Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Tournaments   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 17 of 17   
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 09:21:59

Level 50
1. Often its effectiv to send a group of units to your opponents bonuses and try always to get the first order while your opponent must at least have the doubled amount of units to kill yours. Sometimes it isnt possible to block it with a defending stack or it's too gambling to try it. Furthermore you can also deploy many units into this "guerilla" group if you are in a good place to break many bonuses and let the follower run into your stack instead of trying to get the first order, after that you can simple spread all and destroy everything.
For that the game needs a option that can be activated, which makes follower stacks always get the first order if they are doubled amount. The chance could decrease as smaller the follower group is in comparison to the running stack. It should also change the row of the orders, so that follower can catch every running stack, even if the follower can only do one first order. This way the follower dont need to gamble which stack will be the one with the first order which with the second and even if the follower need to catch more than 1 player he should not need care about the superiour number of first orders as long as his stacks are greater.

2. It should be possible to delay orders. Usually you have orders which should happen last as possible and it can change a lot if your opponent get the later order. At the moment the player with more orders got the later order. So its decided by something not tactical. Each player should have the chance to get the latest order(s).

3. It should be possible to get cards without to capture a territory, on big maps this condition is nothing and on small maps it can be impossible but very neccessary to change the game.

4. Armys per territory need also a change. At the moment armys per territory and base income are 2 diffrent kind of base incomes. You get the normal base income as long as you dont get more from armys per territory base income. As soon as you get more from armys per territory the normal base income will be replaced with it. But really noone want this. We want that there is a simple base income and furthermore a optionally add by armys per territory.

5. It should be possible to give each player his own cards in teamgames.

6. We also need a way to add more times the same kind of card into the game, 1 reinforcement card with 10 base armys and 1 reinforcement card which grant X armys * turn for example.

7. Airlifts also need more options. It would be nice if they could also be treated as a normal move, which not defenitly happen first. Airlifts should optionally can be made only to receive and send units for the same player. Maybe we could optionally make airlifts able to attack territorys which are next to yours or even on the whole map.

8. I think it,s nothing new, that it would be a nice think if players can make new alliances during a game as they would be in a teamgame.

9. Multi-transfer. Often there are units staying around you cant use sensful, just sending to the front, and never reach it in time but they could make a difference. It happens everytime you finished an opponent on a place far away from the other battlefronts. You had to deploy them and did everything right but now you lost so many units, because you cant use them anymore (only exception airlifts but you dont want to have them in everygame). So it would be nice if it would be possible to have multivmove orders from territorys not adjacency on enemy or neutral territorys.

10. Option to force a vote to end if a player gets booted in the first turns or even everytime. Or how about a way to let players join into a game with booted players to let them play their game.

11. A better Ai would be nice. If a player gets booted or you want to have a non human as opponent in your szenario game, it will make the game a lot better.

12. Peaceful capture as advanced attack. It should be possible to capture territorys by your teammate with 1 unit without a fight.

13. Sometimes it isnt possible to balance bonuses, because the only thing which could help is a 0,5 unit bonus, what isnt possible till now in warlight. You wouldnt deploy a 0,5 unit but you could use it as a kind of piece until you finish it. The other way would be to make it possible to increase the nessecary amount of units to hold a territory. Because its the only thing you cant change if you increase all other things to avoid the 0,5 unit balance problem.

Edited 12/16/2015 12:06:40
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 09:36:03

Level 51
1. can be solved using Order Priority cards, even if it's not what you wanted. If you're playing on a Cyclic move order, it's also usually semi-trivial to figure out whether you're going to move first if you and your opponent have been in contact for 3+ turns.

2. This is called an Order Delay card. You should try using it- it's even available in the Strat 1v1 template, and very commonly used by virtually everyone who has a grasp of move order.

