Req instead of making a MAJOR game change try making a few minor corrections.

I like the idea of a units MP building slower if it is engaged in melee comabt. That alone would off set a player who logs in more often. Add to it the unit size movement requirement, not a movement penalty, but a requirement. Before a unit can move it must have a minimum number of MP. The unit would still get full movement, but the larger the unit, the longer that unit has to sit before it can move again.

Example: A unit of 100 scouts would have to wait until it had a minimum of 3 MP before it could move at all. Once it has that 3 MP it can move the full distance, but it can't move until it gets the 3 MP.

As far as the retal damage goes it is only a problem when the attack damage of one side is being limited, while the retal damage is not. If you want to give the defender a slight edge, that is fine. But a units retal damage shouldn't be more than 1.5 times it's max attack damage.

Example: A level one unit has a max attack of 1000 points. It's retal damage could at most be 1500 points. As a units level goes up so does it's max attack/retal damage.

So please instead of making a massive game change, try a few minor changes. The three sugestions, would go a long way toward balancing the game. It might even give us an idea of where to go to get it more balanced.

Personally I have come to realise that the majority of players that have been really competitive against me play quite intensively which is a description I prefer to use.
I do need to hear more from "Req" about some of these latter thoughts but I'm getting an impression already mentioned that the MP's still accumulate and are all that we need.

There has also been mention of putting "weight" on the units to handicap movement;
So I'm getting an impression that the units won't be movable anyway for a few "ticks" and as long as they are in contact with an enemy unit will be able to continue attacking.

I think there is really a "narrow window-openning" as to when a player happens to not be able to get online, when his particular opponent just happens to have his second wave in position and even when a confrontation is in progress. I think we will still be able to control the latter to some extent and there will be measures provided to limit the occurrences even more.

If a player has moved a second wave of attack into striking position, I see that as just good strategy and possibly that the defender should have tried to avoid the encounter if at all possible if he wasn't prepared to make a stand. There is also a condition I can't quite find the words to express but it is something like
"maybe those units were expendable"
if the condition of the "weaker player"
is that he is not prepared to meet a full scale attack.

In any event I don't think much more damage will be done to units because of missing a "tick or two";
I think everyone of us except a small minority are able to get into the game at least 4 times a day which I think would be enough; and everyone really has the same problem.
Granted young people have school, homework and early bed time but possibly there will still be games tailored for them. However there are thousands upon thousands of adult folks who like to play online games.

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 18 October 2004 - 14:02

If ticks were half an hour long, it wouldn't be "missing a tick or two." It'd be missing 10 or 15 ticks.

I love WARONLINE, but if this system is implemented then there is no point to having the flash map. Because it will become a game like Utopia, where you send your troops out and they attack the enemy. If you sent enough troops out, then you win, if not you lose. What Req wants to do will give the person who moves second an advantage to maneuvre their troops so that they gain the RPS advantage that the attacker normally has. Yes a person who logs in more often gets an advantage, but they are taking the time to log in.

Massively changing the system of combat is not the answer. Before a complete overhaul is implemented, Minor changes that could provide the same outcome should be tried. In my oppinion the changes Req is proposing would change the game into a combat calculator game, because strategy and tactics would become a minimal aspect of the game.

Example: I move a 100 pop scout unit, I move it's full movement, parking them next to my opponents 100 pop swordsmen unit. I should have RPS advantage when the click occurs. But my opponent has two 100 pop spearmen units, that had been out of my sight. He now moves his undamaged swordsmen unit back and parks both of his spearmen units against my scout unit. The RPS advantage I should have had has been negated, the troops I should have been able to kill got away, and my scout unit gets butchered.

At least under the current system I am able to have my units strike the ones I want. So in the above example my scouts will still get butchered from his spearmen, but at least I would get to attack his swordsmen.

Ghengis, I think that what req is suggesting is that the swords, would get the attack anyway (at least that tick), and will also get retreath damage.

Now I see what you express, normally if you hold back on BP, and then move, you'll do full 'pain' into the sword, maybe even cripling the stack for any funtional use.

But in this method, you will strike a meager 'pluck' and then he'll move back, and thenk you'll get a little 'ping' from the spears, and if like sage says, you happen to be 24/7 online you'll pull back, and push your papers and whomever doesn't have any ohter life but WOL will have a clear advantage.

Now this is what I feel out of the original explanation, maybe I got it all wrong, but have high hopes.

No gueritol what I was saying is that my opponent logs in before the tick and moves his swords. Then they do not take the intended damage because they aren't there to recieve it any longer. The scout unit can't move the next tick so it continues to take more damage. Depending on how slow the MP regen is for a unit in combat, it could be several ticks before I am able to move my scouts out and bring in a counter to his RPS advantage. But if my opponent is online alot then all he has to do is watch for me to change the units, then swap out his so that he still has RPS advantage.

If anything this idea will give more of an advantage to a player who is online alot. After all I could monitor the game near the tick, if my opponent has made a change in the battle then i can counter it.

I truly believe that this change will mess the game up. I'll give it a try, but I don't think I'll stay at WOL long once this change is implemented. Req has a decent system, Players who can't log on as much should be playing slow games. Especially if Req implements the suggestions I talked about above. One of them is his, one of them is TR's, and one of them is mine. I believe those three MINOR changes would do more to balance the game than this one MAJOR change would. They don't cover all of the issues but they are a start.

