never said that would be a problem. the ones who tend to not listen also tend to be jerks and are far more likely to walk away from a game xD

Agree %100 we need this feature

I agree as well. There are too many games where your team is clearly winning, then the guy with 200 income gets booted, and you lose. I think this system also will only work if boot to AI is enabled, otherwise it doesn't really make sense (since what happens if the controlling player doesn't move for the booted player in time, and the booted player gets booted a second time). For AI this is not a problem since the AI would just get its moves executed.

Taking over for teammates would also be an interesting option for games like 1 + AI vs. 1 + AI, which basically becomes a 2 v 2 alt battle, except you don't need alts. Definitely, the option should not be allowed without explicit permission for taking over accounts controlled by another person.

it should be as such in the settings itself
like we have move order random/cyclic/no-luck cyclic
the same way we should have booted player gets eliminated/becomes AI/allies take control

all allies should be allowed to make moves for the booted teammate but whoever commits first will only be considered,and others will be notified that someone else commited first,kinda like card system
(eg:-someone else took the re-enforcement card before you)
if you have good teammates you can co-operate and find a good way out

if you boot your ally because he/she's not listening,note that if they were not listening then they would have commited already in the first place
the fact that they've not commited tells you that they're not entirely against you
if you still want to boot them,then i guess you're prepared to face the consequences
i don't think anyone would do that on purpose
and since allies can come back after getting booted,its not so much of an issue

time control is still an issue though
i think there should be added time for the turn the player gets booted for his/her allies to commit for them(just for 1 turn) and then the game will continue with the same boot time

This should occur mostly in the ladders, it is very frustrating when your teammate gets booted in a competitive game, a fine example of this:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8018442

❤ RCY :P

haha nice chat

That really was a fun chat. Especially since Ineff can read the chats if he wants but still makes then go back and forth.

Edited 3/26/2015 20:42:58

we almost had the 1st position there

sometimes they move fast ryiro, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they walk away, that being the most annoying case. (I hope you did not think i boot because they don't listen)

why only the turn they are booted that there is additional time? don't you have one player doing the moves for at least 2 players each turn? if more than one teammate is booted then they may need even more time

(I am only mentioning stuff I am not totally agreeing with :P )

I do agree with Ryiro, this is one of these things where it can severely frustrate players when anyone on the team gets booted. I have had many experiences where a team mate has essentially walked out due to either disliking another team mate or because they have to leave. It often happens especially with quick booters who will take any opportunity to kick an opponent. Ryiro's suggestion is actually quite a good solution to that problem. Also, I think that I would extend Ryiro's suggestion a bit. I would also add that a player who is booted can keep making their move but that must happen BEFORE the rest of the team would decide the player's move. This would give the person who got kicked a chance to continue playing in the case of either a difficult situation or maybe a short call that would result in the player being away for a while.

Obi, in my opinion, for your suggestion, the player who gain's the booted players territories should be voted on by the team with the booted player, Higher win rate will break ties.

Also, I seriously disagree with Pooncrew's suggestion as there has been a lot of proof that the AI are not very good players and often ruin the game.

Edited 3/27/2015 04:03:19

gaining another players territories can alter the balance of the game drastically though. what if, for instance, me and obi had half of spain each (in RoR)? if i get booted and obi got my stuff, then suddenly, he has not only gained my half of spain, he now has an additional +10 income from the spain megabonus. he would have had to take it all from me otherwise, reducing my income for some precious turns.

and ai's, they suck. they really do

Yeah.. nice feature request.. Should be a trivial change to make as well I would think.


On a related note, can the AI be made better? I remember a thread on an AI competition. Can the winning AI be used in Warlight? The current AI seems very limited. Surely someone made a better one in that competition.

Yeah, I agree an updated AI would be really nice. Right now the AI is about three times weaker than an average player (try playing a 3 v 1 against AI with usual settings, e.g. 5x5 manual picks, 0% sr, etc., you will most likely win, especially on larger maps where the AI's initial 3x income advantage isn't so large). The fact that the Insane Challenge is winnable in 28 turns speaks to how bad the AI is. One interesting idea would be, is it possible to get some type of API where you can code an AI that interacts directly with WarLight, so that it can be tested on many different maps and settings? For instance, could a type of "AI account" be made that could play competitively with actual people (perhaps with some restrictions, e.g. AI can only play in practice games, etc.), to better test it? Based on my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), the current AI competition plays with only a very small subset of settings and maps, and only against other AIs (and can't be linked back to WarLight). If such an API existed, we could hold AI tournaments within the WarLight framework.

