Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 13 of 13   
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 18:14:51

LucasDemetrius
Level 18
Report
I have seen this several times, people trying to convince other players that their opponent is PE because they supposedly attacked them first. Of course, they have no proof. But even when you look back on the history and you can't see the attack, the instigator has a snapshot of the attacking troops. How is this possible and should it result in the jerk making the claim to become PE?
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 18:22:10


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
You can't really make false flag attacks in warlight lol. Look at the history and you definetly should be able to find who attacked first...
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 18:27:08


Cata Cauda 
Level 57
Report
Not sure what you mean, but if a attack fails (meaning you dont take the land) behind the fog, it doesnt show up in the history for the ones who dont border or control the territory. So yeah, only a screenshot can proof the PE-claim.

Edited 3/27/2016 18:27:12
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 18:38:14


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
Even for attacks that succeeded under the fog... But I thought he was speaking about light fog settings; you should be able to see those even if they fail, no?
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 18:44:19


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
I don't think you can, Team
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 19:17:18

Juji
Level 50
Report
Spy cards and the like could prevent situations like this, but you'd need a lot of em. Alternatively you could make a no fog game, heh.
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 19:44:10


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
@Fleecemaster

That's probably a mistake, it probably shouldn't work like this huh
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 19:46:50


Zenvue
Level 54
Report
Am I the only one that thinks that Diplomacy could be worked on as a separate gamemode if there is ever the time for it?
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 20:12:40


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
Yea, it probably should be worked on a bit more by fizzer. You should have a few stances options in relations between players:

- Ally: you can send a given player reinforcements and you give vision, and if you attack a given player, he will receive a warning (giving then the option to swap land).
- Non-agression pact: you can't attack a given player, and your stance can't change without a one turn warning be trigged
- Neutral: you can't attack a given player
- War: you can attack a given player

Another addition could be the ability to create group chats in-game between several players. Very good for multiple players alliances and the discussion of matters between a few players.


Having those options would be greatly useful for the diplomacy/custom scenario community. I don't know how hard it is to implement, but it'd be good to make those games more enjoyable.
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 20:24:38


Zenvue
Level 54
Report
There is this little mobile app called Age of Civilizations that I kinda like.. Its a good thing to waste time on... But it actually has those attributes as it allows for Alliances, Pacts, and War... You have to actually go and press something and itll mark it as a war in its own special thing... For instance you go to a little section marked "Diplomacy" and it shows enemies of you in red, allies in light green, NAPs (Pacts) in yellow, and yourself in whatever color you are..
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 21:00:21

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
The problem with Diplomacy games in Warlight isn't the game system... it's the artificial rules which have grown up around the style of play.

Rules for declaring alliances, wars, PEs, and so forth, are counter-intuitive, inconsistently applied, and vary from game to game.

Speaking as a game designer, they're poorly thought out.

The "typical" Warlight diplomacy game is most likely to end in bickering and arguments than a solid and fun game experience, for these reasons.

Most importantly, any "official" version of the game settings (like suggested here) will not only be incredibly hard to code (they leave all kinds of possible edge-scenarios where games can't end, don't interface with AI modes, etc, etc) but WILL NOT SATISFY EVERYONE. Each diplomacy game is different.

To really "fix" diplomacy games, you need a smooth and workable set of rules which lead to fun games instead of bickering. (Yes, there are fun diplomacy games: those exist because of good players who know to avoid their downsides, not because the procedures are well thought-out. The current set of "rules" generally tend to break down, given average/typical players.)

They also lead to games which are 90% boredom, and a high boot/surrender rate as a result.

How could you do it better?

A good start would be a system for players to change their name in-game. This way, players could name themselves according to their country/faction, and alliances could declared. For instance, your name in a European diplomacy game might be:

"[FRANCE] - AXIS POWERS - {PlayerName1}"

Later, you could change it to "[FRANCE] - Neutral - {PlayerName1}".

Some kind of "board" where current states of recognized alliances and wars can be posted would help a great deal.

A more flexible messaging system, where you can easily group and/or remove players from conversations.

Always use an army cap, so people who sit around and do nothing are not rewarded for it.

Rules for declaration of war and PEs need to go - they're ludicrous.

Instead, in a Diplomacy game where "peace" is the presumed status quo - a terrible and boring convention for a game called Warlight, but if you really insist on having that... - there should be an in-game group or coalition which acts as a sort of "United Nations". This Peace Coalition sets and enforces rules, like punishing unjust wars. They can certainly declare a player "Public Enemy", if they wish - but if players do not agree or support this decision, they'll have to go to war or suck it up.

This makes things much more interesting: a player might be interested in subverting the coalition, for instance, by secretly "signing off" on an undeclared surprise attack. When the victim of the attack turns to the coalition for help, they're denied. Oh no! What happened behind the scenes?

Then other players find out about it, and they form a rebellion against the Peace Coalition.

Now, that would be an exciting game, and with none of these silly arguments which crop in almost every diplomacy game.

And - more importantly - it would require almost no changes to the game engine.

[Ok, getting off the soapbox now...]

Edited 3/27/2016 21:03:12
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/27/2016 21:14:55


Zenvue
Level 54
Report
^ +1
"You are PE, you attacked me but didnt take land!": 3/28/2016 19:21:40

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
(Ha, thanks!)
Posts 1 - 13 of 13   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service