On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, George B <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
well, I thought of that and discarded the idea... swaping units would break faction balance in MP (giving healers to dwarves, things like that) and same thing with gold... > 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? my intent was to allow it at any time, no minimal time (like you suggested below) with my idea which (was non-symetrical) you can only "give" not "get" so the winning condition is "everybody is allied with you" (which you don't control) > 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. interesting point, here is what I'm currently thinking : if players declare a FFA, no alliance, before game they could "force" it via map options or agree to that. Worse happen, we could allow the host to set/lock alliance before the game (just as the host sets the teams currently) > 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. well, I don't really like this idea... I think the alliances should be either locked (it's part of the game that X and Y are allied) or free for all. All problems of alliances/treasons shouldn't be game mechanics but a matter of trust. If you can't trust your partner, too bad... > 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). again, that's against the basic idea of my system (you don't have to agree with your ally, but you can only decide what you give, not what you get) I don't say that my proposal is the only way to go, but changing that would be a totally different proposal > I imagine handling victory and defeat in the same manner that "team victory" > is currently handled. current "team victory" is not meant to work with "loose side" so i'm not sure what you mean... > 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? they should be healed, let's keep it simple. And i'm sure the healing will be removed quickly at the begining of the betrayed player's turn... > Finally, I think we can all agree that this should be off by default in a 2 > player game... :D hehe if you manage to convince your oponent to share victory... you win. That would be an interesting way to implement a sort of "defeat" system for MP _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
