I like the basic idea a lot, and I think it could see some good use in both single-player and multi-player settings.
I agree with the list of parameters, including backstab. A few others possibilities, if the system is going to be developed with a lock/unlock mechanic: giving units, gold and villages? That would make negotiations interesting perhaps. Player A might agree to swap maps, but only if Player B gives them control of a village, or X gold. I'm not sure if these are good options for most games, but surely they would be interested in some circumstances, and could be locked out normally. parameter handling looks good. Shared victory is the thorny issue from a multi-player point of view, I think. 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. wrt to the questions posed: I think it makes sense to trade ally rights equally, to avoid crazy situations where one side affects the other's ZoC but not vice-versa (to name one example). So you you see what they give you, and it should be equal to what you are giving them. Or at least to have this be an option (enable/disable even trading). I imagine handling victory and defeat in the same manner that "team victory" is currently handled. I like the idea on the table, as I understand it, to have this system be set as a map option and also controllable tweak-able with WML. One other question: how are "broken" alliances handled, if at all? That is, it players can use each other's healers and are sharing map info but can still attack each other, what happens if one of them chooses to attack the other? would they then be healed at the start of the victim's turn, or should the attack break all sharing? Finally, I think we can all agree that this should be off by default in a 2 player game... :D Regards, George aka Wintermute aka happygrue On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM, jeremy rosen <[email protected] > wrote: > Ok, here are my notes on the subject (discussion follows) > > LIST OF PARAMETERS > * can unit attack this side > * do we take village from that side > * can this side use our healers > * can this side use our leaders > * do we give this side our shroud information > * do we give this side our fog information > * can this side use our villages to teleport > * is this side affected by our ZOCs > > PARAMETER HANDLING > * should be setable by WML > * should be lockable/unlockable by WML > * unlocked parameters can be set by player via a table > > VICTORY HANDLING > * add a "share victory" button > * a side is victorious when all remaining sides share victory with him > > QUESTIONS > do we see what the other give us ? > victory : how do we handle some sides winning before others > defeat : i'm not sure if we need special handling for that, what would > be the point of sharing defeat (unless forced by WML, in which case > it's better to do it with events) > do we enable it in MP ? make it an option ? I personally it should be > a map option like shroud and FoW > WML syntax : tsr's way of doing it looks good, too early to freeze > > > > note that I intend to actively push it in 1.8, via a SoC or coding it > myself. > I'm saying that because there might be some good reasons not to do > that and I would like to discuss it now (in particular with MP > experts) > > so any strong opinions wrt that change ? > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev > -- 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
