Abandon Region Bug

First, on Everos:


Picture is of Prism guild (orange leaf on map)

Second, on Olympus:


Picture is of Diamond guild (region #85)

---

Third, the update on January 9th, 2014

Runeslayer wrote:

We have added the "Abandon Region" as a Guild Command. Guilds are now able to abandon a region by removing all the Influence they invested in it. The action takes place at the end of the Conquest Cycle

Does not indicate whether you can or cannot abandon a capital; however this post says:

Runeslayer wrote:

1. A Guild can abandon a Region with a new Guild Command. By doing so, the people residing in that Region become angry to that Guild and the Guild loses all its influence at that specific Region.

2. A Guild can transfer its Capital from one Region to the other. That will require a certain amount of resources and the Guild won't be able to issue any Guild Commands for a certain period of Conquest Cycles. While the Capital is being relocated, the Guild lacks the organization infrastructure to give commands to its armies.

---

Bugs:

1. Cannot abandon a region not connected to capital (regions #72, 78 & 84 on Everos);
   
2. Region #85 on Olympus shows an illegal defense command (there are also illegal build arrows on the map in the disconnected area). These should be removed as it is not connected to the light capital (or at least allow the guild to cancel them);
   
3. Cannot abandon the ONLY region owned by Diamond on Olympus, which is both the Diamond capital & disconnected from light capital. More precisely cannot even issue any command to #85 (Hence cannot build new Diamond regions in the small area next to the capital).
   

Clarifications requested¹:

• Is it the intent to be able to abandon a capital?
  
• How about when the capital is the only region owned?
  
• The move capital has not been implemented yet, correct?
  

---

¹I imagine it might be the case to abandon a capital either:

• Move the capital elsewhere first, then abandon it; OR
  
• You can abandon it, but only if is the only region owned.
  

I'd like answers to the questions Pearl has asked as well.

Additionally: What affects, if any will abandoning regions connecting bonus hexes to your capital cause?

Ie. Hexes 1, 2 and 3 in a line.
Hex 1 is the Capital. Hex 3 has a bonus region.
If Hex 2 is abandoned, what happens to hex 3? Are the bonuses still provided\active? Can the region still be upgraded?

Pearl and XViper...

It was by intention to be honest, but after some thinking I find the following much more logical:

1. If the Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, it SHOULD be able to still defend itself AND the Regions connected to it.

2. If for any reason a Guild Region is cut off from the Guild Capital AND the Faction Capital, then it cannot be defended. (Guild members or other players cannot attack it to gain CP/Influence)

3. If for any reason a Guild Region is cut off from the Guild Capital but IS connected to the Faction Capital, then Guild members and other players can attack it, but they can only gain CP in it.

4. A Guild SHOULD be able to abandon Regions, even if they are cut off from the Guild Capital or Faction Capital.

5. Transfer Capital is not implemented yet.

Above changes will be implemented in one of the next updates.

XViper, the Guild will still be able to both use the Regional Bonus and upgrade it.

RuneSlayer wrote:

If the Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, it SHOULD be able to still defend itself AND the Regions connected to it.

This is very interesting & adds a depth of strategy to the game; especially if:

1. The whole faction can defend the guild capital & all connected regions;
   
2. All guilds can still issue normal military commands to the guild capital & connected regions (i.e.: A guild could sabotage another guilds region, that is not connected to the capital.  Once its falls below 10% at the end of a cycle, then no one in the same faction can defend that region any more! .. lots more intra-faction fighting after that happens, lol)
   

Doing the above gives a faction both another really important reason to hold extra non-resource regions (i.e.: so they can be defended if they are cut off  from the faction capital) AND increases the already really tough challenge ... guild politics: if guild A is mad at guild B, do they sabotage B in a cut-off area and get the whole faction truly hopping mad at them since they have made a region undefendable from the opposite faction?

---

Also you could make some real fun maps with lots of areas that could be cut off after implementing this ...

---

Clarifications re-requested:

• Is it the intent to be able to abandon a capital?
  
• How about when the capital is the only region owned?
  

Pearl wrote:

The whole faction can defend the guild capital & all connected regions;

No no no no no no... If a Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, ONLY the Guild members can defend it. If it is cut off...it's on its own..

Pearl wrote:

Clarifications re-requested:
Is it the intent to be able to abandon a capital?
How about when the capital is the only region owned?

I must have missed the questions.

No, a Guild will not be able to abandon a Guild Capital.

I have a question about this:

RuneSlayer wrote:

1. If the Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, it SHOULD be able to still defend itself AND the Regions connected to it.

Does that mean regions connected to it that are already owned by the guild in question, or would that include being able to attack connected regions not owned by them, and even flip those? Because defending is one thing, but leaving them the ability to attack is a rather large change/loophole.

