Warzone Features
Welcome! This forum tracks Warzone feature requets to the Warzone creator. You can vote on the features you’d most like to see in the game.
- or
864 results found
-
removing fog by a button in game
once youve been eliminated, or surrendered, and are still connected with your friends who are continuing to battle, would be nice to be able to watch their action...either by a simple button that activated when player is eliminated or surrenders, or done so automatically, -can be setup to work either way by host when he creates game... so if ones concerned about tourny cheating by outed player telling teamate where they are, a host would simply not activate this option... for friends playing together...its a drag to be sitting waiting for them to finish without being able to watch the action!!!!
once youve been eliminated, or surrendered, and are still connected with your friends who are continuing to battle, would be nice to be able to watch their action...either by a simple button that activated when player is eliminated or surrenders, or done so automatically, -can be setup to work either way by host when he creates game... so if ones concerned about tourny cheating by outed player telling teamate where they are, a host would simply not activate this option... for friends playing together...its a drag to be sitting waiting for them to finish without being able to watch the…
21 votes -
Peaceful Game Ending
In a diplomatic game with a lot of treaties made between players it would be nice to be able to end a game without full elimination and still get points. It would be a bit like the vote to end system but all players decide that a game should end peacefully and the points are split up between the remaining players.
21 votes -
Allow map creators to better analyze their map
Currently map creators have to personally and manually analyze connection numbers, total territory bonus weighting, graph centrality and isolation, along with a slew of other bits that go into making a GOOD map. If the warlight map creator allowed the map creator to download a Graph Description Language (or DOT) file, or a Graph Modeling Language (GML) file that described their graph's connections, may open source tools could be used to help the map designer fix unbalanced maps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT_%28graph_description_language%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_Modelling_LanguageThis obviously would need to be a file that is only accessible to the map developer, otherwise it could be seen as unfairly advantageous strategy planning for players of the map if only one knew how to use these tools.
This idea would greatly improve the quality of gameplay on many maps. If you need help coding this, let me know, I'm happy to help.
Currently map creators have to personally and manually analyze connection numbers, total territory bonus weighting, graph centrality and isolation, along with a slew of other bits that go into making a GOOD map. If the warlight map creator allowed the map creator to download a Graph Description Language (or DOT) file, or a Graph Modeling Language (GML) file that described their graph's connections, may open source tools could be used to help the map designer fix unbalanced maps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT_%28graph_description_language%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_Modelling_LanguageThis obviously would need to be a file that is only accessible to the map developer, otherwise it could be…
21 votes -
Using Mods in the Custom Scenario Builder
Currently, Warzone has 2 amazing features: Mods and Custom Scenarios. The biggest thing that is missing, in my opinion, is the compatibility between the two...
For those who don't want to read everything below, this is my suggestion. Update the custom scenario builder to include mod compatibility.
Hi, I'm JustADutchman_ and have been playing Warzone for more than 2 years now. Most players know me from my mods and the effort I put into the modded Warzone scene/community. One thing that I've always tried is to engage every player with mods, whatever community they're in.
Warzone mods can support/enhance every community, game, and tournament. We have strategic mods (Capture The Flag, Connected Territories), mods that are really convenient to use (Local Deployment Helper), and even some mods that enhance custom scenarios (Advanced Card Distribution, Dragons, Structures Distribution). But, for the latter community, it is really difficult to create mods. That is, we don't have any tools to make mods for it, which makes the usage of the mods really awkward.
Here's my feature request: Update the custom scenario builder to make it compatible with mods.
With "compatible", I mean allow mods to modify, add or remove armies, structures, or custom units. Here is how I see it could be done:
When you open the custom scenario builder, somewhere on the left side it will have a new option: [Include Mod]. When you click on this button, a list of mods will show up that meet a certain requirement (I will get back on this requirement later), and you can pick a mod that will be included in the game + the custom scenario builder. If needed, a window pops up where you need to take some actions in order to configure the mod (mod settings and such). If you have included 1 or more mods, a new option becomes available: [Mod Action] (I'm really bad at names, so sorry for that xD).