Also, definitely the territories of the booted player should be indirectly controlled (e.g. as if the booted player became an alt of the controlling player, not as though their territories belonged to the controlling player), otherwise in some circumstances like Punching Bag mentioned it can become very advantageous to boot a team member, and getting booted should never give you or your team an advantage.

@Blightsteel

I would be very interested in making an AI if such a framework exists. I had a few ideas about how an AI could work.. Never really got down to it, since I didn't know how to test it and didn't want to make a user interface to visualize a test game.

Just out of curiosity, do you know which players on Warlight have worked on an AI?

I don't know of anyone specifically involved in an AI. I've actually been meaning to get involved in the AI games project, I just don't have the time right now. It also has the limitations I mentioned above. But if a framework for integrating AIs directly into WarLight existed, or even a framework where you could play games against your AI with a decent UI for yourself (that I don't have to code from scratch), then I might try it as a summer project.

Yes it would be very beneficial to allow teammates to gain control of a booted teammate, but I have a few issues:

1.) Currently when a player is booted, he/she becomes an AI and comits some orders, OR he/she becomes neutral territories.
--> If a team was to play for the booted player.... What would the booted players orders look like? Would the first turn be an AI's orders? Would the team that lost a player get an extra portion of the boot time to make orders for it?

2.)Which teammate gets to make the orders?
--> I like the idea about treating that player as a card.... First come first serve.
OR ---> Could there be some way to elect a captain at the game start and he is responsible for making the orders. (This wont work if it is the captain being booted).

I feel that the game should never entice people to boot their own teammates. Currently this is pretty much the case (very few human players will do worse than the AI), but if another player could take over, it would become far too appealing (to a strong, experienced players) to boot an inexperienced teammember.

It's a team game; if you boot your allies in order to play for them, how are you a team? If the team can't win, they don't deserve to win. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but in my mind, a group of averagely-skilled players working very well together should beat the group with a single extremely-skilled player who shouts and yells so much at his allies they refuse to listen (even when they know it's good advice) out of frustration. If this proposal were to be implemented, the experienced player is will probably kick "those incompetent idiots" first chance he gets, after which he can enter orders for them and might gain an (undeserved) victory.

How do you propose new players will learn how to play well in a team, when they are constantly getting kicked by their allies? That's not how people's skills improve! Sure, this proposal will let you score a few more wins (and cost you another few wins, when the opponent benefits from this mechanism!) in the short term, but in the long term, it will decrease the number of skilled opponents to play against.

In short:

• If people are getting booted too often, play with a longer boot time.
  
• If you don't like having to rely on your teammates (either their skill or their ability to commit orders), don't play team games.
  
• If you don't like people getting booted "on the buzzer", even when they have a valid reason for taking too long, use banking boot times and/or play against nicer opponents (the kind that doesn't take "all is fair in love and war" as if it were a commandment).
  (Simply switching off booting has the downside of not being able to boot people which, due to RL, are unable to surrender.)
  

riyro has a good idea too many games have been destroyed because ai and although people could choose that some players do stack up armies in a territory then get booted and not fair for the other teamates

@RvW
i've explained why someone won't boot their teammates earlier in many ways
strong players are not as arrogant as you portray them
and remember that even after getting booted you can come back so that no one takes your turn
@Turtle
the first turn of getting booted i think should not be AI as well,extra time should start from that point
this also benifits someone who is there and about to commit but got booted,cause it'll be like a warning for that player to play faster

Rvw, fundamentally, I understand your reasoning. However, the newer players who you thought might get booted will take one of 3 options. Walk out of the game, Not listen to their team mates or listen. When one of the first two options get chosen, for piece of mind of the better player, it does make sense. The team is supposed to be a group that works together and takes each other's suggestions. When a team member does not listen and will insist on bad moves, then that person is already not really a team member. Now if the better player got booted, won't that still weaken the team? Also, the extremely skilled player which Rvw has mentioned is someone that is often frustrated at the team mate's bad moves. The thing is, there is a lot of orders to change when improving what a noob would do to what that extremely skilled player is doing. Sadly, many people get put off by this simply because of the fact that a less skilled player has to deal with "Walls of Text". The skilled player would often shout or yell when his or her team mates will not listen. Also, I think a win by the skilled player taking control of the partners even if by winning is deserved. He is in need of taking charge of the players since that would mean that he would be able to make the move and essentially cover for the weakness of his team mates. This feature that Ryiro suggested would also help if the players take the first option. I have had played with Many arrogant team mates that would quit since I was trying to teach them how to play. I have also heard many tales of these from other very good players too. Of course, if you get team mates who listen, then you won't need to worry about this feature. Sadly, this is often not the case.