I get a large amount of satifaction by moving my troops into position and then attacking the enemy troops when I decide to do so. By implementing this it will make the game dull and boring like the hundreds of other games out there.

TL

I agree with tackedlugnut

hehe, i never said this was going to happen

i just wanted to discuss it, and see where it ended up.
sort of a brainstorming session.
im not even sure i like it myself, but i wanted to hear from everyone else what they thought.


however, i think i will implement the following...

- slower MP regen while in combat.
- CANNOT move at all while MP is 3 or less.
- give LOD only HALF resources each turn.
(oops, that one was supposed to be a secret)

- slower MP regen while in combat.

I'll support that.

- CANNOT move at all while MP is 3 or less.

This is also a good idea, more or less....but what happens to the poor people who miscount hexes and end up two spaces from where they wanted to go? They still have the MP, but sadly, they can't move. oh well, they should just be more careful.

- give LOD only HALF resources each turn.

About time that guy got a handicap, now maybe we'll beat him

question:

what does "while in combat" mean? cause... it could mean simply close to or touching an enemies hex, or it could mean that it was attacked, or attacked something that turn. or the previous turn even.

see, if you do it the "touching" way, then it might be bad... for allies.

it means actually fighting for 1 turn's duration.

What is the possiblity of everytime there is a confrontation within a campaign game the players having an option to agree upon a computer control option which would allow them to choose a certain formation for designated units, select their targets and then allow the computer to play out the battle until one of them stops action to do a reset of targets or retreat and then starts it up again to allow the computer to continue or go to finish?

TR

A couple of points.

If you move away from an attack, you should suffer losses in your retreat.

One should be able to target attacks, not have random attacks chosen for one.

What happens if you are next to an ally and you don't want to attack them? That's why you need to target attacks, for one.

Can the issue of this thread be resolved in anyway by putting the units in some sort of "artificial intelligence mode" where the units are pre-instructed to retreat to cetain positions at a pre-determined time?

This is not so "far-fetched". I have played quite old games that actually allowed me to input a list of instructions for a unit/units to perform.

TR

nope. AI is too difficult for a database system.

i think this idea has been shot down enough anyway so probably not much more point in trying to go further with it.

however, the movement points issues raised were good ones that i will look at in the very near future.

Well we almost had a "Battle game within a Campaign game"
and I think it was for this version.
Admittedly some big problems were raised like it not being convenient for "school age players"
and the possibility of an automated attack not being able to distinguish the enemy from a friendly;
but I still think it would have been great to at least try it and solve some of the problems in the

"field of endeavor".

Just remenber folks they say,

""No pain, No gain",
"Nothing ventured nothing gained"
and it is very controversial as to whether
"interest comes before effort
or with effort comes interest"."

PS:

I still think it would have been great and we could probably have got it to work.

So until and for next time,
just some words of wisdom to grow on from
"a friend indeed when I'm in need"

TR

TR, the problem wouldn't only be for kids with school, it'd also be a problem for an adult with a job, stay-at-home mom's with ballet recitals to attend, or senior citizens with a demanding game of checkers to play. The system would basically screw over anybody who had anything to do besides sit at the computer all day. To leave the computer would be to leave yourself vulnerable against a player who would log in for every tick.

"Sage"
I don't intend to try to get the last word in this thread but some of us have been through this before and I did demonstrate that there are probably possibly a billion folks able to play online computer games including among them several million people who work and are able to access the game on their job which may be an office job or some sort of self-employment. I won't try to elaborate at this time all the other people/adults including disabled peoples and retired folks who rather play this game instead of "checkers" that I did last time, but I'll leave it to someone else this time;
and possibly even someone who has the idea that there are so many of us with nothing else to do but sit at the computer playing computer games which choice of words I think does nothing to help fill the "game queues".

Admittedly toward the colder months I personally have more time to play but I only play one game because I don't have time to play more. I have a habit of leaving the computer online all day even though I'm not at it because I don't like to answer phone solicitors all day when I'm in the house. I do own a home on a large corner property which I assure you I don't neglect and I do have a large family that I visit on several occassions. That is as much of my personal life that I care to discuss and I wouldn't even say that much except that in my previous post I was gracious enough to acknowledge that school age people do have the biggest problem to play a "round the clock online computer game" only to regret having acknowledged it because I now find myself once again having to defend myself and folks who are able to play it.

PS:
As a matter of fact though why should anyone feel that playng an online computer game is not as acceptable an outlet for their time as any other non-essential form of entertainment to the exclusion of all the others and if this was our online computer game would we concern ourselves with those who are not able to play or with those who are able to play?

It is not my intention to offend anyone but I think I could give just as strong an argument for those of us who find time to play as those who can't and my experience is that logically, statistically it could probably be proven that the majority of people who play online computer games do so because they have access to a computer in excess of 16 hours a day.
I sure wouldn't worry about missing a turn if this game could be played as close to real time as this idea would allow and I assure you I would probably have days when I would miss a few turns and at least even one a day. IMO it would be worth it, but then I wasn't ever one to hold back progress or the show either.

TR