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 - 29 of 29   
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 16:39:13

245s
Level 49
Report
So I've been thinking about this a while and let me start by saying I really don't care about points and levels. That being said I wonder if you could get people to play longer and not surrender if there was a certian amount of points won for being "2nd" place or even "3rd". It gives players an unfair advantage if the person next to them surrenders and they get undeserved territories where if the player who surrenders has an incentive to fight on it would make the game more challanging. Sorry if I misspelled anything I have a mild form of dyslexia and am a hunt and peck typist. Which brings me to one more suggestion: spell check for the chat. I have zero concept of how it would work from a programing side I am a dreamer so feel free to shoot holes in it.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 17:35:12


Cata Cauda 
Level 57
Report
It might be annoying for the single person, but you can turn off instant surrender. So they can only leave the game if everyone agrees or they get booted.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 20:59:13

245s
Level 49
Report
thats cool but most people don't have it set up like that hence the frustration.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 22:31:17


Trajan
Level 47
Report
You should take this up with Fizzer. I often find myself in similar situations where someone surrenders, and another player benefits unfairly. Also, in diplos that go on for months, if you end up as the second person, its just heartbreaking to lose all of those points.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 22:35:59

245s
Level 49
Report
yeah I think I'll do that just thought I would see what other players felt about it.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/27/2016 22:49:12


celticfringe
Level 57
Report
do it make a progressive points system
keeping players in the game longer: 7/29/2016 14:09:09


ℳℛᐤƬrαńɋℰ✕
Level 55
Report
Well, I do not think you have covered full sides of the problem. As we speak, it you mean Multi-Teams or FFA games. Not 1v1, 2v2 etc :) That being said. Now imagine a situation of 40 FFA game (Now currently there can be only one winner), but if the system would be progressive like top 3 survivors would get points, then this could lead to a whole different game outcomes. Why? Because lets assume Player A to be a promising winner, but now comes a into a play an underdog Player B, who has promised to Player C and D - who are unimportant in fight for the 1. Place - a second and third place in exchange for helping him to win.

For conclusion this settings changes game outcomes and players actions tremendously, especially in end-game phase. Some would favor it, because games will be indeed longer, but they also presumably add into each game a bargaining process. Not everyone would like the shift towards such trade-off and bargain. Secondly I would presume that, after this change there would be a lot of 3-5 Team players in each FFA to reap the first 3 points, occasionally shifting who would get the 1. Place in a game. The current system of Surrender AI - works best, because Warlight assumes by Default all players conflict against each other and AI sees everyone as enemy. You can just add "surrender must be accepted" and force players to play if you wish.

For the third point I like to stress is: Why do you propose an idea which is held together by points and levels which you do not care about at all? How would you weight how warlight playerbase leans in this scale of who cares about points levels and who dont? (50-50%, 40-60% etc?). You would not play any further if you do not see any chance of winning, according to what you said? Why do you think majority will? And just to let you know, it is not about the system-rules, but mostly who you play with and how you play. I like warlight as long as it is customizable, so if this idea gets done like Enable/Disable then go a head!
keeping players in the game longer: 7/29/2016 15:29:45


Съмрьть
Level 57
Report
I like both of the ideas listed in the first post.
Tho for the first suggestions i think it should be optional maybe at first,you know,see if the people like it at first and test it,after that i think it should be decided what to do with it,wheather cancel it,leave it as it is or in all games.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 15:20:37

245s
Level 49
Report
The reason I posted it was to get feedback and others to contribute to the Idea, don't claim to have all the answers.people make deals all the time to improve their position that is part of the game and I would personally like to play against real people instead of AI. Your point that player C and D are "important" is obviously not held by the creators of Warlight because it says so in the surrender script. I think the AI is better than nothing but the computer is not as challenging as a person. I did not say I do not play an further, on the contrary I will play till I am eliminated, in a game where there is only 2 of us left and there is no chance of me winning or on a team that the majority want to surrender.I proposed it because some people do care about points and levels and I thought it would be an incentive for them to stay in the game. I think you need to read my initial comment a again before you start making things up.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 15:32:01

245s
Level 49
Report
Ok 1416 how do you figure? If a person surrenders and there is no AI the can take that land that is undefended. how is that fair to the other players that are not adjacent to that territory and even if there is an AI it does not play the same as a person hence unfair and undeserved. as to your second comment I never suggested that people should be forced to play I suggested that there is incentives to stay in the game. I think you and MR have the same problem, you "like to hear the sound of your own voice". I feel I have to say I meant that figuratively not literally.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 16:14:04


[AOE]Orthrus Echo Five
Level 51
Report
While I mostly agree with Cata, I have one point to bring up, which is that those games where players have to accept one's surrender, the person surrendering usually just clicks out of the game and doesn't go back to it, making the option of accepting surrenders ultimately useless and even harmful, as now the person is still there, but AFK, meaning you have to wait to boot them.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 16:22:16


[AOE]ahmed4040
Level 30
Report
I believe everyone should get points as this will actually make the game longer.

They should make a way where everyone wins something,but the 1st place wins most.

And when voting to end,I believe the points should be spread on everyone equally.

