Conquered village while troops were out

[DeletedUser3833]

looks like someone asked the devs that might be the way its coded, would be pretty stupid though the whole idea of temporary variable is unnecessary. If the devs insist on that it should end as soon as you cant cancel the relocation anymore to make this more realistic and clear to the playerbase.


Btw if that is how you wanna keep it then its pretty strange why a relocation doesnt get canceled when the target villages gets conquered, obv only when enough free provisions are available at the origin village (or if you want to be nice cancel as many as free provisions are available)

no matter how you turn it one side of the coin shouldnt be deleted upon conquering, both is illogical.

 

[DeletedUser1323]

looks like someone asked the devs that might be the way its coded, would be pretty stupid though the whole idea of temporary variable is unnecessary. If the devs insist on that it should end as soon as you cant cancel the relocation anymore to make this more realistic and clear to the playerbase.


Btw if that is how you wanna keep it then its pretty strange why a relocation doesnt get canceled when the target villages gets conquered, obv only when enough free provisions are available at the origin village (or if you want to be nice cancel as many as free provisions are available)

no matter how you turn it one side of the coin shouldnt be deleted upon conquering, both is illogical.

The temporary variable is to prevent exploitation of the provisions. You cannot cancel relocation beyond the rally point level time (5 or 10 minutes). The concept of the troops dying makes perfect sense as the troops are going to a villa no longer owned by that player. All variables clear on conquer no matter what, that is a solid rule.

 

[DeletedUser3833]

Without the temporary variable it would be the true value that changes and nothing would be exploitable it would be exactly the same as now but fewer calculations and therefor more performant. No Idea why you tell me the cancel times my point was that beyond those times the temporary variable is 100% useless for a more realistic system in which troops marching somewhere have enough provisions to get there.

As previously stated troops can be allocated towards either village, that can be discussed as either way has its pros, however currently the troops count towards both villages (getting destroyed by losing either) but what the player sees is different this is very bad form and also completly unrealistic.

And again you ignored what I said, why not cancel the relocate when the target village gets conquered? there is no other reason then to screw with the playerbase.

You know in a better world relocating troops would never just disappear, they would fight the garrison if the target village was conquered and return afterwards if possible. In case the origin village is taken nothing would happen as the origin village has absolutely nothing to do with the relocating troops.


Whatever the case the current system has a ton of flaws but every time i point them out you ignore it...well done.

 

[DeletedUser1201]

And again you ignored what I said, why not cancel the relocate when the target village gets conquered? there is no other reason then to screw with the playerbase.

You know in a better world relocating troops would never just disappear, they would fight the garrison if the target village was conquered and return afterwards if possible. In case the origin village is taken nothing would happen as the origin village has absolutely nothing to do with the relocating troops.

Why don't you make a suggestion with this information? This will allow other players to cast their thoughts on the matter as well. Since the Developers have been taking player ideas into high consideration, you never know what will happen unless you make the effort.

Whatever the case the current system has a ton of flaws but every time i point them out you ignore it...well done.

They are not being ignored, as we point things out to the CoMA. From there, as I mentioned above.. it is gathered and sent to the Developers for review. From that point, it is out of our hands.. all we can do is continue to point things out that might be repeated.

 

[DeletedUser3833]

Why don't you make a suggestion with this information? This will allow other players to cast their thoughts on the matter as well. Since the Developers have been taking player ideas into high consideration, you never know what will happen unless you make the effort.

because when the relocation feature was introduced it was partially like that, in fact troops relocating away did NOT disappear when the origin village was taken. This was changed somewhat recently and intentionally for whatever reason.

 

[DeletedUser1323]

Without the temporary variable it would be the true value that changes and nothing would be exploitable it would be exactly the same as now but fewer calculations and therefor more performant. No Idea why you tell me the cancel times my point was that beyond those times the temporary variable is 100% useless for a more realistic system in which troops marching somewhere have enough provisions to get there.

As previously stated troops can be allocated towards either village, that can be discussed as either way has its pros, however currently the troops count towards both villages (getting destroyed by losing either) but what the player sees is different this is very bad form and also completly unrealistic.

And again you ignored what I said, why not cancel the relocate when the target village gets conquered? there is no other reason then to screw with the playerbase.

You know in a better world relocating troops would never just disappear, they would fight the garrison if the target village was conquered and return afterwards if possible. In case the origin village is taken nothing would happen as the origin village has absolutely nothing to do with the relocating troops.


