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

Posts 1 - 30 of 39   1  2  Next >>   
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 10:26:54

mamuc
Level 59
Report
Hey guys and hey Fizzer,

with normal fog, it is impossible to spectate running games. Therefore you could change this, that spectators can see the borders. With this change, they would see these parts of the map, which both players already know.

What do you think about this suggestion?

/mamuc
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 10:32:24

huddyj
Level 61
Report
This would be a good idea if the spectator can only see player territories that directly border each other.

Being able to see all borders would be bad, as you as spectator could then potentially know more about each player's position than their opponent. This could lead to players using an alt to check on their opponent's postion, or spectators passing information to one of the players.

Any implementation that may enable a player to cheat should never be made imo.

Edited 4/27/2016 10:40:06
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 10:40:11


[RE]Recoil
Level 46
Report
I like the idea, but what if someone plays a game and specates it with an alt, guesses all his positions and its almost unstoppable?
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 11:15:18


[ΑΘΕ]Nitrios
Level 35
Report
Huddyj's idea with only bordering territories showing would be useful. However that gets problematic on FFAs.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 11:28:49

mamuc
Level 59
Report
I meant that spectators can see, what both player already see.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 12:05:15

Jake110
Level 30
Report
It would make sense if they threw in an extra bit of code for spectators. If a territory is already visible to all players, reveal it to spectators. so if it's a free for all, unless every player borders one territory, everything will still stay hidden, but for 1v1 or team games, it'll let spectators see all the borders between the two teams/players.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 13:10:28


+Skapis9999+
Level 58
Report
+1 for this idea.. Jake's idea as well
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 14:19:32


Tristan
Level 57
Report
Bad idea.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 14:43:14


Judeburger 
Level 59
Report
I would like this for checking the status of tournament games that have not finished yet. It would be a lot of fun in the clan league, where many people have a vested interest in the outcome of a game.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 14:55:31


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
Why not just play games with no fog?
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 15:35:37

mamuc
Level 59
Report
Because I like fog, but its annyoing for spectators. The possibility to watch running games with fog is totally senseless.

I got the idea in a tournament, too.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 15:46:53


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
Would also be very cool for livestreams or seasonal games! Stalling might be reduced on the ladders too, cause everyone sees immediately when someone is stalling
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 15:58:45


MarkusBM
Level 58
Report
I could see a problem with doing this: Let's say both players see a neutral territory located between their bonuses. If players could check the board as a spectator(by using an alt or having someone else check it out for them), they could find out if the other person is within 1 territory of themselves, since they could see that the other player could also see the border-territory.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 16:05:31


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
That's a good point. Don't know how you would get around it.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 16:36:37

Mike
Level 59
Report
No Markus the idea is not to see all borders from each player, but all common borders between players involved. And as mentionned above, it can not work in FFA, it can only work in 2 team games. 100% with you macmuc.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 16:37:47


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
i tought you can only see the territories EVERY Player on the game can see at that Point. i don't see a Problem with that

Edit: what mike said 10sec before me

Edited 4/27/2016 16:38:36
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 16:45:02


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
What MoD said, actually, that makes a lot of sense and I would be for that.

Edit: What MoD said mike said 20 seconds before me

Edited 4/27/2016 16:45:45
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 16:47:47


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
Although I would suggest that doesn't include anything spied, recon, etc. As that would let a player know they have been spied on etc.

Although thinking about it, if card use is visable, perhaps it would make sense to include that too.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 17:16:10


Beren • apex 
Level 63
Report
It should only apply to situations where all players can see a territory, AND all players know that all other players can see that territory.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 17:27:25


Kenny • apex 
Level 59
Report
^ which could get a bit complicated to code but still a really cool idea.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 19:48:00


Zephyrum 
Level 60
Report
Can't see this working in FFAs, only two-teams games (1v1, 2v2, 3v3...).

It should only apply to situations where all players can see a territory


...AND the territory is owned by a player.

Otherwise, let's say:

Pretend this is a map:
{A}{B}{C}

Let's say a player (1) is in A, and a player (2) is in C. They don't border, so neither of them can see them there. Players will meet as soon as 1 or 2 hits B, and they'll have a double surprise encounter (none of them was aware of the other's location).

With this spectator mode where you can see what territories everyone can see, you'll be able to see "B" is a neutral, and has x armies on it.