Plonck wrote:

I have a question about this:

RuneSlayer wrote:

1. If the Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, it SHOULD be able to still defend itself AND the Regions connected to it.

Does that mean regions connected to it that are already owned by the guild in question, or would that include being able to attack connected regions not owned by them, and even flip those? Because defending is one thing, but leaving them the ability to attack is a rather large change/loophole.

No loophole at all, considering that it is ONE Guild against a WHOLE Faction. IF the attacks are commencing from their Guild Capital, they can do as they want. Their armies are supposed to be there, why would they need to be connected to the Faction Capital to commence attacks?

If ONE Guild can hold off and EVEN push back an entire Faction, then they have to be congratulated.

On the other hand the enemy Faction needs to commit seppuku.

RuneSlayer wrote:

No no no no no no...

hmm only six 'no's, not seven, so I guess its only 96.6% definitive

RuneSlayer wrote:

No loophole at all, considering that it is ONE Guild against a WHOLE Faction.

How about the guild & its allies then (under your reasoning the allies are also already at the guild capital under their joint defense agreeement) 

Just think of the chaos & double bind this will put guilds into, as they need to choose to ally just to defend cut-off territory, even if they are really mad at each other ... And then the faction blaming them if they refuse to ally.

How can you resist sowing such chaos & forcing players to face such tough decisions?

As someone said recently ...

Runeslayer wrote:

As I mentioned in my initial post...I want BLOOD...LOTS AND LOTS of BLOOD...but only in-game]

This feature will help ensure more infighting & blood & blaming each other ... or ... at least a greater challenge to overcome the temptation for infighting   

---

... Since this is a bug report (and I didn't want to start a new report for a tiny bug) let me make a bug report ...

The Update for January 10t, 2014 says:

Runeslayer wrote:

If a Guild Capital is cut off from the Faction Capital, it will still be able to defend itself the Regions connected to it.

First, thanks for implementing this    

Second .. Tiny almost irrelevant bug: The phrase 'defend itself the Regions' is missing the word 'and'¹

---

¹Talkative female halfkin ... having filed one too many irrelevant bug reports² ... now ... seeking refuge in a new world other than Everos or Olympus to avoid the wrath of the developers.   
²Pearl pleads for mercy ... the server is down during maintenance ..  so she had nothing to do but file a bug report.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Their armies are supposed to be there, why would they need to be connected to the Faction Capital to commence attacks?

Hmmm… by that logic, the guild shouldn't be able to fight anywhere but their capital… if their armies are supposed to be there, they shouldn't be able to be in another place at the same time   

or maybe give guilds choice. Guilds member defending guild regions or regions adjacent to capitol. From default guild would defend guilds regions, however it could be an option (for guild or guild members) to abandon guild regions and back to capitol. From that moment only defending capitol and adjacent regions but not cut-off guild capitol and regions. Players/guild could not go back to defend guild regions after choosing to abandon it (unless patch with Faction capitol would be restored).

Plonck wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Their armies are supposed to be there, why would they need to be connected to the Faction Capital to commence attacks?

Hmmm… by that logic, the guild shouldn't be able to fight anywhere but their capital… if their armies are supposed to be there, they shouldn't be able to be in another place at the same time   

Their Guild Capital is their base. So, using it as their base they can go to adjacent Regions.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Their Guild Capital is their base. So, using it as their base they can go to adjacent Regions.

Yes, and if they "are there" like you wrote above, while not having connected hexes to the faction capital, it would also mean they are in no place to reach the faction capital or the hexes that they are, after all, not connected to. But would have to stay and only fight on their own hex and the ones connected to it, but not be able to use their full force at will anywhere all the time.

Alternatively, you could just go and say it out loud that there is no actual logic behind it, but you just want it to be so. Which would be fine, you guys are the developers, and this is your game. I also understand your wish to try to stall the end of this map, although it would be refreshing to the players to see that last map's stalemate is not a given. Just don't try to sell stuff like the above as if it needs to be so by some deeper game logic.

Same goes for the cheat horse light army that just so happened to only spend time on #88 yesterday, and not on any of the other six hexes it had access to, or at least the three where there was influence by both factions. That is one focused horse. And oh, look, it's been on #85 exclusively since #88 flipped and I see it walking there again right now. Really impressive focus for a game feature that so far had only been seen to be acting randomly. What a coincidence that its behaviour so neatly aligns with the goal of keeping the map unwon by either faction.   

Plonck wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Their Guild Capital is their base. So, using it as their base they can go to adjacent Regions.

Yes, and if they "are there" like you wrote above, while not having connected hexes to the faction capital, it would also mean they are in no place to reach the faction capital or the hexes that they are, after all, not connected to. But would have to stay and only fight on their own hex and the ones connected to it, but not be able to use their full force at will anywhere all the time.

