[...]in 7 pieces to last for 2 turns (min. 1 piece per turn)
[3 other card types with 1 min. per turn]
number of pieces per turn: 7

Maybe WL could automatically show the "average pieces per turn" for each card type? Assuming all four card types have equal weight, each team is getting (on average):
- 2 players * 1 piece / player = 2 pieces from "min pieces per turn"
- 2 players * (7-4) random pieces / player * 1/4 drop rate = 1.5 pieces from random drops
- In total: 3.5 pieces per turn.

Do you consider the following example text an acceptable proposal?

[...]in 7 pieces to last for 2 turns (min. 1 piece per turn)
[3 other card types with 1 min. per turn]
number of pieces per turn: 7

Average number of pieces per turn per team:
Diplomacy: 3.5 pieces
Reinforcements: x pieces
Airlift: y pieces
Spy: z pieces

Given that it is already possible to make a game with Diplomacy cards lasting 200 turns I don't see why this new function makes any sense.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8849730

As others have said, always check the settings. If you can't make sense of them well enough to avoid the game then that is on you.

Warlight gives game creators tremendous freedom in creating all kinds of different games.

The downside is that it's possible to create all kinds of non-viable games. (For instance, see the games with a base production of 0/turn, which people often join and then can't play if they don't pick the right starting position.)

This is why we have the "vote to end" function.

I'd rather have the freedom to screw up than impose restrictions on top of all this, one at a time, until we eliminate something like this (which, you never know, some other player might find desirable for some reason, like re-creating some kind of special diplomatic conditions in a simulation of some weird fantasy world, placing a player on a map who can't be attacked so they can teach them tactics, or whatever other reasons they dream up).

I like the suggestion of including a calculation which shows how many card pieces are awarded, on average, per turn (it's not an easy calculation to make yourself), but it's hardly a very high priority for Warlight's team.

> I'd rather have the freedom to screw up than impose restrictions

Just for the record, OP originally said:

> So, i personally think that the diplo-card should be nerfed a bit, to prevent this
> in the future. Let's say you can't play more than 5 (or 10) cards against the same
> player in a row or something. Or at least a warning in the game settings saying
> like "with these settings, it will be possible for a player/team to perma-diplo
> someone".

While the first idea is kind of like a restriction (though, devil's advocate, if it were configurable you could just put it at a million in a row and effectively remove the restriction), the second suggestion is explicitly only a warning, not a restriction; if you want to ignore it, sure, go ahead!

I agree diplo cards should not be able to keep someone in diplo indefinitely

And, please be honest here, if you join a game, do you seriously check every time exactly how many cards you (or your team) will get per turn, and what this may or may not imply for your game?

Yes, yes I do.

And, please be honest here, if you join a game, do you seriously check every time exactly how many cards you (or your team) will get per turn, and what this may or may not imply for your game?

I'm with Monsi here- I don't look into the details of the cards settings. I just glance at them and make sure nothing looks out of the ordinary.

Any feedback, opinions, improvements for the proposal I made in my https://www.warlight.net/Forum/93805-discussion-permadiplo?Offset=8 post?

I like it.

sorry to reply a bit late here, and thanks for all your replies.

I Like RvW's suggestion. I guess that would help. Maybe even with "average number of XY-cards per team /round" instead of the pieces.


Btw, in the meantime i "ragequit" the game, because my opponent gathered troops at one point of our boarder, let the diplo wear off for 1 turn, only to break my big bonus (which i could not defend cause my troops were spread all over the boarder) & put me back on diplo. Smart move, as i must admit.

I put it on WL's official feature-request forum: http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/8301369-summary-of-card-pieces-in-settings-menu

The more votes it gets, the sooner it might be considered by Fizzer / the more likely it will be implemented. :p

Monsi, having read your post and a couple of the replies *not all, mind*
First I'd like to point out.. many games have multi-turn D cards.. so preventing it from being used on you enough turns in a row will do nothing, as it is not actually in a row...
I can understand your point, and can see why in a huge game you could want enough D cards to defend multiple fronts.. enough to do what you're talking about.
However, I feel that *forcing* any restriction on the game creators is wrong... that being said, there could be an *option* to add a delay to card usage..
I'm thinking this could apply to any card that affects target players, quite simply.. sanction, diplomacy, airlift.. so that if the *game creator* decided, they could prevent this kind of situation from occurring.

And the problem with the warning, is as RvW said, there are many ways that can be used to create game-breaking cards, sometimes unknowingly.. should every possible combination come with a warning..?

and I agree with RvW's card suggestion.. However, I wonder how it would work with skewed team games..? *I know those are highly uncommon but...*

Edited 6/10/2015 04:29:51

However, I wonder how it would work with skewed team games..? *I know those are highly uncommon but...*

To quote myself from the UV suggestion:

I'm not sure how to deal with games having unbalanced team sizes... the easy way out would be to only display the per-player number.

Like you said, seeing how uncommon they are (and since they have to be practice, they cannot be ranked, if memory serves), I think taking the easy way out would be acceptable.

---

By the way, in an overview which also lists "Diplomacy: In 7 pieces to last for 2 turns", which of the following three phrases is best:

• Diplomacy: 2.25 pieces per turn
  
• Diplomacy: 0.32 cards per turn
  
• Diplomacy: 3.11 turns per card
  

All three are equivalent in meaning, but I wonder which is the "most readable" / "most understandable" in terms of deciding whether the number of cards is reasonable?