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.

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

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.

That's a good point. Don't know how you would get around it.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

^ which could get a bit complicated to code but still a really cool idea.

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

@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.

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

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

@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

Frog well since there would be 2 teams (otherwise it cant work) everybody would see

You could always just wait for the game to end..

@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

^^^^^ And what everyone else said is what I already said on the second comment of this thread. Honestly, this is just going in circles.

@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