With an alt/friend/whatever, it'll NOT be a double surprise encounter, because 1 and 2 can both see it on spectator mode and find out the enemy is in the opposing territory.

~~~

Beren's idea (...AND both players know everyone touches it) gets probably too confusing or even impossible to code properly. How can you judge that 1 knows 2 is in C, or 2 knows 1 is in A? Let alone judge both at the same time?

~~~

It gets even more confusing in 3-man FFAs and larger. Using the same old map except a bit larger:

{A}{D}{B}
{C}

Player 1 in A, 2 in B, 3 in C. D is a neutral territory.

1 is unaware of 2 and 3, and vice verse, but 2 and 3 are aware of each other.

Assuming 3 takes D. 1 and 3 will be aware of each other, but 1 and 2 still won't. On the spectator mode, 1 will be able to see D visible and will therefore know 2 is nearby. Same goes for 2 knowing about 1.

EDIT: Changed every [] to {} because I forgot [] + B would make stuff bold...

Edited 4/27/2016 19:49:23
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 20:50:25


Beren • apex 
Level 63
Report
@Zeph, what you're describing wouldn't apply in the scenario I detailed. I said it would only be unfogged to spectators if all players in the game knew that all other players can see that territory. Since the players wouldn't know that the territory is visible to their opponents, it wouldn't become unfogged.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 22:05:24

Greg
Level 40
Report
I'm not sure the coding gets any harder tbh, for knowledge to be sure all that need to happen, is that a place must be owned by a player, and share a border with places owned by every other player. Vision is Irrelevant, all that matters is 1) Is the territory owned by a player. 2) Does the Territory boarder every team in the game. IF and only IF both of these conditions are met then make it visible. That being said I don't and never have coded. But the logic checks out fine
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:05:40

Mike
Level 59
Report
What you re saying Semice is what Fleece said, which is what MOD said, which is what I said, which is what OP said. lol

But we all agree!

Edited 4/27/2016 23:07:05
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:06:29


GiantFrog
Level 58
Report
@Greg

that condition does not work as there are scenarios where everyone boarders the territory, but not everyone knows that everyone is boadering the territory.

@beren

that condition does not work, as there are scenarios where everyone sees the territory and everyone knows that everyone else is seeing the territory, but not everyone knows that everyone else knows that everyone sees the territory.

example: a,b,c,d diffrent teams.

B-D
|\
A-C
|/
D-B

A would be revealed, as everyone sees it and everyone knows that everyone can see it, but C does not know that everyone knows that everyone can see it

Edited 4/27/2016 23:12:27
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:09:51

Mike
Level 59
Report
Frog well since there would be 2 teams (otherwise it cant work) everybody would see
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:39:38


Mr Dacoit
Level 40
Report
You could always just wait for the game to end..
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:42:04

Greg
Level 40
Report
@GiantFrog

You are correct.

Two team solution here is easy.
Put all Territories in pairs.
Each territory has a pair for every place it adjoins.

Logic is:

Is pair AB player owned

Do pair AB have different owners

If YES to both you can show.

I'm thinking that the three team solution requires triplets of adjoining places ie.

A
| \
B-C

With the same logic:

Is triplet ABC player owned.
Are ABC all independently owned.(ie no two with the same owner)
If so show.

The four player logic would be the same with ABCD cases

A-B
|X|
C-D

5 player logic on 2D geographically correct maps would be impossible because of four colour therom. However because you can put links between stuff across the map i guess its possible to continue this to n.


Edit: Wrote some rubbish before

Again no idea about the actual programming side

Also this has made me think, has anyone made any 4D maps on this?

Edited 4/28/2016 00:15:29
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:54:02

huddyj
Level 61
Report
^^^^^ And what everyone else said is what I already said on the second comment of this thread. Honestly, this is just going in circles.
Spectating with fog: 4/27/2016 23:54:10


GiantFrog
Level 58
Report
@Greg

That condition does not work as everyone may be linked to AB, but not everyone knows that everyone is linked to AB (pretty much the same as before)

example:

C
|\
A-B
|/
D

AB would be reveald,even though C does not know D is linked to AB and vise versa.

Also I'm quite sure that C is aware that everyone can see A in your infographic. As C has links to both B above and D below


you are correct with your observation, but thats not the point. You may have to reread berens condition and my statement to see where it acutally fails.

EDIT: Post was referring to a post that got edited into a diffrent one ;)

Edited 4/28/2016 00:04:20
Posts 1 - 30 of 39   1  2  Next >>   

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