You said it best yourself.

"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"

There's a billion people who could play this game. This change would make it impossible for anybody except for that "several million" to play. Thats cutting our possible future players down by a LOT.

Req has often stated that he wants this to be the sort of game that you don't have to sit at the computer all the time to play. He's often expressed disgust against players who log in every hour to move their troops and gain unfair advantage.

I do agree with you that playing waronline is the best form of entertainment when you're at home by yourself. That's why I spend a lot of time at home on the computer. Watching tv or playing console video games pales in comparison to waronline

"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'm not even AWAKE for 16 hours a day, every day.

"I assure you I would probably have days when I would miss a few turns and at least even one a day"

Last time I checked, we were discussing having 30 minute ticks? How can you only miss one of those a day? On school days, I'd miss 20 ticks while at school, if I came straight home I'd then catch the next 12 or 14 ticks, and then miss another 16 or so while I slept. On days when I wanted to hang out with my girlfriend or had an after-school thing, I'd only catch 8 or 10 ticks out of a possible 48. On weekends, it might possibly be even worse, as I tend to sleep in later and stay away from the house longer.

Teenagers are the main group of people who play online games. Check out the player statistics for this game. About 52% of players who admit their age tell us that they're ages 10-19. Taking into account people who won't admit their age, the teenagers still take almost 1/3 of our total players. To alienate them would be to lose most of our players.

"Sage"
I still won't try to get the last word but somehow I knew that a several million wouldn't be acceptable to some folks. Several million could be from a few million to 399 million okay and that's just office workers and self-employed. I doubt if the number could be 999 million but we still have all the disabled people, retired people, unemployed people, bored houswives, poor people who can't afford all the luxuries of life that some of us can
and last but not least college students who are no stranger to "all night cramming" but would appreciate the company of a good game that would provide them with some healthy safe diversion a few minutes at a time as long as they can discipline themselves to take life in moderation.

Do those groups add up to the billion I had in mind?
Also I am still interested to hear how you would think if this was your game.


PS:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the concept but I'm getting the impression that so many "ticks" is still the equivalent of only one turn in terms of potential total damage that can be done but I admit I'm not sure.

TR

Indeed, all the ticks would still only add up to one turns worth of damage, but several people, including myself, have made it clear how the system could be abused.

Player A can only log in twice a day.
Player B can log in any time.

Player A has 5 stacks of 100 scouts and 2 stacks of 100 archers.

Player B has 5 stacks of 100 swordsmen and 2 stacks of 100 archers.

Both players line up their armies in a straight line with the archers behind the line. Player A moves his scouts forward next to Player B's swordsmen, and tells his archers to fire. At the next tick, he'll do 1/12th of his max damage. 1/12th is not a very big number.

Player A then logs off for 12 hours. Immediately after, Player B logs on. To prevent himself from being hit by the scouts and archers again, Player B moves all of his swordsmen back one space. The scouts won't attack because they're not adjacent to the swordsmen any more. The archers' target will have moved, so they won't fire. Safe from damage, Player B tells his archers to fire on Player A's scouts. Since Player A isn't at his computer, and won't be for 12 hours, he can't move his troops out of harms way. The archers will attack each tick, and hit every time. So Player B's archers end up doing 24 times (24 ticks in 12 hours) as much damage as Player A's archers. Even though Player A has the RPS advantage, he will lose this battle because he only gets one attack per turn, as opposed to Player B's 24 per turn.

Wouldn't the same be true if Player B also only logged on twice per day, but just happened to log on immediately after Player A logged off that first time? I see that more logons increase the chances for this to happen, but the system itself will lead to these type of problems however the players game habits work out.
Cheers,
H.

Yeah, Hwatta, it would. That just shows how horrible the system would be...no one example can fully express how bad it would be

yes, that is the biggest problem with this system.

the only way to prevent that would be lock fighting armies into place for X ticks so they cannot be moved whilst in combat. at least for a short amount of time.

and altho i have seen this in many RTS games (once armies/troops begin to fight, you cant move them away until one is dead, or at least its very very difficult and you take heavy losses), im not sure most people here would like that sort of change.

perhaps that is for another discussion.

We don't want to be just like other games, remember. Some things (like being able to move all your units at once in battles) make the game unique, which is why we love it.

i believe sage has a point the idea isnt to look like other games the idea is to make this unque enough but add thing majority of the people would like to have in games...

"Req"
If somehow an instruction can be assigned to a unit to test all adjacent spaces for an enemy unit and if not then to attempt to step one space in a specified direction on each tick for a specified number of times,
IMO that would solve this problem and many other problems like it;
and as far as unique games is concerned
sorry but the main topic of this discussion would put this game even more unique than it already is
plus allow all the people who want to play it until their head hits the keyboard to do that also.

TR

you know, TR, if you wanted quick, action packed gameplay with no delay....you COULD play battles. The turns are even shorter there...instead of 30 minute ticks you get 3-7 minute ones.

I don't have time to play battles.

*(edit)*
PS:
There is a difference.
Battle games to my knowledge require that a person be at the computer for as much as a 3 hour period. I am sure they are quite addictive also
and that I just can't afford.

