Hello everybody

It is my first post on this forum, but i'd like to present some new features that in my opinion could be added to make this game even better:

1) too much surrendering, to much players that need to be booted

(this could be an option avaiable for game host):

I have seen many games when the balance of game is drastically changed because the players that are only a bit weaker, decide to surrender, as they have no chance to win - and this usually makes their neighbour even stronger (even in the more optimistic scenario when they only turn into dumb AI) - this is especially annoying on maps where there are a lot of players. the main reason for taht state is the "winner-takes it all" game mechanic. What I propose is to give every player that hasn't surrenderd the percentage of the prize. For instance:

Winner- n points (e.g. 10000)
All players that hasn't resigned: n/5 points (e.g. 2000)
The players that surrendered: 0 points
The players that were booted: - n/5 points (e.g. -2000) - YES, MINUS!!!

the one issue of it is that when we have the acceptance of surrender option, then in that case when player has surrndered, and everybody have agreed to that surrender, he should get this n/5 points (because all the remaining players agreed that he wont spoil the game by this). And this leads to second problem:

2) Surrendering with the option to accept the surrender by the other players.
In my opinion this needs a little tweak - it should be anonymous. Consider taht situation - player B has decided to surrender, and almost everybody has accepted this. But you dont want to accept this surrender because he is bordering/fighting your main enemy (player c), and you know that this would help him a lot (player C), while you will achieve only minor advantage. The problem is, that the player B is also bordering you, and you are afraid that if he spots that you are the only person that still didnt acccept his surrender - he would try to "convince you" to that idea by sending 100% of his troops on you (which he normally wouldn't do). Perhaps this annonymous surrender acceptance could be an game -host option, and i think it would add to every game

3) On my mobile (android) version, in game history, there is no button to skip to the beggining/end - sometimes it gets really long to get to desired turn. Maybe an option to write the number of desired turn to jump to would be a good solution?

4) The markings of team - on big maps, where there all many oplayers and many teams, it is often hard to know which colours are from same team - you have to check it manually (which colour is which player), and if there are 5 shades of brown and even more "pinks and reds" it is very confusing and requires regullar checking the players/tam list. I propose the option that would add a smal letter (e.g. A for team A, BG for team BG) next to the number of troops on every tile. So if the player from team A has 32 troops on particular tile, there sould be "32a" visible. This could be an option to switch on/off even during the game.


5) How about a new card? CAMOUFLAGE - when you deploy some troops on the tile, and then you play the camouflage card on it, you may choose to hide some amount of that new troops from the the other players (but not all).
For instance: you deploy 15 troops on field A, where there are already 3 troops, and then you play camouflage card on it - now you can choose how much of this deployment can be seen by your enemies, ranging from 1 to the amount you deployed (or "amount -1" to make sense). So in that situation you can choose that you want only 4 troops to be seen - which means that your enemies will see that you placed there 4 troops, and if they decide to attack it they may be unhappily suprised to discover that in fact there are not 7 (3+4) but 18 (3+15) troops. What is important is that this card shouldnt be able to camouflege all new troops - so your enemy should see that you have deployed at least 1 troop on particullar tile.

the camouflage should last for set number of turns (2 -3 turns in standard?)
when you move the troops from that tile the camouflage is over
when you add new troops on that tile, the camouflage carries on
the spy card should be able to reveal camouflaged troops
the recoinesance card should reveal camouflaged troops
the Srvielance card should NOT reveal camouflaged troops
if you border the camouflaged troops of your ennemy, and they are attacked by sb's else troops, they should stay camouflaged to you

note that this gives opportunity to exchange/sell information about camouflaged troops between players

and of course it would give a great tactical options

There should also be a card that disguises you as neutral territories for a turn. That would make diplo games more comical

nah :)

Nic ont bene in javolum trôchos,
Tem litero javola nic ont?
Tem pír nacarow ĉon koja ruzskos,
Nic ont ptria in litero ǵont!


nice poem ?

cant make my mind.

3) On my mobile (android) version, in game history, there is no button to skip to the beggining/end - sometimes it gets really long to get to desired turn. Maybe an option to write the number of desired turn to jump to would be a good solution?

