@Blortis

I absolutely love no split mode!

It is very interesting and strategic in my view.. Forming huge stacks is pointless(unless your opponent has one and it is critical that you hold a region). So you must deploy giving considerable thought to how you want your deployment to affect the game at least 4-5 turns ahead.

I don't like big maps though. In agreement with your view there.

As ChrisCMU said, there's nothing wrong with liking the gameplay of 0 neutrals, but arguing that it requires the same strategy is where you anyone who is any good will disagree.

People play and enjoy all sorts of games that are far less strategic than Warlight.

Checkers is less strategic than Chess but that doesn't make it worse (or better).

Pooncrew, your clan is thought of as troll drama generators because you do things like make pointless juvenile sexual analogies in a thread your own clanmate started where they claimed they were looking to start a serious discussion on settings.

With regards to straight rounding versus weighted rounding, I think I would prefer straight rounding but I do worry expansion might be too easy and predictable on ME.

I've wondered if something like weighted rounding for attacks versus neutrals, but straight for attacks versus enemies might be good. I'm sure we've all seen matches swing on something like a 13v8 attack failing and that always feels arbitrary.

75% luck. (or other high luck games)

Requires more skill as there is more option/possibilities.

Hated as it also means that, well, Luck is a factor. (Which means less skill, if you want to make that argument.)

+ No game is the same
+ More like realty (no-one has control over death tally)
+ Closer to classic risk, were you roll dices.

- Well... luck and all the things that comes with it.

its called manipulating people. Ever thought about this? That clans that play diplo manipulate each other more

as to why diplo is better

I like having luck in my games too. Some players complain about it, but the unpredictable is a part of life and there's no such thing as a sure thing. I like having to hedge my bets and plan for the possibility of bad luck.

Now if I could just take this moment to spam this forum with a game I'm trying to fill...

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8273426

LD, Multi-attack, no cards, unusual but awesome map, dense fog, 2-day boot with 50% banking for 20 turns because some folks have lives, no luck, auto-distribution.

There's gotta be something in there for everyone to hate.

*Clicked Mister 's profile*
*Bio*

"Old fart that likes to play war games on his phone. This is all just practice for world domination, which I'll achieve once I save up enough money for laser sharks. "

@Mister
attack failing in luck games is not a phenomena we do not expect to happen
for example in 16% luck straight round games you can expect an attack of 3 to go fail but 4 will always succeed
how much you should delpoy depends on the importance of the territory and the available armies you have for doing other stuff in the game
also your opponent's moves are unpredictable and not the luck,it can be expected/unexpected but you know it is there
thie reason why i prefer 0 luck straight round games is that you cannot say i was unlucky so i lost
almomst all noobs do that->why complain about getting unlucky when you don't like to play 0 luck games?? you also do not have to worry about your valid attacks going fail so you can concentrate more on the game and your strategy in 0 luck games

Why do people dislike the multi-attack option?

I don't see a lot of multi-attack games.

(My own experience is that it can lead to a lot weird "nuclear weapon" scenarios, but appropriate settings can counter-balance that and lead to really interesting and varied tactical play.)

the problem is with Mister's game you end up with 20 day boot times

@Ryiro: a 3v2 cannot fail with 16% sr

One thing I'm really fond of that a lot of people don't like is replacing surrendered players with an AI.

A lot of people don't like that: the AIs do weird things, after all.

However, I find that a player turning into neutral territories really upsets the strategy of the map, and often gives unfair advantages to one player over another.

For instance, if we're fighting and I have a slightly better position, but a third player surrenders in an area of the map you have access to but I do not, you can quickly expand there (since there are no more armies being produced, and none of the armies move) and pretty certainly defeat me.

This means that when I'm playing a game, I don't want to surrender: even if the game is done, for me, leaving it might make it unfair for whoever the current contestants are.

Dealing with the AI also involves an element of skill (I have a pretty good sense of how they operate, and can often manipulate circumstances to make sure they go after my opponent/s instead of after me), which is fun and rewards the better player.

For these reasons, I like games where surrendered players are always replaced with AIs.

Dealing with the AI also involves an element of skill (I have a pretty good sense of how they operate, and can often manipulate circumstances to make sure they go after my opponent/s instead of after me), which is fun and rewards the better player.

Tell me if I am wrong, but some settings changed about AIs right? I mean yesterday we discovered that AIs could not let us take their territories, they actually attacked me and my teammate!
I think this is a stupid improvement, because AIs will never replace a true player in skills, and the fact that AIs attack us is not making things easier...

Edited 4/4/2015 17:35:38

I think if a teammate gets booted, we should implement this suggestion: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/82460-teammates-booted?Offset=0 since AI are really, really bad on team games and usually little better than neutrals (except for the ability to come back).

In FFA games turning into AI makes sense though, since obviously nobody else can take over (that would be really unfair), and that way at least the people fighting the surrendered players still have to deploy significant amounts of armies to take out the AI.

yes take control of AIs is a really good idea, and I think it wont be difficult to set... I hope Fizzer will hear you.

Tell me if I am wrong, but some settings changed about AIs right? I mean yesterday we discovered that AIs could not let us take their territories, they actually attacked me and my teammate!

I don't know for sure (since I don't run this site), but it seems to me that you are mistaken. The AIs appear to behave as they always have.

The AIs have always* had the ability to attack a teammate, in order to complete bonuses. They rarely do so, but it does happen under the right circumstances.



*: Not speaking literally here, of course.

Edited 4/4/2015 20:00:11

When it comes to the AI see https://www.warlight.net/wiki/AI

It will only attack teammates in two circumstances:

1.If a bonus is entirely controlled by teammates and it has >= 50% of the territories. It will only do attacks of 2 then.

2.If it's expanding into a new bonus that no teammates control. [9]
The AI will not play cards when teamed with a human teammate unless it must play cards by rule. The only circumstance where an AI must play cards when teamed with a human teammate is if the last player on a team turns into an AI via boot or surrender and cards must be used by that team that turn.