Alternatively, you could just go and say it out loud that there is no actual logic behind it, but you just want it to be so. Which would be fine, you guys are the developers, and this is your game. I also understand your wish to try to stall the end of this map, although it would be refreshing to the players to see that last map's stalemate is not a given. Just don't try to sell stuff like the above as if it needs to be so by some deeper game logic.

Same goes for the cheat horse light army that just so happened to only spend time on #88 yesterday, and not on any of the other six hexes it had access to, or at least the three where there was influence by both factions. That is one focused horse. And oh, look, it's been on #85 exclusively since #88 flipped and I see it walking there again right now. Really impressive focus for a game feature that so far had only been seen to be acting randomly. What a coincidence that its behaviour so neatly aligns with the goal of keeping the map unwon by either faction.   

Umm...I think you are going overboard here. The change is valid both ways, for both Factions.

Now, as I mentioned in another post.

If 1 or 2 Guilds can hold off an entire Faction, then the members of that Faction need to SERIOUSLY reconsider their strategy...

Don't try to accuse us for creating stalemate. The condition of the map says it all.

Get your "plans" together...and push if you can... all the rest is just excuses for not being able to push to the enemy Capital...

As for the Capital Armies...same as above...you can try to accuse the "weather", "black magic", "voodoo", or whatever the heck you want...Truth is....the Light Faction IS fighting back...

Capital Armies will attack the closest Region in danger and with the lesser CP value. Why the heck would it go somewhere else? Just so it will make your life easier?

Finally...We don't "win" anything by creating a stalemate..and we don't "lose" anything if a Faction wins and the map is reset.....so all the rest is pure bs....

Logic...pure logic......

Plonck wrote:

Alternatively, you could just go and say it out loud that there is no actual logic behind it, but you just want it to be so

I'll quote from Steven Den Beste:

Steven Den Beste wrote:

This is not a show where the story is water tight. It's partially governed by the "Rule of cool" and partially governed by the "Rule of Funny".

Remember in "Who Frame Roger Rabbit?" there was a scene where Eddie and Roger were handcuffed together, and eventually Eddie is trying to cut it off with a hacksaw. At which point Roger pulls his hand out of it. Then puts his hand back in.

Eddie says, "You mean you could have gotten your hand out of it at any time?" And Roger says, "No, not any time. Only when it was funny."

That's the Rule of Funny: you can violate the laws of physics and causality if it's funny. (That's why the Coyote only falls once he realizes he's going to, for example. The law of gravity only kicks in when it's funny.)

The Rule of Cool applied in this, too. There were several places where things happened which were cool beyond belief, but which didn't really make a whole lot of sense. (Like the final daring rescue. How, exactly, did he get there?)

Basically, if it makes the game more enjoyable & its cool, then its a good idea   ... and you come up with some "rationale" to explain it so people can understand the concept

Enjoyable is more important than logic ... for games (and movies)  

---

Plonck wrote:

Same goes for the cheat horse light army that just so happened to only spend time on #88 yesterday, and not on any of the other six hexes it had access to, or at least the three where there was influence by both factions.

The light army only attacks regions owned by the dark (and except in very unusual circumstances¹) that are connected to the light capital.

Hence, yesterday, #88 was its only choice.

The rules of the dark & light armies are not random.  Here is a Close approximation:

Pearl wrote:

Based on my observation of the dark army, I believe the rule is close to this:

1. Attack the lowest numbered region the light faction holds;
   
2. UNLESS the region is under 50% or so, in which case attack the next lowest one.
   

(Actually its more like 45% than 50% based on further observation; or even more accurately, an amount that would not "tip" the balance of power)

In addition to the above:

1. Often, when possible (due to the map) the two armies are "connected" and choose to fight in adjacent regions;
   
2. Choosing the lowest number region of the "closest" regions (hence #85 instead of #86)
   

The behavior of the dark & light armies are actually quite sophisticated; requiring a faction to work together to benefit from them most.

It took a long time to figure this out on Everos -- and why the dark army there prefers region #50.  Working together, the light faction then was able work together to counter the dark army.  It targets specific regions to weaken one guild, and is thus a challenge for the faction to overcome the initial desire to see that guild fall or to blame that guild for losing regions on the front line.

---

Finally, as Runeslayer has posted:

Runeslayer wrote:

Somehow...I doubt it... Conquering Regions ...is one thing...Conquering the bordering Regions of the Capital and the Capital itself is another...Closed Beta users have experienced the "might" and power of the Capital defenders... 14+ level units...and 20 lvl units defending the Capital

...unless of course you thought that conquering the enemy capital is a stroll in the park.

The war is not lost...that's if the Light forces do not give up.

The war on Olympus has only just begun.  Of course the final assault to the light capital is way way more difficult ... and the light/dark armies play a part in that.

