Soliciting thoughts: Siege & Sally Forth

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic


         I don't know if any of you are familiar with buildingbrowsergames.com, but I read an interesting article that may or may not apply here.  Basically it was about developers "cheating" to find a solution to a problem.  It talked about how creating the illusion of something happening is just as good and actually better from a simplicity standpoint than actually making it happen.  So an example using sieges, the goal is to make the sieges last longer right?  Instead of creating rules mechanisms to make the siege last longer, we would just ditch the rules and literally make siege last as long as we feel it should last.  Given time, a siege will always be successful unless it is broken right?  So we create a chance of a siege being successful after a given amount of time.  The longer a siege lasts, the greater chance the siege is successful.  No need for timers, no need for calculation of hits on a city.  
        
          
         
        
         This is just an example.  One problem I already see is where Selon says the best part of a siege is looking in his email and seeing updates of the damage his siege machines have done, but perhaps Illyriad's vastly intelligent developers can tweek this idea.  The game doesn't actually have to conduct a siege, it just has to make the user think it's conducting a siege.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Shrapnel Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 01 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 180	Posted: 03 Aug 2010 at 16:09
	I don't know if any of you are familiar with buildingbrowsergames.com, but I read an interesting article that may or may not apply here. Basically it was about developers "cheating" to find a solution to a problem. It talked about how creating the illusion of something happening is just as good and actually better from a simplicity standpoint than actually making it happen. So an example using sieges, the goal is to make the sieges last longer right? Instead of creating rules mechanisms to make the siege last longer, we would just ditch the rules and literally make siege last as long as we feel it should last. Given time, a siege will always be successful unless it is broken right? So we create a chance of a siege being successful after a given amount of time. The longer a siege lasts, the greater chance the siege is successful. No need for timers, no need for calculation of hits on a city. This is just an example. One problem I already see is where Selon says the best part of a siege is looking in his email and seeing updates of the damage his siege machines have done, but perhaps Illyriad's vastly intelligent developers can tweek this idea. The game doesn't actually have to conduct a siege, it just has to make the user think it's conducting a siege.

HonoredMule Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650	Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 03:17
	Where Illyriad really excels, though, is in not following that advice, and being one of the few (maybe only) browser games where complex, robust things are actually happening. What that article discusses is probably focused more on efficiency than balance. Balancing a more complex system may require more care, but isn't really harder--there are plenty of variables which can provide micro-adjustments until it's just right. I think it has already been concluded, though, that for now at least siege is working fine as is. (That's assuming Sally Forth operations can choose their target as intended.)

col0005 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Apr 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 238	Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 07:39
	I think that is a terrible idea. Although if there was a maximum number oh hits that a city could take that would simplify things a bit. It'd mean that multiple sieges could still be performed and any number of siege engines used, however extra siege engines would only help to ensure that the maximum hits would be achieved. How about a logerithmic efficiency algorithm wherby the chances of each siege engine hitting are something like chance = (normal % chance of hitting)/(no of siege engines)^.3 In this case 1 siege engine = 1 current siege engine 10 siege engines = 5 current siege engines 100 siege engines = 25 current siege engines The above efficiency penalty for siege engines getting in each others way is probbably a bit too harsh but as you can see this system would certainly not sideline small alliances yet instantly destroying a city is in effect impossible. Also the improved efficincy of a siege as time goes on could hing on this formula,r rather than improving % chance to hit the 1.3 will slowly approach 1. Edited by col0005 - 04 Aug 2010 at 08:13