|
Post by premis on Mar 3, 2004 22:26:08 GMT
Theoretically butheaded player who doesn't want to resign in advance lost game can prolong it hiding his king etc..To prevent that it would be smart not allow that own lords of future winning player appear in tower guiding voices. What the use of knowing place of my own lords? Further more, enemy lords that are involved in battles (in the same locations as any of my lord) shouldn't appear too.. Killing enemy lords one by one will increase the probability that among remaining lords of losing player who wants to play a hiding game the location of his king will appear as a voice in tower seeking. Is that possible to implement JY?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 3, 2004 22:36:46 GMT
The guidance at towers is supposed to represent the fickle nature of the wise who hole themselves up there. They give advice to those that they deem worthy, and are less prone to do so for those that they consider beneath them.
The odds of receiving good guidance (ie info on enemy or non-aligned lords) depends on your courage (there are other other attributes assigned to lords, but at present they are not shown or used in the game, so courage is all I have to go on for now). The braver the lord seeking guidance, the more likely he/she will receive good info. Skulkrin are not great. Dragons are excellent. Wise NEVER get bad guidance, as of 0.1g R1.
This is to stop users using all their terrified lords as seekers, and forces them to chose between using brave lords in battle or as information gatherers. To get more brave lords, you need to use liths/other special sites more to up the courage of the cowardly lords, and all this hopefully adds to the depth of the game a little.
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 3, 2004 22:51:42 GMT
Yes, i know all that but the problem of prolonging game playing king's hiding game for losing player is still opened..Aren't you concerned about this?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 3, 2004 22:57:07 GMT
There's a whole thread covering this very topic from some time ago - I can't actually remember what the outcome was, if any. There were various suggestions, eg to have skulkrin sniff out enemy kings if within, say, 4 squares (eg "Amarin feels the presence of an enemy king to the W"), etc. We could always use the AOE method of using gold to purchase the knowledge of enemy kings' whereabouts
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 3, 2004 22:59:12 GMT
Also, if the enemy only has their king left, Wise/dragons/UC lords seeking at Towers will always find them if they successfully get guidance (which would be an 80% probability). So that would narrow down searches (unless they hide in the mountains of Corelay!
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 3, 2004 22:59:15 GMT
Alchemistry? Turning the water into the wine?
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 3, 2004 23:05:11 GMT
Also, if the enemy only has their king left, Wise/dragons/UC lords seeking at Towers will always find them if they successfully get guidance (which would be an 80% probability). So that would narrow down searches (unless they hide in the mountains of Corelay! Yes, i thought about it, but instead of spreading a net to search for his king they will have meeting below the public watches ;D On the other hand my suggestion will give some chance to numerically inferior player to find superior player king and with an quick action avoiding his main forces to find and destroy him.
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 3, 2004 23:27:55 GMT
The guidance at towers is supposed to represent the fickle nature of the wise who hole themselves up there. They give advice to those that they deem worthy, and are less prone to do so for those that they consider beneath them. I see you like to be selfassumed wise. ;D
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Mar 4, 2004 1:50:16 GMT
I think the previous discussion on this subject addressed the right of kings to give all their armies away and hide unseen. I think the vote there was quite split.
I would not like to see any increase in the accuracy of magical information given to players. While I don't make a habit of hiding my king, I think stealth and uncertanty are part of the game and should not be diluted just to shorten a few games by a few turns.
It sounds right to me that if a player has been beaten on the field and gone to ground as a result, the victorious party will have to complete the job by hunting him down.
Note that I still think kings should not be able to give away their last 50 men or so. Going to ground after a defeat is perfectly legitimate. Doing so out of cowardice is not an action worthy of a king.
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 4, 2004 9:57:18 GMT
I agree with you that lord can't disband his last 50 warriors. And what would be the result if enemy attacks him and didn't kill him. Will he remain alone or will he still possess 50 men although enemy killed all his men in previous battle?
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Mar 4, 2004 10:19:51 GMT
I agree with you that lord can't disband his last 50 warriors. And what would be the result if enemy attacks him and didn't kill him. Will he remain alone or will he still possess 50 men although enemy killed all his men in previous battle? No, if a king loses his last warriors in battle but survives alone, that's all well and good. He can try to run or hide as much as he wants, because that's what you'd expect. If he has some more reserves somewhere, perhaps he can pick them up and cause trouble again. The victor in the battle would have to hunt him down. What I meant was that a king should not VOLUNTARILY disband or give away his last 50 troops in order to run and hide BEFORE the battle, or even to stay safe throughout the game.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Mar 4, 2004 10:32:21 GMT
In any case, in a game where a player controls 30+ lords but they are dispersed, he might lose one by one. Premis' loss of Shimeril, and probably Gorgrath and Karya, is proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 4, 2004 10:48:04 GMT
No, if a king loses his last warriors in battle but survives alone, that's all well and good. He can try to run or hide as much as he wants, because that's what you'd expect. If he has some more reserves somewhere, perhaps he can pick them up and cause trouble again. The victor in the battle would have to hunt him down. What I meant was that a king should not VOLUNTARILY disband or give away his last 50 troops in order to run and hide BEFORE the battle, or even to stay safe throughout the game. This would be very easy to implement, but I can't remember if there was broad support for it? Others please jump in and let me know...
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Mar 4, 2004 11:10:04 GMT
"Aye"
|
|
|
Post by premis on Mar 4, 2004 11:16:51 GMT
No, if a king loses his last warriors in battle but survives alone, that's all well and good. He can try to run or hide as much as he wants, because that's what you'd expect. If he has some more reserves somewhere, perhaps he can pick them up and cause trouble again. The victor in the battle would have to hunt him down. What I meant was that a king should not VOLUNTARILY disband or give away his last 50 troops in order to run and hide BEFORE the battle, or even to stay safe throughout the game. That's another story..and it is ok!
|
|