Hitlimit

[Juska]

The variation is ridiculous then. I get just as much land sacking or capturing as I do driving.

Also, variant attacks do not work with standard attacks.

[Shadow]

No you don't, Juska. Keep track of percentage taken and take an average over more than 21 attacks, you will see the difference.

[Firetooth]

I actually seem to make less land driving, so I've never bothered.

[Juska]

Shadow your inability to know what actually happens in this game is astounding.

[Peace Alliance]

Juska, you are well aware that personal attacks are considered flames.

If you're not going to say something productive, then reconsider.


On topic:

We've been thinking about making it a smaller gap between max and min land taken with attacks. I know for myself there is nothing more frustrating then finally breaking somebody's defenses and getting only 21 of their 200,000 acres. Windy can attest that has happened to me!

[Shadow]

Shadow your inability to know what actually happens in this game is astounding.

Juska,

Drive does take more land, I have verified that one myself as I described to you. It is a small variation, though, so you won't likely notice it in any single run given the variation in land taken.

For sack and capture, I am not actually sure. I haven't played an indy strat in a while, so I don't know if the hut/land midifier is in effect. Why don't you go find out instead of whining about it?

Sack seems to take more land than advertised though. It is possible that it is different from reg to turbo, which one were you reading those stats from windy? And are you sure that those functions are still getting called with the new sack/capture code shael put in?

[windhound]

Here's the relevant bit:

Code Select Expand


if($type != "Standard")
{
if($act == "chaos")
$landloss *= 0.8;
else if($act == "sack")
$landloss *= 0.3;
else if($act == "capture")
$landloss *= ($enemy[labs]/$enemy[land]);
else if($act == "drive")
$landloss *= 1.1;
}

This is for Turbo, pulled from the working code.
If you were supposed to get 1000 acres and you used sack, you would get 300 acres.  Unless there's an error in there somewhere it should be working as described. 

[Shadow]

Oh, capture works on enemy hut/land ratio. THought it was your own. That makes more sense.

Ok Juska, go capture an indy player and tell us how much you get compared to driving that indy player. And do it more than once before you draw any conclusions please.

[Juska]

Did someone fix standard attacks so you can sack/capture/drive/chaos along with them? Or do I need to do it a certain amount of times before it works?

Shadow why would anyone use capture on an indy? I guess I should steal 2% of his leaders so I can espy him? Oh wait, as long as I'm not an indy to begin with I can do whatever I want leader wise and if I am an indy I could care less about taking leaders, especially from an indy!

PA I am sorry that I am just pointing out the truth, go through the thread he was wrong about how much land sack takes in the code, wrong about how the land return on capture works, and still he seems to think that sack isn't working as advertised. He doesn't really know anything.

I'm here speaking from game experience and Shadow is constantly going on and on taking us no where until someone finally looks up the code, which you know what has a pretty good chance of not being working right, am I right Sevz?

Every time I bring up concrete game play evidence of a problem in the code or my experiences differ from Shadow's experiences in anyway he either spouts his "infinite knowledge" or ignores me. Look at the thread in development about races, as soon as a bring to light the broken merc code he quits posting in it.

Look the thread has been entirely derailed, this is what happens in every thread meant to improve the game! We get 4 or 5 posts on topic and then we get lost in endless discussions about nothingness, which will most likely never be dealt with and just get recycled in next week's game fixing thread.

[Shadow]

Shadow why would anyone use capture on an indy?

To check if the land return is working as the code says it should. If you get as large a portion of the indy's land as you do when you capture someone with all huts, then it is not working. If you get a lot less land from the indy, then it is working.

\ until someone finally looks up the code, which you know what has a pretty good chance of not being working right, am I right Sevz?

And how am I anything to do with that? I don't have coding access.

Every time I bring up concrete game play evidence of a problem in the code or my experiences differ from Shadow's experiences in anyway he either spouts his "infinite knowledge" or ignores me. Look at the thread in development about races, as soon as a bring to light the broken merc code he quits posting in it.

No juska. When you bring up a suggestion that I think is unbalanced, I explain why I think it is unbalanced, and then you get bitter and accuse me of stalling development. Just because your ideas don't always make it into development does not mean I have it out for you or something. I thought we argued that one out pretty well. And just because there are no more posts where you can see them should you assume that the topic is dead. Link me to the topic again if you want me to keep posting in it.



Now, I have already explained to you three times how you can go about finding out for certain whether or not the land gain code is broken. Are you going to do it, or are you going to keep complaining about how I am holding back game development? Becuase I'm pretty sick of the second one. If you don't understand the math that you need to do in order to run those tests, tell me and I'll explain it better. But please, please, stop whining about how I have it out for you.

[Juska]

http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=10826.30

Link to the most recent topic in which I linked the original discussion on the subject, this is not about differing view points. The code is written wrongly, it is black and white.

Once again you've ignored the fact that you can't use variation attacks with standard attacks.

You have nothing to do with coding? You seem to talk like you have a very good in with the people who actually do the coding: Shael, PA, etc. and always will reference code over game play.

I think we have already decided that the land code working or not is irrelevant because of the incredible land variation in the code. Perhaps the land code works as prescribed, the fact is that whether or not it works is irrelevant because of the large variations. If it requires a large average of a population to reflect what should be a major return as per the code (-70% land gain in sack, -80% difference  from sack from drive) then obviously the code isn't working as it is intended.

I'm not going to test capture, if the code really works the way it does then the following is true:

1. In any situation where it is beneficially for an indy to use capture large land amounts will be returned

2. In situations where it is beneficially for a leader to use capture land amounts should be small (of course most likely broken as with sack because of land return variation.)

And so assuming some kind of land variation fix indies then have some kind of advantage in using capture.

Why don't you run some concrete game play tests and post them here? Convince me, I don't dispute raw evidence.

[Shadow]

2. In situations where it is beneficially for a leader to use capture land amounts should be small (of course most likely broken as with sack because of land return variation.)

Why is that? If a leader player uses capture on another leader player, land amounts will be the same as normal attacks. Land amount is affected by the DEFENDER's hut/land ratio. If the defendder is a leader player, this ratio will be 1, so you will get full land.

And yes, land variation is a pain sometimes. As Peace said, that might change.

Standards not working is a problem. I didn't post about it because I am not arguing about it with you.

I don't have time to run the tests, I am doing exams. Maybe over Christmas. If you wold do them, I would appreciate it.

[Juska]

Yeah, I was wrong on my second point.

Had it in my head indies always had the advantage on capture, they only do so on defense, which is very little advantage because no one is going to capture an indy anyway. 

[Shadow]

I actually thought that too, til windy pointed it out.

On an unrelated note. DONE EXAMS.