Whatever the case the current system has a ton of flaws but every time i point them out you ignore it...well done.

1. You are making a lot of assumptions that I have been attempting to clarify for you. Now I gave you the time frame on when you are able to cancel the relocate via the rally point, as you make it seem like relocation is not able to be cancelled at all. Relocations are able to be recalled but within the time frame of the rally point.
2. The way a database functions does not allow for "multiple" conditions like you are asking for as the relational system is not set up to handle it.
3. Some of your questions go into the intellectual property area and we as moderators are not allowed to comment so they will be ignored. It is up to the Community Manager @Coolnite7 to make the determination when commenting them.
4. This function does not screw over the player as you mention, it actually brought clarity to the feature when prior to relocation when troops either died fighting or dodged, then died when conquering took place either way.

Now I would say that turning the relocated troops that have not arrived yet into an attack against the newly taken villa when it would have been expected to arrive. The counter point to that suggestions is: the relocated troops have no provisions left and disappear based on losing the provisions that are held in reserve for those troops from the losing the conquered villa, much in the same way as you lose away troops when supporting another villa and that home villa for the away troops gets conquered.

 

[DeletedUser3833]

1. You are maybe not understanding me correctly because english is not my native language but in my eyes you are clearly writing whatever the hell you want without even trying to understand. I not once said that relocation cant be canceled, NOT ONCE.
Let me try to lay it out for you once again. Right now the temporary variable becomes the true value when the relocation arrives, so far so clear? very nice. Next step: WHY does the temporary variable not become the true value as soon as the relocation cannot be canceled anymore, meaning AFTER those 5/10 min. At this point the owner of the troops cannot change the fate of them anylonger and right here is where the function screws over the players as it punishes in double (troops beeing owned by 2 villages at the same time and deleting them if either one is lost)
2. any multiple condition can be split up in singles but i dont even know why you bring that up ? databases arent everything btw.. I havent writting anything that couldnt be read out of the db and calculated by simple formulars.
3. sure sure whatever, your favourite statement, doesnt make it true to repeat it a couple times
4. this function deletes troops for no reason at all, thus screwing over the players, yes its equal among the players doesnt make it a better system though,


Wow so i understand this is a game and can not or doesnt want to reflect reality on all accounts but when its possible it should still do. When soldiers in medieval times moved from one settlement to another they packed their equipment and enough rations to get to the goal or next village they could get more, saying they cannot reach their goal because running out of provisions is so obviously wrong...

 

[DeletedUser1323]

1. You are maybe not understanding me correctly because english is not my native language but in my eyes you are clearly writing whatever the hell you want without even trying to understand. I not once said that relocation cant be canceled, NOT ONCE.
Let me try to lay it out for you once again. Right now the temporary variable becomes the true value when the relocation arrives, so far so clear? very nice. Next step: WHY does the temporary variable not become the true value as soon as the relocation cannot be canceled anymore, meaning AFTER those 5/10 min. At this point the owner of the troops cannot change the fate of them anylonger and right here is where the function screws over the players as it punishes in double (troops beeing owned by 2 villages at the same time and deleting them if either one is lost)
2. any multiple condition can be split up in singles but i dont even know why you bring that up ? databases arent everything btw.. I havent writting anything that couldnt be read out of the db and calculated by simple formulars.
3. sure sure whatever, your favourite statement, doesnt make it true to repeat it a couple times
4. this function deletes troops for no reason at all, thus screwing over the players, yes its equal among the players doesnt make it a better system though,


Wow so i understand this is a game and can not or doesnt want to reflect reality on all accounts but when its possible it should still do. When soldiers in medieval times moved from one settlement to another they packed their equipment and enough rations to get to the goal or next village they could get more, saying they cannot reach their goal because running out of provisions is so obviously wrong...

1. I know you did not say that relocation cannot be cancelled but you kept on stating that cancellation should be carried on past the allowed time. After the rally point time window is up it is now up to chance. I kept pulling you back to the game function, not what you want it to be. The temporary variable is for the relocating troops being treated similar to away or supporting troops in another villa until the relocation is complete. You do not get the benefit of your support or away troops in the home villa but are counted against you. Relocation operates in the same capacity.
2. You complained earlier about "speeding up" the calculation/game but this will slow it down as extra calculations will be needed to query the DB and do the calculation.
3. Have you become a moderator here? Do you know what the rules are that we have to follow? I am pretty sure you have not so we can just leave this one alone. There are a lot of topics that moderators cannot discuss. When topics approach the area of intellectual property or even the potential of causing a legal issue we have to shut it down.
4. No, you take chances, you sometimes win, sometimes lose.