3. is not already implemented, but I personally think it's a useful game mechanic and offering what you suggest would hurt UX since it's going to overload the user (WL already has issues with this, but most of the customizations are actually useful and the core game mechanics are largely intact unless you deliberately go for extreme settings)

4. You can implement this with 0 base income and a regular flow of reinforcement cards (or actual base income + reinforcement cards based on # of territories). Imperfect solution since players can hold onto the income instead of using it (unless you're limiting the # of cards they hold to just 1, which works in very limited scenarios, or an otherwise low number) but for the most part the effect should work fairly well

5. is not implemented; I also disagree with it since I like the teamwork aspect and think it's a necessary core game mechanic

6. That's true, although it would get hella confusing (RIP UX)

7. That's a cool idea for a new type of card. Maybe usevoice this?

8. That's been suggested for ages. Good luck.

9. Multi-attack is already a feature.

10. Exploitable, but also useful in the right circumstances. Maybe uservoice this?

11. That would be fun, although I can't tell if it's on Fizzer's roadmap. Norman/etc. have some good WL AI's working for the WL AI games, but so far I don't think anyone's integrated them with Fizzer's Flash app.

12. That would certainly change the decision calculus. Tbh I again think that's overmodifying a core game mechanic that should be left untouched.

13. I don't really see the point of this beyond novelty. Could someone explain to me where something of this sort would be useful?
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 10:18:46

Phakh Gokhn 
Level 60
1. I don't see much need for this option as there is already order priority card and no luck cyclic order.

2. So if you both want to have last order, will it be chosen randomly who is the first one to move? There is already delay order card if you really want to have the last order. I also think it's a tactical thing to have more orders for the last move, you can make many little moves to out delay your opponent and that's a part of strategy.

3. I agree on this. Maybe in addition it can be made to get card pieces per territory taken, because now you will always get a fixed amount of card pieces per turn.

4. I agree. This always bugged me.

5. Yes, I think it could be changed in custom scenario window. Maybe you could also make different players have different base income and receive different card pieces.

6. Perhaps, I don't think it would change much.

7. I agree, that would be a fun change, but I think that attacking airlifts could be a liitle overpowered, maybe you should be able to only attack visible territories.

8. I think it would be nice if players could make no attack policies for x amount of turns. I think it could also be possible to make alliances official and show their members everyone. It should be possible to limit how many players can be in one alliance. There should be an option to prevent infighting while in alliance and an option for sharing of cards.

9. That would be great to have, but there should be a way to prevent players from making infinite loops. Maybe making something like "range", where you can only move x territories per stack.

10. That could be a great option. I think it should only vote on distribution or 1st turn if its automatic, because otherwise, it could be used to cheat. I think it should be disabled for 1v1 and FFAs.

11. It would be a nice change, but it might be difficult to program.

12. Doesn't look neccesary as there is already gift card.

13. Sounds interesting, but I don't know how useful that would be. Maybe you could make each bonus award x amount of income every x amount of turns in addition to normal income.

Most of these suggestions probably won't happen as Fizzer probably doesn't look for ideas that often and is focused at different updates at the moment. You could make an uservoice on some of your ideas, I would definitely give some votes for you
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 10:22:09

Level 56
9. Multi-attack is already a feature.

What he's suggesting is more like 'multi-transfer', rather than 'multi-attack'.
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 10:28:32

Level 50
To Vitriol
So your main message is, it isnt possible, because technical problems. But how is it possible, Warlight is a new game and there are others which are very, very much more complex than Warlight and work fine.

4. Then you are able to give 1 player all base income, what can change the game a lot. Atm you even need to capture a territory to get base income every turn Oo.
5. There is a own kind of teamplay this way, because you need to decide who will airlift units, but the airlifts could be more rarly if you split them to each player, so each can only airlift once for a while. And what i mean is to have single player cards and team cards, so it wouldnt make it worse anyway just more variable.
13. If you try to make bonuses balance with diffrent numbers of territorys. Sometimes 1 more or less would be to much but 0,5 would be ok.

To Phakh Gokhn
6. Of course it could change much, because i tryed to make settings with a weak common reinforcement card and a heavy rarly reinforcement card (which could change the front a lot for the player who use it, the decision who takes it would be interesting). Especially if you want have diffrent airlift cards, it would be neccessary.
9. I think it would work fine, as long as you cant move by multi-transfer into a territory which is neigboring to an enemy or neutral. Because the most time your big armys are next to the opponent (of course). And you need them there to break bonuses and defend yours. If you take the time to move them out of range, even 1 turn is already expensiv. So i think it would be fair already with this 1 rule.
10. We could need a oficial basic rule for vote to end to really solve the problem.
12. The gift card is useable over the whole map, but i want it you need to attack and without to have a card.