That is my point.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 16:38:21

245s
Level 49
Report
Thanks CbMPbTb I submitted it as an idea to the makers of warlight, you can go and vote for it and maybe they will give it a try.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 16:51:04

245s
Level 49
Report
yeah Orthrus Echo Five I see your point that is why I think the incentive(points for other places) would be a good solution. I can't stand when there is no auto boot, whats the point of putting 2, 3, 5 days etc. per turn and then there is no consequence for going past the time limit. It is unfair to the players who want to play and forces someone to be the bad guy and boot them if they want to continue the game.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 16:53:35

245s
Level 49
Report
if it would keep people playing I'm all for it Jahmed4040. Maybe they should lose points for being booted
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 17:15:20


Gus squared 
Level 57
Report
An easy implementation of this idea would be to allow draws to be declared, and to keep a tally of such draws. Implementing a draw feature would be straightforward -- the code for Vote To End could be recycled with minor modifications such that if all active players (not surrendered, booted, or eliminated) agree, the game is ended with a draw being registered for each of the players.

Players stats could then be modified to display Wins/Losses/Draws ( Percentage (Wins/Total Games) ).

Adding draws would add another dimension to FFA and multi-team games. In particular it would encourage the 2nd and 3rd place players to cooperate to prevent a win by the player who is winning. As well, it would encourage smaller players, who are in a strategic position, to leverage their location to be included in any possible draw.

There is a downside to the draw feature. From what I have seen in the game Diplomacy, most games end up in 3-way draws. This occurs because once there are three players, it is very difficult to try to eliminate someone without opening yourself to being eliminated by the third player. The same might occur here in FFA, although very skilled players would still have many more solo victories to brag about.

Draws would be a fun feature.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 17:20:06

245s
Level 49
Report
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 17:23:00

245s
Level 49
Report
I like that suggestion Gus squared.
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 18:57:25


❤HankyPinky
Level 57
Report
What I like most about this idea is that it undeniably makes the games more competitive
keeping players in the game longer: 7/31/2016 22:13:50

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
There is some potential to this idea, but it won't work as suggested.

Look at Mr. Tranq's comments (on the first page) - he covers it pretty well. Replacing surrendered players with AIs is currently the best "fix" for this issue.

Here's a simple example of how it can affect a game unfavorably:

We have three players left.

Player A - production 100/turn
Player B - production 65/turn
Player C - production 35/turn

If only the winner gets points, then they have to fight it out. Player B and Player C have a strong incentive to work together (or else they both lose). An exciting fight ensues. (Or they both surrender, if they can't get their act together.)

If there is a second and third place, players B and C have little incentive to do anything, really. Player C isn't likely to improve his position, so he may as well surrender - he'll get points for third place anyway.

Likewise, Player B might as well help Player A finish off Player C, unless he thinks he has a chance at getting first (unlikely). He has almost no incentive to help Player C under most scenarios - he might as well finish off C and collect his points for second place.

I've seen this kind of behaviour even WITHOUT points; simply because a player likes to claim the "honour" of being "second place" for bragging rights.

If you're Player C in a "winner takes all" scenario, you have some good leverage on Player B: he has to work with you, or he has no chance of winning. This gives you some good strategic options.

If you're Player C in a "second, third place" type of game, you're screwed. And you might be more tempted to surrender just to take the points. It's much less interesting.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 00:34:26


ArcticFox011
Level 46
Report
I like the draw idea, but my biggest problem with it (and with Voting) is that all those points for the hours/days/weeks/months you spent on a game poof. The problem gets compounded when the world decides to gang up on those who DONT vote, as it entirely changes the nature of that match.

Maybe, instead of a draw offering no points, it takes what the winner would have gotten, divides it in half or maybe into a quarter, and splits it among all remaining players? That still encourages players to keep struggling for winner, while offering an alternative to a stalemate.

Just an idea from someone who hates the idea of wasting those points.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 16:58:22

245s
Level 49
Report
I see your point M. Poireau but what about the people that quit before there is 3 players left? That can efect the game tremendously.In some games you can't see who is the top player and might ally with them by mistake. I know there is no simple solution but I still think in your scenario that players B and C still have incentive to fight it out with A or each other.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 17:02:42

[wolf]japan77
Level 56
Report
I think this could be useful under certain circumstances. Having it as an option could prove to be very useful, as I have played games where had this been an option some people may have continued playing. The issue is with how would 2nd/3rd be evaluated if they are both eliminated on the same turn, as well as the fact that in some games it may prove counter-intuitive to have. However, I don't think you can guess how the end game is going to play out, so it would be difficult to state when you should use such a setting.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 17:54:43

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
I agree that the rules change encourages people to "stay in the game" longer, which is a very good thing. Is there any other way to get this effect? I'm not sure.

However, it has all kinds of other unintended side effects.

A big part is that I do not think elimination is a good measure of how well someone played.

I've seen far too many games where one of the weaker or more useless players survived longer, despite having played very poorly. As a simple example, if this were the rule, the moment I thought I was losing, I'd Blockade myself in a corner somewhere and wait for the game to end. That could almost guarantee me second place!