This exists.

History > Menu > Go to Turn by Number

I think there should be a nuke card where you make one of your enemy's territory be abandoned to 1000 by playing it on them.

cards on their own are not supposed to wreck games.

What I want to see is Custom Scenario cards so that only certain players get them, and Defensive Territories in which you can change the defensive/attacking % for certain territories/ bonuses

Thx Sabali, this should save me a lot of time.


and what do you think about other proposals? (nr 1,2 and 4)

Edited 1/26/2015 22:30:50

1 .Yes needs to happen.

I hate playing something like 10v10 games where 4ish people of my team have been booted and makes the possibility of my team winning impossible.

I think that before a player joined a game if there would be a message (of course there would be an option in settings to make that not pop up) that came up telling them that a boot penalty is on, because lowering a players level discourages people to play Warlight.

I like the idea to give points to those that stay

My only suggestion to that is maybe there can be two type of surrenders the one we are used to, and then one where all players choose a winner. i think this should be added so that players can still get the stayed the whole time points but if they are playing on a huge map it won't go like 50 more turns then it needs to. so like if a winner is obvious he can be chosen and all the people that stayed can get their points.

2. well i can see how this can be a problem but in a diplo game that needs to be known. so maybe the default can be for it to be anonymous.

4. very true i hate how similar the Warlight colors are. I can't tell if you mentioned it but when it is like a 5 team game it is good to know which people are on which teams. example: you = player A, Team A; Player B= Team B; Player C= Team C; Player D= Team C. you can attack player B and C and you are deciding which one to attack. Player C and D can attack B. oblivously Player B is gonna die soon so it would be better to attack C. but if you didn't take the time to see that C and D are on the same team you might not attack C therefore not making the best move.

So I think if you border someone you see the armies and Team and then if there is like light fog you can see what teams they are on.

But in games with like 10ish people i don't think it is necessary. it would just clutter the territory

5. sounds cool

Edited 1/26/2015 23:23:38

thanks for the sesible answers @mightyspeck

about your concerns:
1) there is no reason to implement new feature concernig all players choosing the winner, because it would work wit what I proposed - when player has surrendered and there is option that this surrender needs aproval, and it is aproved by all other players, then that player gets the amount of points reserved for fighting to the end. So in the situation that you have proposed, the remaining players would only have to surrender and, and if their surenders are all accepted they will get taht points -and if they are ALL coninced they have no chnce, rhey will accept each other surrenderes.

4) yeah, i was thining mainly of that situation (big game with lots of players and teams)

Hey.

1) The first one is realy interesting and a real good idea!

In the gameoptions u can select options that some players cant join your game (e.g. to much bootng, to low lvl). But this solves not the problem, that some players give up to early and destroy the game.

But i think its necessary, that this gameoption is showen at the beginning of each game by a pop-up, so all player know it.

2) The problem at the second point is, that some players dont want to take there turns after they surrendered. So often games stand still until u can boot him or the last player accept the surrender. What i mean, u cant force smb to play, when he dont want to.
Also when it is anonymous.

But i see the problem and i think the idea is good.

4) In number 4 u said an interesting think. I know, that the game need a lot of colors that u can make games with a lot of people.
So the idea is good.
But i find better, when u can change the colors of the other players - and it is saved on your own pc.

5) Its an interesting new card, but u ever cant know if your enemy have more troops there now. so u will garrison more troops there, so the game in all will be much slower, cause all will save the border against camuflaged troops.
So i dont agree with that option.

Greetings
WD

@White dragon
4) my point here is rather to flag whole teams, so you can easier find who is fightin who
5) i see your point. then maybe this card should camouflage maximally around 50% troops (this cap could be also customzable by game host) so the differences between what you see and what is deployed wont be so high

just thought of these
1 in lottery games the losers would get some back. so in like 40 ppl lotteries the loser would get a bunch of points. (but then putting another reason why not to trust levels)

2.also maybe to boot ppl you might need to spend points. just a thought.

Edited 2/3/2015 02:41:17