On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Nils Kneuper <[email protected]>wrote: > > * Boucman introduced a new proposal (which is open for discussion!!!) to > introduce some new "alliance system". With this system you could have some > ways > to specify which information you do share with which player. Stuff that > would be > possible are: > - - Do I capture villages from player B if I walk on them? > - - Will shroud be removed for player B if I see some new area? > - - Will fog be removed for player B if it is removed for me? > - - Can I attack player B? > - - Does player B share victory with me (when I win, player B wins) > ... > In general the other player does *not* have to have the same preferences > for > alliances set as the current player. Those settings are possible separately > for > each player in the game (some table with checkboxes?). Those settings can > be > changed *IN* a game so that some diplomacy is possible (unless WML blocks > this, > of course!). > Remember this is just a proposal which is open for discussion. We will also > need > someone implementing this stuff (maybe GSoC?). > > I think that this idea has a lot of merit. I can imagine uses for regular multiplayer games, especially free-for-all games or games with 3 or 4 different teams.
Having such options might also create new types of games. I think about that the "Auction-X" map, which is a 4v1 multiplayer map where players bid low (in starting gold) to be the player in the center, who is fighting against the other four. I wonder if new styles of multiplayer games - with real diplomacy involved - might emerge. It is an exciting prospect I think. I also think that many scenario designers would really enjoy having more options for those computer controlled allied sides that show up from time to time in campaigns. For example, meeting a 'neutral' race in a campaign, the player could pay different amounts of gold to entice that race to supply maps, ability to move through ZoC, allied units, and access to villages for healing (or not!). One potential problem might be how to implement allied victory. Can it be switched on and off, or just on? At what stage in the game? If 4 players join a FFA game but two of them intend to ally immediately with shared victory then the other two players are effectively forced to ally as well, rendering the game a regular 2v2. One solution might be to have a mechanic that imposes a fixed number of turns between making and changing the status of alliances, and only allowing one aspect of an alliance with each negotiation. For example, shared victory could then be turned on after allies have progressed over a number of turns to share maps, then ZoC, then villages (in no particular order). A pre-game slider with the minimum number of turns (2-5?) between alliance changes would be one such mechanic. One final thought: Since alliance negotiations would likely center around territory and gold, perhaps the ability to give other players villages, units and/or gold should be considered? This is doable in WML already, and would make negotiations more flexible, but would also introduce quite a bit of craziness into the game (I'll give you and ulf if you give me a shaman...) and has the potential to slow things down considerably. I would lean toward not implementing such things - because they can already be done if needed for a scenario - but it is still worth considering in my opinion. In any case, I really like the idea of expanding the options for alliances in some form. Regards, George aka Wintermute aka happygrue -- The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. "With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not so good street." - D.S.
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
