pipeline. Honest.

[Ringthane]

No roving troll warband?

[sparrowhawk]

Fernando, you are quite incorrigible! ;D

No roving troll warband. But maybe a non-roving one will satisfy you on this matter?