Poll: Should we try to work on the triple circle system to make multiplayer games more exciting?
Comments on this Poll:
einstein13 |
Here: https://www.widelands.org/forum/topic/4782/ And many previous one, for example: https://www.widelands.org/forum/topic/4776/?page=2 In short words: somebody (the-x?) wants to have something like rock-paper-scissors game mechanics in Widelands. It would be applied for soliders: sword-spear-bow. So you can produce all types of soldiers and fight with them. |
Nordfriese |
Thanks for the clarification. Still I don't see in the linked topics how exactly this is supposed to be implemented. Would there be several soldier types, and players would have to micromanage how many soldiers of each type they want to be recruited, trained, and stationed at milsites; or would there be multiple mutually exclusive training pathways for the one soldier type, or something else altogether…? Perhaps I might like this feature, perhaps not. Depending on the implementation. @someone who is in favour of this: A detailed blueprint for the changes in game mechanics would be very much appreciated for better understanding of the proposal. |
kaputtnik |
Each poll should have a forum thread which accompany the poll |
|
the-x |
Yes, main point is to make multiplayer more playable and less predictionable. Implementing should be quite easy, since we have the 4 upgrades already, each upgrade should be winning against one other and the fourth could easily balanced. It gives a lot more strategies, fun multiplayer matches and - compared to the benefit relativly easy to work on. |
|
the-x |
For the Forum thread in Detail: In multiplayer matches ther has been consensus which most players, that fights get boring after some time, cause you always follow the exact build order. First i place that building, then the next and in every game i do it exactly the same way, since there is no need to change. If i try sth new i would lose or at least be not that efficient like with build number 1. Since we had so many positive aspects of this game, but this is one players dont play multiplayer anymore. I think about stopping, king of nowhere thought about it some weeks ago, hasi doesnt play anymore and it is just the reason that fights are nearly the same every game. We have the same build up every game we play. |
|
the-x |
My suggestion would be to bringt sth like random events in the game. I know i proposed it before, but the best and original solution for this problem would be if we put a stone scissor system in in, which means every player decides to play more one strategy and for every strategy there is a counter. This could super easily be done, like in other games sword superior to speer superior to bow. Moreover we dont need to implement any difficult stuff, since we have 4 unit promotions which we can easily make in the way that if i improve one or decide to go one way with my economy following my build, i will have a superior unit to it. |
|
the-x |
It has thousands of more positive arguments, the only argument against it i heard so far was, i dont want to have the chance to lose against a lower rated player. I dont want any other player to catch up or have a chance in competition against me, which should NOT be the case. Everyone should have a chance to improve in this game and win some time, this keeps the fun. Indeed even this single argument is the other way round since players will keep plaing if they sometimes get the chance to win. Tomorrow stonerl opens a poll for us where everyone of us can decide if we might try to work on this. |
|
Nordfriese |
Yes, these are some good arguments for having such a system. However I still see nothing related to the important point of how the system should work, see my second comment above… |
|
king_of_nowhere |
you are intentionally misrepresenting criticism to advance your agenda. that is absolutely NOT the sole, or even the main criticism. I answered below with some real criticism - arguments that you never deigned to reply in any of the multiple threads you started Finally, this is not the first time you have misquoted me to support your argument. This has gone on far too long for it to be a genuine misunderstanding on your part; I can only conclude that you are intentionally slandering me. |
|
hessenfarmer |
It is not only you that got misquoted. It happened to me as well. And I didn't get any substantiated response on well argumented criticism on each topic I did discuss with the-x as well. So it is not targeted at you I believe it is just a normal Troll behaviour. |
|
hessenfarmer |
This is not the only argument against this. As was explained several times before.
For me the main argument is that it will not be easy to implement, although you keep pretending this without any substantiation. It will break backward compatibility completely. It will break AI. It will break balance. And most important it will break the diversity concept of our tribes with their strengths and weaknesses. This whole concept is only thought from a point of just playing the same tribe all the time. |
|
the-x |
Es gibt ja die Rüstungsklassen, aus anderen spielen, das bedeutet, wenn ein Soldat mit Upgrade A, zum Beispiel Evade 1 einen Soldat mit Upgrade B zum Beispiel Attack 1 angreift, nimmt dieser nur x(0,5) Schaden, wenn ein Soldat mit 2 Upgrades in A, zum Beispiel Evade 2 einen Soldat mit Upgrade B zum Beispiel Attack 1 angreift, nimmt dieser nur x(0,2) Schaden -> exponentiell erhöhen |
|
the-x |
Zielt auf: Ich sehe durch den Späher oder habe nur eine Vermutung dass mein Mitspieler B erhöht, also werde ich versuchen meine Wirtschaft möglichst stark und effektiv drauf hin auszurichten Upgrades für C für meine Soldaten zu bekommen |
|
Nordfriese |
Gut, das klingt sehr spannend Aber wie willst du dafür sorgen, dass dieses System nicht einfach durchbrochen werden kann? So wie ich es verstehe, basiert die Änderung darauf, dass man Soldaten trainiert, die entweder mächtig angreifen oder flink ausweichen oder viel einstecken können oder viele Gesundheitspunkte haben. Dann ist z.B. Angriff besser als Gesundheit besser als Ausweichen besser als Verteidigung besser als Angriff. |
|
king_of_nowhere |
this is a terrible idea for several reasons. first of all, there is complaint that this should be an economic game and it is instead too military-focused. this would put even more focus on the military. second, soldiers have to be trained in advance, and there is no way to know what the enemy is doing. by implementing this system, upon first contact whoever made the "right" soldiers win. and that's a decision entirely based on luck third, and this ties on the second point, another problem of this game is that games are cut short because there is no reason not to attack an enemy. if we set the game up so that upon first contact one player has a clear advantage on the other, based on purely random factors, there is even less reason to prolong a game past the first contact. |
|
king_of_nowhere |
fourth, the-x has been using unfair means to push for this idea of him. From opening multiple threads to make it seem there is more support for his plan, to misquoting others to make it look like they could be supporters, to ignoring/denying criticism. he's gone past the point where one could assume good faith |
|
hessenfarmer |
You forgot quoting himself to create a sense of consensus and editing posts after a reply without showing the difference. |
WorldSavior |
This is a bad idea and there would be much better possibilities for polls. It would destroy the Widelands as we know it and probably it would not bring any advantages because it would not work. Plus, it makes no sense to increase the luck factor in the game. |
stonerl |
I just scrolled through the comments, to get a brief understanding of the matter. The point is, I still don't understand what the poll is about. There has no ongoing discussion in the forum, no ideas on how to implement this. So, I really don't see a reason for this poll to exist in the first place. I'd rather say we stop this one and continue the discussion in the aforementioned thread because I really don't see how the outcome of this poll could have any effect on the development... |
|
Nordfriese |
There is no real consensus so far about whether we want such a system (though there are more no votes and rather more arguments against than for this), but most crucially, nobody ever explained how such a system could reasonably be implemented even though there were like a dozen requests. Even if this poll gets a majority for yes, the result is useless if nobody can actually implement it. So as long as no detailed blueprint is given, this poll is quite pointless, true. And if we do get one, the details might well cause some people to change their mind about it. So +1 for cancelling the poll until there is a real concept to assess. |
|
kaputtnik |
I wonder who has published this poll |
Reply to Original:
Log in to post comments!
Nordfriese
Could somebody please explain in detail what is meant by Triple Circle System, and how exactly the proposed change would look like?