Otherwise the game would be just plain boring, dark would simply win by math (60 of top 110 players are dark .vs. light & thus have ~122k conquest point advantage) with no strategy at all.

No one would enjoy a game reduced to such a simple concept.

The final regions create both advantages¹ & disadvantages for both factions.  Both factions have interesting challenges to overcome ...  Which is good game design.

---

¹In rare cases where a connecting region has recently changed hands, and an army has already attacked a region, it may attack the same region again ... even though it is no longer connected to the capital it came from.  Whether this is a bug or not is not clear.
²Yes the Light army is a current advantage to the light side.  However, there are counter-balancing advantages to the dark side now.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Umm...I think you are going overboard here. The change is valid both ways, for both Factions.

Now, as I mentioned in another post.

If 1 or 2 Guilds can hold off an entire Faction, then the members of that Faction need to SERIOUSLY reconsider their strategy...

Don't try to accuse us for creating stalemate. The condition of the map says it all.

Get your "plans" together...and push if you can... all the rest is just excuses for not being able to push to the enemy Capital...

As for the Capital Armies...same as above...you can try to accuse the "weather", "black magic", "voodoo", or whatever the heck you want...Truth is....the Light Faction IS fighting back...

Capital Armies will attack the closest Region in danger and with the lesser CP value. Why the heck would it go somewhere else? Just so it will make your life easier?

Finally...We don't "win" anything by creating a stalemate..and we don't "lose" anything if a Faction wins and the map is reset.....so all the rest is pure bs....

Logic...pure logic......

I wrote nowhere that the changes aren't valid for both factions. I know similar things would happen if it were the other way round. And I'm also not saying that the Light side is being favoured, because I know that's not the case and it all could be playing out in the Dark side's favour just as well.

I do however have an issue with the reasoning we're being given. Trying to say that it's all logic when a guild can be suddenly be fighting in their own headquarters because »they are there« , but then it being possible that they are also fighting in areas they are cut-off from, both in full force if they so choose, is not logic. It is just a decision about game mechanics the developers made.

And about this:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Now, as I mentioned in another post.

If 1 or 2 Guilds can hold off an entire Faction, then the members of that Faction need to SERIOUSLY reconsider their strategy...

Don't try to accuse us for creating stalemate. The condition of the map says it all.

Get your "plans" together...and push if you can... all the rest is just excuses for not being able to push to the enemy Capital...

Yes, sure, all respect to a guild that can »hold off an entire region«, and shame on the faction that can't hold them back. Thing is, while this change may well create interesting actual David vs. Goliath-situations in the future, a look at the map from the last days shows that this change at this time just so happened to create something entirely different, namely a rearing situation where one of the strongest, most able to drop cp light guilds was put in a position to weaken a hex that otherwise would've been a hurdle to a push-back from the light. But sure, we had weak "plans" because we didn't see that one coming.

And before you insinuate this is a sort of sour grapes situation for me, and I'm just pissed off: just like you say it makes no difference for you if a faction wins or not, it makes pretty much no difference to me as well. I'm in it more for the interaction with people than for »winning«, and the play is the same, no matter if it's in the middle of the map or three hexes removed from the capital. I choose my armies, go in alone or with a friend. I heal them, which takes shorter or longer, depending on how well a fight went. Lather, rinse, repeat. It would be fun to see what happens when we actually reach and flip the light faction capital, but I never expected it to be a quick thing anyway, since there aren't even many people yet who can do fights at the required levels. And as I said, the play itself wouldn't change anyway.

But: things like nightmare missions only at the end are things we knew about. What raises my eyebrow is how suddenly all kinds of stuff pop up that quickly reverse progress and counter plans that had been made, and were based on everything we knew about maps and their workings so far. Writing »all the rest is just excuses for not being able to push to the enemy Capital...« pretty much misses the point here, and is also somewhat insulting to the players who fought well so far and had good plans, that unfortunately were based on game rules that were suddenly changed. And if you could kindly refrain from calling those observations »pure bs«, I'd appreciate it.

I think the idea is potentially great, but the way it's implemented is not optimal.

It's good that a guild can defend its regions even if they have been cut off from the faction capital. What I struggle with is the notion that they also can defend the faction hexes crossing the enemy lines, AND attack neighboring regions to their guild capital.

I believe it would be better to choose between:

1) Being able to defend your guild capital and attack neighboring hexes but not fight in the faction frontier

2) Being able to defend your guild capital and fight in the faction frontier but not attack neighboring hexes to your capital.

I think option 1 would add a lot of interesting strategy and politic struggle to the guild aspect of the game. You would have other guilds asking the isolated one to abandon their capital so they can help in the faction war, while the isolated guild asks them on help cutting it back to reconnect their capital to the faction. Option 2 is boring in comparison but at least feels more fair than the current implementation.