Login

**Ry Vor** · (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015, 04:08 AM by Ry Vor.)

Nice write up, Mike.

The whole player elimination dilemma, and encampment thing that wasn't really developed and is problematic, had to be addressed. So we hear some players want to continue even if they don't have a PC under their control. But an encampment was physically nowhere on the map, created all kinds of program problems.

As Mike is moving us quickly toward automation, we need this handled by the code rather than one of the one-offs that we had, which included ESO and SVC until recently, Victory checks, Appeal to the Gods.

You can establish your Sanctuary on any turn, it won't expire. Yes, you have to have done that before losing your last PC, so you likely have to plan far ahead. If you lose your last PC and have no Sanctuary, you are eliminated. If you have no political emissary, and so no king, you are eliminated. If you have no PC and no emissary, you should join a new game of Alamaze. But it is intended to be the sole action of a king the turn it is issued.

**Jumpingfist** · (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015, 01:27 PM by Jumpingfist.)

I think you should add one turn before a kingdom is removed for no emmisary/king. The people would pick someone to run there kingdom to rally behind. Normally this would be the military leader if the military is strong but the game does not support that.
Game mechanic wise it supports allowing a kingdom to be eliminated by no emmisary. Each time a king/regent is killed the new one is teleported back to the capital to take over the kingdom and be ready to be killed again. This already happens in games and now that you can remove a kingdom will happen more. So just allow one turn to buy some level of ruler or automatically force the spending of 15k when the last ruler dies if no gold in coffers fine they did not plan ahead and the kingdom dies

**unclemike** · 03-09-2015, 03:48 PM

Funny but that actually happened to me in game 108 as the DA. The UN was assassinating my regents and other emissaries every turn and my kingdom was paralyzed because order #510 (back then) would fail if your influence was at 8.0 and you couldn't pay the influence cost of hiring a new emissary.

So I was losing 2-3 emissaries a turn (when combined with the RD attacking my pc's and capturing my guys) and I couldn't do anything to recover. I was trying to issue order #480 (which requires your ruler's name) every turn but that would fail if the UN was successful in taking out my regent with his special ability (order #295). So it ended up with me crossing my fingers every turn that the UN's agents would fail with my regent, my 480 would kick off raising to 9.0 influence, and I would be able to hire a new emissary just to survive in the game and not be eliminated by not having any political emissaries. It was rough!!

Since then, order #510 has been changed to allow kingdoms to hire new guys even at the minimum 8.0 influence so you're not paralyzed as I was in trying to survive but after going through that experience, I really would prefer if the rule was changed where a player may not be eliminated in that manner. Game 108 really got to me because I was eliminated even when I had control of the region at the time so it wasn't like my kingdom was in a hopeless situation. Technically, a kingdom may be eliminated due to this rule even if they were in control of multiple regions which would be weird.

That's why in game 300, I tried the experiment of having the code automatically create an Envoy to take over if the last political emissary was taken out so a kingdom can't be eliminated that way. But I guess that change didn't make the final cut Smile

**HeadHoncho** · 03-10-2015, 01:44 AM

Has the BL player recruited a Phoenix brigade in this game yet? If so, would you mind sharing whether that occurred at NN? Thanks!

**DuPont** · 03-10-2015, 02:55 AM

Won't Sanctuary be crawling with thieves and hosts of other ne'er do wells?

**Ry Vor** · 03-10-2015, 02:57 AM

They can't find the damn thing. As we implement it, I am thinking if it is actually utilized, the kingdom recovers the 10k food and gold.

**unclemike** · 03-10-2015, 04:29 AM

Whew. Just finished correcting the migration of Monday's games. I missed a single field to migrate from among dozens of fields in 33 different DBF files from the old database system and that one field caused all of this problem. Had to rerun turns for a couple of games then manually corrected others that had advanced past the migration stage. I may have to delay Tuesday's games (152 T36, 155 T27, 163 T9, 164 T8, 165 T6, 167 T2, 300 T25) until I review the remaining games for accuracy.

Sorry about all of the trouble but converting the old system to the new one took a bit of effort to do along with the additional work of repairing records that were corrupted or had invalid data. One game had two artifacts with the same shortname, another had missing fields for a few records, another had the same person listed twice to play different kingdoms, ...etc. So this week may have some delays in getting games out...

**HeadHoncho** · 03-10-2015, 04:05 PM

(03-10-2015, 02:57 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: They can't find the damn thing. As we implement it, I am thinking if it is actually utilized, the kingdom recovers the 10k food and gold.

Misunderstood your comment initially... I totally agree with you on this, I think it would be helpful to refund the 10K food and gold if the Sanctuary ends up being used. This could represent the court grabbing everything that wasn't nailed down at the capital before fleeing to the Sanctuary. It would be a very small amount of money to use for orders, before a complete lack of income really sets in (minus anything that could be conjured by wizards or gifted by allies).

**unclemike** · 03-10-2015, 04:06 PM

I was able to finish checking the migrated games just before noon so the games should have ran today as normal. Let me know if there is a problem with your turn at prototype300.alamaze@gmail.com. This is true for all games that ran today:

152 T36
155 T27
163 T9
164 T8
165 T6
167 T2
300 T25

**HeadHoncho** · (This post was last modified: 03-10-2015, 04:43 PM by HeadHoncho.)

164 was actually about to process T9, but we received what looks to be a re-run of T8.

EDIT: Since all of our T9 orders were already in as of noon Eastern today, and a number of them were contingent on the original run of T8, it would be good to reverse the re-run and use the original results, and process with the existing T9 orders, if at all possible.