At this point, we already have (some) tools to modify anything we want, the custom scenario builder just needs to support having structures and other special units than commanders. That's all for the custom scenario builder.
For the mods, the requirement that they need to meet is to have implemented a certain, new mod hook: Client_CustomScenarioConfigureUI. The arguments given to this hook need to give at least access to the custom scenario, a RootParent, UI and WL libraries, and the Mod.Settings storage (read-only).
This mod hook will create a dialog similar to a mod menu but is called while creating a custom scenario. In this dialog, mods can do their magic with the tools they already can write to the custom scenario.
This above is of course my implementation and Fizzer can pick whatever implementation he wants, but I just want to let you all know that this is possible. Please leave behind any questions you have, I'll try to answer them as best as I can. Also please vote on this post, this should have been added a long time ago...
Currently, Warzone has 2 amazing features: Mods and Custom Scenarios. The biggest thing that is missing, in my opinion, is the compatibility between the two...
For those who don't want to read everything below, this is my suggestion. Update the custom scenario builder to include mod compatibility.
Hi, I'm JustADutchman_ and have been playing Warzone for more than 2 years now. Most players know me from my mods and the effort I put into the modded Warzone scene/community. One thing that I've always tried is to engage every player with mods, whatever community they're in.
Warzone mods can…
21 votes -
Vote to change boot time
This would allow any player to initiate a vote to change the game's boot time. This also means a real-time game could graduate into a multi-day game.
This is useful for real-time games that start out going quickly, but then last longer than expected and someone has to leave. If all players agreed, the game could continue on as a play-by-email game.
20 votes -
Win/Lose Streak
Was thinking there should be a Win/Lose Streak along with longest Win/Lose Streak on players stats
20 votes -
Allowing players who have been eliminated from a multiplayer game to get rid of fog so they can see the rest of the game play out.
Allowing players who have been eliminated from a multiplayer game to get rid of fog so they can see the rest of the game play out and talk to the other players about it, if they choose.
20 votes -
Weighted Move Order
I propose a new optional setting (hopefully to be tested in seasonal ladder) that is a weighted move order. The default would be %10, but you could alter it like luck%.
How it would work is the order starts out 50/50 for turn 1. Each turn, the move order scale is altered based on who got first move the turn prior. So if player B gets first turn on 1, then on turn 2 it is 60/40 (for example) on turn 2 in favor of player A.
This reduces the frequency of long strings of first moves by one player.
20 votes -
Turnwise chat history
Recently I joined a few larger diplo games which of course include a lot of public chat. In two of these games we have reached the point that my PC is unable to load the chat history because it is just too big. Since most of the time you know which time of the game you want to refer to it would be usefull to be able to recall just a portion of the chat.
My suggestion would be to add a feature that allows you to load the chat history for just one specific turn or maybe a bunch of turns where you could choose starting and end turn.
That way the loading times would be reduced greatly and it would be way easier to find the messages you were looking for.
I hope such a thing would not be too hard to implement.
Recently I joined a few larger diplo games which of course include a lot of public chat. In two of these games we have reached the point that my PC is unable to load the chat history because it is just too big. Since most of the time you know which time of the game you want to refer to it would be usefull to be able to recall just a portion of the chat.
My suggestion would be to add a feature that allows you to load the chat history for just one specific turn or maybe a bunch…
20 votes -
Allow custom group chats in games.