To Truncate
I know the cyclic thing but its also a kind of luck. And random got his own playstyle, with this big problem i want to solve. I think the cards dont solve the problem completly. Because your opponent got them too. And sometimes you need them sometimes you dont. And you can use it in other situations too. I want that the running stack is only treated as running stack if its the only territory owned by the player in the area/bonus, so the others are owned by the following player.
Deploy limit per turn/territory would be a playable setting.

Edited 12/16/2015 12:06:13
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 10:45:09

Tiny Koala
Level 57
MRSKILL - points 1 and 2 (on the move order) are already handled by the game mechanic - there is cyclic move order, order delay, and order priority cards.

Edit: there is also local deploy, which prevents you from feeding an invading force indefinitely. A suggestion I've seen that I like is deploy limits - the idea is, you can't place more than, say, 10 troops in a territory on any single turn. One of the effects of this idea is that multi-bordering your enemies bonuses with a single territory would be less effective.

Edited 12/16/2015 10:50:40
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 10:52:41

Dublin Warrior 
Level 48
Some good ideas here. :)
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 11:07:37

Level 60
most, if not all, of the ideas are already implemented, bad or already proposed by other people.
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 11:24:18

Lolicon love
Level 56
what we really need are more lolis
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 16:10:47

Level 59

Do you have it in pamphlet form?
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 20:33:48

Level 18
certainly some good ideas here, they might need a bit more thought, but they could certainly improve the game. it would also be nice to have some extensions to the forum mechanics, such as the ability to block a persons posts from your view when you open any forum they were in (this could be overridden if you wanted to see a specific post, also I am not suggesting this just so that I can avoid tajiks posts)

Edited 12/16/2015 20:34:02
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 21:49:39

Level 58
So your main message is, it isnt possible, because technical problems. But how is it possible, Warlight is a new game and there are others which are very, very much more complex than Warlight and work fine.

No, I'm not saying it's impossible because of technical limitations. I'm saying that about half of these have already been implemented, a quarter are not horrible ideas, and a quarter shouldn't be implemented since they're going to overwhelm the user with unnecessary options and ruin the UX. Some core game mechanics need to stay in place or they're going to make games too unpredictable and bring way too much focus on game settings.

On top of that, as you might've guessed, it actually takes effort to build something like WL- and it gets worse and worse as the codebase grows because that makes it much more likely for Fizzer to run into bugs and need to edit things in the existing codebase. Some of the paradigms Fizzer might've been employing would also restrict future development and require some things to be remade from scratch. So you have to weigh the cost of doing this against the benefits- and sometimes the benefitis are near-zero or even negative for a few of these, imho.

Atm you even need to capture a territory to get base income every turn Oo.

That's not the case at all. Based on this thread, I think your understanding of game mechanics (especially cards) is more than a little bit spotty.

13. If you try to make bonuses balance with diffrent numbers of territorys. Sometimes 1 more or less would be to much but 0,5 would be ok.

Alternatively, you just double everywhere and add 1 instead of 0.5 if you're just doing this for the ratios.

Edited 12/16/2015 21:52:03
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 23:20:21

Level 59
MRSKILL45, honestly, if you want us to help you fix a lot of these issues then you're more than welcome to join or clan and do so, but perhaps maybe just one problem at a time? ;)
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 23:21:49

Level 58
^ I think third parties can really only help with #11 (through Selenium or something along those lines) but not much else. We definitely can't play around with core game mechanics.
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 23:34:42

Level 59
No, but depending on what it is, I think we might be able to overlay something (that's what I'm hoping to do)
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 23:35:48

Level 54
I skimmed over 3 or 4 of these "needs". They seem to be things that already exist within the game, you are just too new to have looked yet .
Some things warlight need.: 12/16/2015 23:38:48

Level 59

Kinda why I suggested to help him with them
Posts 1 - 17 of 17   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Skill Game | Terms of Service