Not a great thing for Warlight, in my opinion.

As another argument, consider again my Players A-B-C example. If the rule is that second place gets a bunch of points, that means players B and C are now enemies. Under the normal rules, they'd have an incentive to work together against player A. Under this rule, Player C should Blockade himself into a corner and wait. If he cannot, then players B and C need to attack each other, and both ask Player A for help.

This puts Player A into a really awkward position:

* She can let them fight it out, and wait. This is really boring for everyone - we already know how the game will end, why bother to play on at all?

* She can choose to ally with one over the other. (Note that it doesn't really matter which!) This is also bad for the game, because now we have one player (A) CHOOSING which player will be in second place. The person who wins second place will not have EARNED it - it will simply have been up to Player A's whims. This is terrible game design.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 17:57:45

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
Another note:

"Voting to end" in order to split the points is potentially a good idea.

It has, however, some major problems, mainly that it would encourage a lot of games to end prematurely. (e.g. You could farm points by starting games, booting one person, and then all voting to end.)

It works well in the boardgame Diplomacy because of another, very important rule:

In Diplomacy, you win not by eliminating everyone, but by owning HALF THE BOARD.

This very, very important rule changes *everything*, and is absolutely key to making it work. It creates some very volatile and clever balance of power which encourages exciting games.

(Notice that in my Player A-B-C example, Player A can win very easily, and thus wouldn't bother coordinating with either of the players. If they coordinate well together, however, they could have a pretty exciting and even battle with Player A, to earn themselves the right to be included in the draw.)
keeping players in the game longer: 8/1/2016 22:23:20

245s
Level 49
Report
The points would only be applied to your level not your win stats so I don't think that it wouyld be as big a deal as you think. As to the way you think it would change the game it could but it also depends on the player. I would never boarder myself up to get second place, thats just 2 peoples way of thinking. As to the cheating it happens already and usally those people are called out for it so that really is not a reason to not try it.
keeping players in the game longer: 8/2/2016 00:34:12


Gus squared 
Level 57
Report
First off, I oppose any eliminated/booted/surrendered players getting any points or any stat other than Loss.

In Diplomacy, you win not by eliminating everyone, but by owning HALF THE BOARD.

This very, very important rule changes *everything*, and is absolutely key to making it work. It creates some very volatile and clever balance of power which encourages exciting games.

(Notice that in my Player A-B-C example, Player A can win very easily, and thus wouldn't bother coordinating with either of the players. If they coordinate well together, however, they could have a pretty exciting and even battle with Player A, to earn themselves the right to be included in the draw.)


I don't play a lot of FFA, and the FFA I have played didn't have a lot of diplomacy, however, I think a Vote for Draw feature would capture some of the dynamics from the boardgame Diplomacy.

Your Player A-B-C example could demonstrate this. You are right to note that Player A could easily win, but if Players B & C coordinate, they might be able to stop him. But another situation now arises -- if player B plays his cards right, he could finesse a win for himself. Maybe he'll convince Player C to suicide himself into Player A while growing large enough so he can't be stopped (say on RoR Player C breaks Player A's Parthian Empire while Player B focuses on completing Spain/Carthigian/Africa).

But then Player A could point this out to Player C and get him to hesitate just enough so Player A is unstoppable.

Or maybe Player C will realize that he is kingmaker and can put either A or B over the top, and uses this leverage to call for a draw?

That is classic Diplomacy, and while most often I think WarLight games will end in single winners, occasionally, in Diplo games, you might have very exciting endgames.

Edited 8/2/2016 00:34:52
keeping players in the game longer: 8/2/2016 05:52:05


Mr. Nobody
Level 57
Report
What about today where I had a 3v3 I joined, LotR map. I was like heck yeah I'll do this. Had a few low levels, but I love LotR and hadn't played the map in awhile, so why not? Oh yeah, here's why not...

After T1 completes, my 2 teammates go afk. I'm left in a 1v3. I tried to VTE, and ask if they would allow it. They said no. I got a bit heated from this. Everybody I know would just VTE and move on.. After awhile of trying to explain, well, he still wouldn't do it.. Well dang, alright I'll just surrender I guess. I really didn't like how they would VTE but whatever... (not really). BUTTTTTT they wouldn't accept my surrender...

I'm obviously not going to play a 1v3 and waste my time, so I had to sit there and get booted, making my boot rate go up.

And to make things better, the 2 players who were on my team that got booted after T1....

I don't wanna put him on total blast publicly so I won't put his name.

https://gyazo.com/7d913ca889d93a297d8b312d163caa8a.png
https://gyazo.com/58e229f0bb88b2137709f5af78280a79.png

You wanna keep people in game longer, I just wanted out :p

Edited 8/2/2016 05:53:23
keeping players in the game longer: 8/2/2016 13:28:24

245s
Level 49
Report
Mr. Nobody I totally understad your point but what I propose would not force you to stay in the game longer, it is an incentive to play longer. Also it would not apply to a 3v3 game because there is only a winning team and a losing team, now if there was 8 or more teams then it might be applied.
Posts 1 - 29 of 29   

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