Allows a player to add and remove players from a group chat within the game, similar to the team chat feature, but players can be added or removed from the chat by the player that created the group chat . This would be helpful in
diplomacy games where one or more coalitions have been established. Currently, our best option is Discord, but not all players want to join a discord server, so it's not always effective, in which case, we are forced to share the same messages with each player individually, and often this makes communications very slow, it's a race against the boot timer just to ferry responses between players, and it's especially tedious when discussing important issues which then require a subsequent vote of all coalition members.Allows a player to add and remove players from a group chat within the game, similar to the team chat feature, but players can be added or removed from the chat by the player that created the group chat . This would be helpful in
diplomacy games where one or more coalitions have been established. Currently, our best option is Discord, but not all players want to join a discord server, so it's not always effective, in which case, we are forced to share the same messages with each player individually, and often this makes communications very slow, it's a…20 votes -
Bonus-Specific Local Deployment
So we have this cool thing called local deployments, we also have a lot of cool maps with overlapping bonuses.
Unfortunately, the two can only come together by turning a lot of the maps' bonuses to 0, so there are no overlapping ones.
So my proposal is thus:
Allow template creators to set specific bonuses as locally deployed, and others to contribute to the general pool, and that way overlapping bonuses can exist, with each territory only being allowed to be part of on locally deployed bonus.For example, You have Bonus A, which consists of Territories 1 to 4 and is worth 5 armies, we also have bonus B, which consists of territories 1 to 12 and is worth 20 armies.
The host can set Bonus A to be local and B to be general.
If a player controls both and has no other income sources, he will have 20 armies he can distribute anywhere and 5 armies to put in territories 1,2,3,4.Obviously, negative bonuses are only allowed as general pool.
So we have this cool thing called local deployments, we also have a lot of cool maps with overlapping bonuses.
Unfortunately, the two can only come together by turning a lot of the maps' bonuses to 0, so there are no overlapping ones.
So my proposal is thus:
Allow template creators to set specific bonuses as locally deployed, and others to contribute to the general pool, and that way overlapping bonuses can exist, with each territory only being allowed to be part of on locally deployed bonus.For example, You have Bonus A, which consists of Territories 1 to 4…
19 votes -
Capture-the-flag Style Competition
Members would compete in 1v1 games, the winner would then have their chosen colour automatically replaced with a new gold colour. The winner would retain this colour until defeated in the competition by another player.
Variations:
1. Permanent availability of gold colour after winning a certain number of games in a row, for example 15 or 20. Or, permanent availability of a different colour, eg silver. After reaching this number of games the champion would return to the list of challengers.
2. Chosen colour replaced with bronze after winning one game, silver after winning 3, gold after winning 10, platinum after winning 20.
3. Acheivements in this competition could be included on the profile page.Not sure how games would be selected, perhaps members could elect to join the competition, or automatically be included in the competition, and challengers would be selected either at random or would enter a waiting list. an autoboot set for < 1 day would be appropriate to keep the competition going.
The map and settings could be identical to the 1v1 ladder. Alternatively the challenger could select the map.
Please comment if you have any suggestions, or if I haven't stated anything clearly. Thank you.
Members would compete in 1v1 games, the winner would then have their chosen colour automatically replaced with a new gold colour. The winner would retain this colour until defeated in the competition by another player.
Variations:
1. Permanent availability of gold colour after winning a certain number of games in a row, for example 15 or 20. Or, permanent availability of a different colour, eg silver. After reaching this number of games the champion would return to the list of challengers.
2. Chosen colour replaced with bronze after winning one game, silver after winning 3, gold after winning 10, platinum…18 votes -
Reinforcement Income Defection Card
A card that causes a percentage of a selected opponent's income to 'defect' to you.
Likely best played at or near the bottom of the order stack, taking effect at the beginning of the next turn, this card would allow the player to nominate an opponent, whose income would become your income. Game settings specific to the card would be to set what percentage of armies defect, to allow the card to be completely effective or only partially so.
This card should be calculated after the sanctions cards (i.e. playing against a sanctioned player would be ineffective, receiving sanctions yourself would still allow defections to occur). It could possibly allow third party defections (from one player to another but not involving you) in a manner similar to sanctions.
Although the card can be played by anyone, in any situation, this card would act as an equaliser. Between mismatched opponents, one with a large income and the other a small one, the player with a lower income himself will see a larger benefit than the other player, by virtue that there are fewer reinforcements to 'steal'. In equal situations it may help tip the balance of power.
