Yeon
My feedback
5 results found
-
42 votes
AdminFizzer
(WarLight Creator, WarLight)
responded
The issue with local deployments and overlapping bonuses comes up when you think about deploying. When players deploy an army to a territory that is part of two bonuses and they control both of those bonuses, the game would need to know which bonus you want to take the army from.
Imagine three territories: 1, 2, and 3. There’s a bonus A made up of territories 1 and 2, and a bonus B made up of territories 2 and 3. Both bonuses give 1 army per turn and therefore the player gets 2 income. Imagine a player controls all three territories (and therefore both bonuses), and then tries to deploy an army on territory 2. The game needs to know if it should allocate that army from bonus A or B.
There are a few strategies it could use to decide:
Strategy 1: It could just pick one at random.…
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Yeon
commented
That would be a superb addition to the game for sure.
Yeon
supported this idea
·
-
468 votesAdminFizzer
(WarLight Creator, WarLight)
responded
Teammates leaving a game is certainly frustrating. Allowing another teammate to enter orders for them is definitely a possible way to address that problem.
We could use some feedback on the following potential issues with this feature:
1. In teams of more than 2 players, who gets control of a player that’s left? Just first to click the button, or assign a team captain or something?
2. Could this slow down real time games? Imagine if one person has to enter orders for 3 teammates that have left plus themselves.
3. Would this encourage someone to boot their teammates, just to take control over them?
4. It needs to be very clear who is playing who for every turn. If someone that’s under control starts sabotaging their team, like gifting stuff to an enemy or attacking teammates, it needs to be clear it isn’t really them and you shouldn’t necessarily…Yeon
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Yeon
commented
What about a setting for the game that says "orders can be entered for a teammate X times"? And then people can set it to 1 or to 0 or to 9999, according to their preferences. Definitely for booted players, probably for surrendered players, and probably also for players who want their teammates to (a setting they can switch on)? I would love for a team game to not be held up by vacations, and this is a way of accomplishing that.
Who gets control: I think it makes sense for a player to be able to set this themselves (e.g. if orders are to be submitted for me, player X gets to do it). In case of this not being the case, I think "first to do it" makes most sense to develop because it is simplest, but if you don't mind then making a vote system could be just as good.
As to slowing down games, I imagine it only slows down games that otherwise would have been ruined by boots - and boot timer is still the same :)
It would encourage people to boot teammates that in one way or another ruins their game experience. Not so much if it's set to only allow orders for a teammate on, say, 10 turns or less. But I don't see a problem making it up to the game creator whether it's possible. If game creator wants to make sure people are never encouraged to boot teammates, then this could be set to 0.
I would not say it diminishes the value of team games because team games is different game play. I would say it would be good to make this change optional, though (for example by the number of turns as suggested above).
Of course you could easily get burnt out if you join several big team games and all your teammates get booted/surrender. But I think you also would be pretty burnt out / pissed off if that meant the AI took their place. I don't think this is a problem.
What was suggested below (any teammate can enter orders for a teammate once the deadline is passed) sounds good too.
And yes, it definitely does need to be clear who entered the orders. I think it would be a good idea to mention it at the start of the orders for the turn. Like "This turn, Fizzer entered the orders for Yeon" with the appropriate colour next to it.
-
22 votesYeon
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesYeon
supported this idea
·
-
32 votesYeon
supported this idea
·
I agree strategies 1 and 2 are not optimal due to the problems you mention. Strategy 3 is definitely best. Second best would be allocate as follows, starting at the top and then ditching whatever alternatives lose a check (something is true for one or more bonuses, but not for all):
1) By whatever bonus still have armies to deploy
2) By bonus size in territories (smallest first)
3) Alphabetically
The last one rather than random so that it is deterministic. Players will inherently learn that "clicking first on Paris and then on Lyon works for this" even if they don't know the rule.
I think you can probably get a correct universal pseudo-code implementation of strategy 3 by going over the implementation together with others with coding experience. You've probably worked out almost every detail by now, so a fresh pair of eyes could maybe point you in the direction of why it does not work correctly. Unless you already have the right design and have made some mistake in the actual coding, that is.