The final comment, When under 'realistic war' you do not always get the chance to take anything with you, maybe a weapon and the clothes on your back, since when did that equate to survival.
There are two sides to every discussion and most of the time the discussion should end up somewhere in the middle. I am attempting to help you by even taking the time to respond, to create a lively discussion. I am here to give you a solid debate about the topic, but from your responses you have your mind made up and you want it your way.

If you believe in this enough then do as @SataricEarth stated, create a new feature topic, let the rest of the community discuss it and then let @Coolnite7 review it and determine if the feature is able to be implemented. The EN moderator team is not here to be "for or against you" we are merely players like yourself that choose to take time from our day to help the rest of the community.

Thank you for taking time to comment.

 

[DeletedUser1581]

Got to say I don't se why this featured needed to be changed. When relocating the provisions go from Village A to Village B straight away as you can't relocate if the provisions aren't available in the target village, so the origin village being nobled should not kill the relocation as the provisions no longe rbelong to the origin village but the target village.
I understand perfectly well that all troops in transit are killed but relocation isn't transit as the provisions instantly switch over so like I said no longer belonging to the origin village, so realistically there is no reason for them to be lost. It was a perfectly good strategy and tactic to keep hold of troops if a village was going to be lost (especially offensive ones as you don't want to defend with them)

 

[DeletedUser3157]

If relocation works as @jehzir says then I would think there is a bug. I test this both scenarios at the test server today.

Does this include relocation in what way?
1. Troops relocating towards the village are lost.
2. Troops relocating from the village to another village(so troops that already count for the other village as provisions) are lost?
Are both statements true or is only 1 of the 2 statements true?

Short out come is;
1. statement is true. Troops are lost if relocation destination is conquered, also command lines will disappear.
2. statement is false. Troops will continue relocating towards their destination and they will survive if orign village is taken.

 

[DeletedUser3833]

If relocation works as @jehzir says then I would think there is a bug. I test this both scenarios at the test server today.
Short out come is;
1. statement is true. Troops are lost if relocation destination is conquered, also command lines will disappear.
2. statement is false. Troops will continue relocating towards their destination and they will survive if orign village is taken.

really? thats how it was in the beginning but they intentionally "fixed" that somewhat recently , would be funny if the fix didnt work xD


wow jehzir you completly ignored what i said again a discussion with you is so useless -.-

as you make it seem like relocation is not able to be cancelled at all

I know you did not say that relocation cannot be cancelled

i mean seriously...

 

[DeletedUser1323]

If relocation works as @jehzir says then I would think there is a bug. I test this both scenarios at the test server today.


Short out come is;
1. statement is true. Troops are lost if relocation destination is conquered, also command lines will disappear.
2. statement is false. Troops will continue relocating towards their destination and they will survive if orign village is taken.

The beta server is not the same as the active open worlds. This is not an equatable test.

Got to say I don't se why this featured needed to be changed. When relocating the provisions go from Village A to Village B straight away as you can't relocate if the provisions aren't available in the target village, so the origin village being nobled should not kill the relocation as the provisions no longe rbelong to the origin village but the target village.
I understand perfectly well that all troops in transit are killed but relocation isn't transit as the provisions instantly switch over so like I said no longer belonging to the origin village, so realistically there is no reason for them to be lost. It was a perfectly good strategy and tactic to keep hold of troops if a village was going to be lost (especially offensive ones as you don't want to defend with them)

Whitty the issue became that once the villa ID changed hands via conquering the player lost the origin villa for which the transaction began from. When the relocation troops are lost the provisions they took up are freed in the target villa.

 

[DeletedUser1201]

Gentleman & Ladies, lets not turn this into something more than what it needs to be. Its fine to have different thoughts and opinions on things, but there is no need to bash each other for them. Lets keep this discussion calm, otherwise we will be forced to close it. Honestly, I would prefer not to go that route.. as other players are getting involved, which is a good thing. Thanks all!

 

[DeletedUser1581]

At least you get the provisions back but I'd prefer the troops and not to have to defend with my offense