A card that causes a percentage of a selected opponent's income to 'defect' to you.
Likely best played at or near the bottom of the order stack, taking effect at the beginning of the next turn, this card would allow the player to nominate an opponent, whose income would become your income. Game settings specific to the card would be to set what percentage of armies defect, to allow the card to be completely effective or only partially so.
This card should be calculated after the sanctions cards (i.e. playing against a sanctioned player would be ineffective, receiving sanctions yourself…
17 votes -
Allow forum thread creator to collapse posts
Simply allow the creator of a forum thread the ability to collapse any post within the thread. The post would then be reduced merely to the poster's name and timestamp. Readers would be able to expand posts individually, or to expand the entire thread.
The current forum is not heavily moderated, and allowing thread creators to blacklist posters or lock threads merely gives trolls further opportunity to do what they love best.
This solution would not censor anyone, nor would it create more opportunities for trolling. It would simply allow thread creators to streamline their own thread to keep it on topic and family friendly.
Simply allow the creator of a forum thread the ability to collapse any post within the thread. The post would then be reduced merely to the poster's name and timestamp. Readers would be able to expand posts individually, or to expand the entire thread.
The current forum is not heavily moderated, and allowing thread creators to blacklist posters or lock threads merely gives trolls further opportunity to do what they love best.
This solution would not censor anyone, nor would it create more opportunities for trolling. It would simply allow thread creators to streamline their own thread to keep it…
17 votes -
Warlight Generals
Like commanders, Generals are a single unit representing non-decreasing armies. However, there are a few differences:
The General would be obtained by card piece. The player would then select the territory where the general would be placed. This would make a game interesting, as this can make or break a game.
The General would represent a customizable amount of armies. It could be 5, 7, or another amount of armies.
If the General is eliminated, the game would continue, so losing players would not play on in a losing position knowing they can win simply by killing it.
I hope this sounds intriguing!
Like commanders, Generals are a single unit representing non-decreasing armies. However, there are a few differences:
The General would be obtained by card piece. The player would then select the territory where the general would be placed. This would make a game interesting, as this can make or break a game.
The General would represent a customizable amount of armies. It could be 5, 7, or another amount of armies.
If the General is eliminated, the game would continue, so losing players would not play on in a losing position knowing they can win simply by killing it.
I hope…
17 votes -
16 votes
-
Toggles
http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=3683
Here is the thread where I posted the idea, all the info is there. :)16 votes -
Names of the player taking the action on all 'History' rollouts
Names of the player taking the action on all 'History' rollouts
Names of the player taking the action on all 'History' rollouts-
ie.) like the name now is, when "X" player uses airlift.'Colors' & 'Names' would assist better.
16 votes -
Ability to Search Community Levels
I am a big fan of the Insanely detailed world map and the ability to search the community levels that specifically use that map would make is a lot easier to find them
16 votes -
Declare victory when one team has overwhelming superiority
If one player/team has such overwhelming superiority in terms of terroritories and bonus areas controlled, this should result in an automatic victory. For example, if in a game of five players, one player already has income equal to, say, 70% of possible armies, and no other player has control over more than one bonus area, it's extremely unlikely that they'll fight back to win. But it's sometimes necessary to go through the whole mopping-up process - when everyone knows what the outcome will be. It would be much easier to declare an automatic victory at this point - or at least to have the game suggest to all players that it be declared a victory for the hegemon. The exact proportions, or the point at which this happens, could be determined in settings on a game-by-game basis.
If one player/team has such overwhelming superiority in terms of terroritories and bonus areas controlled, this should result in an automatic victory. For example, if in a game of five players, one player already has income equal to, say, 70% of possible armies, and no other player has control over more than one bonus area, it's extremely unlikely that they'll fight back to win. But it's sometimes necessary to go through the whole mopping-up process - when everyone knows what the outcome will be. It would be much easier to declare an automatic victory at this point - or at…
15 votes
- Don't see your idea?