Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
150/170/190 changes
#11
Agree with Hawk.
Reply
#12
(05-06-2015, 11:50 AM)Hawk_ Wrote:
(05-06-2015, 09:16 AM)Frost Lord Wrote: Makes sense Ry Vor.  I had no idea that there were so many "exploits" in the old code that was not in the rules (or did not follow the intent of the rules).  I probably would have never figured them out because I typically re-read the rules and orders when issuing various commands to make sure I am allowed to do something or not...which would give other players that know about the undocumented features an advantage over me.  I am glad that they are either being fixed or being documented for everyone to see.  Thank you and thanks to Cipher & Uncle Mike for cleaning these things up.

My 2 cents-  Issuing 150 and 190 was not an exploit.  The troops are already there to attack the city.  If they are blocked by an invisible wall they commence siege.

Here is what i think is an exploit:

Small army with wizards casts Wall of Flame and then attacks an opposing group on a 1.  They are blocked by their own wall of flame and protected from the larger enemy group.
Later that same turn the small army either sieges the pop center in the square or casts 171 to take it.   This seems wrong to me.   The block by the wall of flame should prevent the 171 or 190 order.

Attacking requires you to order your troops to advance on the PC.  When they get to the walls and find out that the walls are protected, they are now out of position to initiate a siege.  It is like telling your troops to advance on an enemy army ("Charge!") and simultaneously telling them to prepare a defensive line at the same time (no wait...I mean "Hold at all costs!").
The Frost Lord,
Centurion in the Military War College
Pioneer of Alamaze
Reply
#13
(05-06-2015, 09:16 AM)Frost Lord Wrote: Makes sense Ry Vor.  I had no idea that there were so many "exploits" in the old code that was not in the rules (or did not follow the intent of the rules).  I probably would have never figured them out because I typically re-read the rules and orders when issuing various commands to make sure I am allowed to do something or not...which would give other players that know about the undocumented features an advantage over me.  I am glad that they are either being fixed or being documented for everyone to see.  Thank you and thanks to Cipher & Uncle Mike for cleaning these things up.

Just to be clear, I was just giving examples in the design that probably wouldn't occur to most players, and by example I was saying getting a movement order to work as intended is just a part of the work, maybe less than 50% of the work.  Then you have to figure out all the things that would break it, or beyond even that, the exploits, meaning not just a bug, but like a secret, unintended way to circumvent the intention in the game and achieve an advantage.  I learned through that process back in early Alamaze days having to chase down those things, that I am not nearly as high as average on the devious quotient: some players were coming up with the exploits my naive lawful good self never saw coming. 

Mainly I wanted to clear up that I'm not saying that in the beginning or later in NC that the DA could move a BL group, etc, I'm just saying tracking down all those things that I was able to do takes a lot more time than players would think, and some slipped by, i.e., the exploits.
Reply
#14
Years ago, when I was first learning Alamaze, Phil told me, "Study the order sequence."

My recollection of the spell description for Dome of Invulnerability is that it "prevented" attacks against the popcenter.  The spell description for Dispel Dome of Invulnerability still says "allow the population center to be attacked."

The Wall of Flame spell description still says "prevents attacks."

The point is by understanding that magic "prevented" a particular action the intended actor was still free to perform a different action.  Hence order 190 was the single action against the population center.

I still believe that if 150 is prevented, the 171 SPELL will still work as that is a different actor: i.e. the mage, instead of the group.

Rick is free to have the game function exactly as he intends.  My opinions are nothing more than that - opinions.

But nuance creates complexity beyond the simple rock, paper, and scissor format.

Is it truly a problem to have a group issue 150 and a prospective 190 if the opponent happens to cast Dome?  The attacker is issuing two orders knowing that at least one will have to fail.  Not a bad trade-off if I am the defending kingdom...  It certainly isn't an "exploit" - with the negative connotation carried by that word.

Presently a group with terrain mastery can "avoid" combat in specified terrain . . . and still issue an order 150 to attack a popcenter.  Exploit? Or complexity/nuance which should be preserved?  How is this any different than a mage casting Wall of Flame and having his group attack on a 1 so that the combat is "prevented?" This group can still issue a 150 order exactly like a group with terrain mastery.

A successful 170 order can be reversed by a succesful 320 or 330 order.  Exploit?  Or nuance?

I did not understand all of the above when I was first learning Alamaze.  Phil certainly didn't tell me any of these things.  But once I studied the rules and order sequence much of this became clear and I knew, beyond doubt, I was a better player after having learned these things.

New players no longer need to learn as much.

It is not a matter of these exploits/nuances not being mentioned in the rules, because they were always there once one came to understand the order sequence.  It is quite obvious that a 320 and 330 order can both be issued in the same turn (by different characters).  It is less obvious that a 310 order will impact a 170 order the following turn.  Should the rules spell this out? Is knowledge of this an exploit?  How about an attacker issuing 170 and 310 in the same turn?  This possibility is not spelled out in the rules.  But understanding the order sequence makes it obvious in my mind.

At the end of the day, a siege requires the same order to be successfully issued for three consecutive turns.  The player who casts Dome of Invulnerability to prevent a 150 attack has gained a great benefit even if the attacker successfully initiates a siege on the same turn.  What more should a player expect?

Call it removing "exploits" or "eliminating complexity" but whatever term is used the game is marginally simpler now.

The same thing happened when a Wall of Flame was limited to only one such spell being effective in a turn.  Whenever I am willing to charge through one Wall I am certainly willing to charge through three and I was extremely happy that other spells weren't cast.  I have slaughtered many a wizard by running through Walls of Flame and casting Chaos (another spell that was nerfed).  Walls of Flame, even three of them, do exactly zero damage if I used either tactic 1 or 2.  Therefore, I have never taken damage from Walls of Flame unless I wanted to (or failed to recon where my group was landing)!!!  Was this knowledge an "exploit?"

As always, just my two cents.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#15
Agree with LT. I suppose the real issue in my mind is that there are quite a few changes (not all bad) that are seeming to land at the same time, and are about to be frozen (ostensibly) forever. These changes make the game play a bit differently than the "classic" Alamaze we're used to playing.

I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever changes make it into the final release, and plan our game play accordingly, but it's the messaging and the process that will undoubtedly be frustrating to a number of long-time players, even if I personally will make the decision to just roll with it.
Reply
#16
It's done once everything in the document From Clipper to Java is in place in the code.

All future changes will be in subsequent releases.

So everyone should be on the same page now, and not be concerned about the next changes.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)