Whereas if this change was implemented to campaign games it would give the game just the right touch of added interaction without really being a demand on the player to be at the computer;
and I could continue to play only one campaign game which I like and feel completely involved and satisfied.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 October 2004 - 21:04

Yet you support a change that would all but require 24/7 access to a computer?

That's not true "Sage"
I think it's not me that thinks it's necessary to access that often.

This idea would allow the units to continue on their own unless a change is made by one of the combatants
and the idea I just suggested would solve that problem if it could be done.

Please try to see if you can think of a solution as well as uncover a problem without discarding an idea that I suspect has been given hours of valuable thought.

TR

Your suggestion couldn't be done, too complicated.

And I don't see how you could deny that the system would be unbalanced. It gives an infinitely huge advantage to people who can log in more often. People who couldn't log in at least as often as the most active of their opponents would lose. Period.

Have you ever seen where you can assign a defensive mode in some of the "big name games"
and where the unit will attempt to attack a unit that comes within a certain distance of the assigned post of that unit
but then the unit will return to it's post when the enemy moves out of range of it's assigned post?

I have no idea of how complicated that is to program but my suggestion is not nearly as complicated as that as far as I can imagine but IMO it is proof that it can be done.

TR

PS:
Next time you want to move all the units at once in some of the other RTS games,
try dragging a box around them all to capture all of them and then click where you want them all to go.
You can even hold all of your longest range units in the backfield and target all of them at once at the closest approaching enemy and keep doing that without unselecting them.

Not bad for an old timer I'd say. I even beat the computer in tough mode. They had to do an upgrade to make it tougher for me.

*(edit)*
whoops
Somewhere in there you have to hold down the "shift key"
but I would have to try it again to refresh my memory of how to do it.

You can even assign a number to a group of units to select all of them at the same time but I haven't read how to do that yet and I don't have time to play other games anyway.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 October 2004 - 22:27

yes, im not concerned about being "unique".

in terms of "software" games, there is no such thing.

the thing that makes us "unique" is the medium and community. not so much the game itself.

all the rules in this game can easily be found in other games somewhere. even the "move all armies at once". it certainly does not make waronline "unique" to do it that way or another way.

the issue for me is, since "unique" no longer exists in terms of these types of strategy games, is to go with what works best.
so this also means looking at other similar games and see what does and doesnt work there. if the most popular of games in this genre do things a certain way, then you have to ask why are we doing it differently?
certainly not to be "unique" as that doesnt exist.

i dont think this particular idea will work, but not for the reasons Sage6 has pointed out.
i have no problem with locking in units, for a turn at least, so they cant move during combat. its obviously a popular choice in RTS games, as is NOT moving all troops at once per turn in popular TBS games.

both of those would easily solve many of the issues with this current idea. however, im not sure id want it this way.


anyway, as i said, i think i will just go with the Movement changes discussed here. they are simple and strategically effective changes that will improve gameplay and make it fairer for those that dont log in every hour.

That is fine with me and I can agree with the idea that "Req" just doesn't like the solution
and prefers to make the changes that we all think are good.
What is unique about this game are several things but here are a few:

a) this is the only game I have seen where a sincere attempt is being made to create a perfect game as realistic as possible without destroying game balance and without purposely holding things back for fear they might "kill" the market
(i.e. e.g.
"I have to have that game because you can do this but it doesn't do that so I have to have the other game too").
In time I believe we will have it all
(i.e. as much as it is possible)

b) also as mentioned I enjoy these discussions with our community and with "Req" trying to help solve these details as much as I enjoy playing this game and for me that is a unique experience

c) our people from all over the world whose wit and intelligence along with a love to clown, joke and laugh together has actually been something I look forward to everyday

What really makes my day though is knowing that "Req" knows that I meant no disrespect by what I had to say in my last post because he is truly a "Game Creator" and as "Regular a Guy" as some of my best friends.

TR

(Gives a wide berth to Sage and Taurus Rex who are circling each other, growling menacingly)

In response to your proposed changes, Req:

- slower MP regen while in combat.
Good idea. Opens lots of strategic possibilities (like reinforcements actually getting to a battle in time)
- CANNOT move at all while MP is 3 or less.
While I understand what you're trying for with this one and agree with the intent, I don't really think it's a good idea. It makes movement too much of a hit-or-miss deal. If you wanted to keep people from logging in every hour, wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply restore MP and BP on longer ticks? Maybe every 2-3 hours instead of 1?
- give LOD only HALF resources each turn.
Add Fulcrum0 to that. Too many heavy cavs!

Arnof the Vile

I have an idea that seems to me to be fairly simple and from reading some of this thread I'm getting the impression that if some of the things mentioned in it can be done then maybe the idea I have can also be done.

Suppose when an attack on a player is made:
a) all other attacks from other players on these two opponents are blocked
b) if after the initial attack is made it is determined that the player who has been attacked (i.e. the attackee) is online, then the battle will automatically go into "turn-based mode" for those two opponents or stay in normal mode if the "attackee" is not online.
c) after the inital attack, the "attackee" would have 12 seconds to respond to move one unit or the attacker can make his next move
d) the battle would continue that way until both players have made all their moves at which time at the next "tick/hour" the players would return to normal mode

PS:
Maybe initially the "attackee" can be given one minute to make his first response and then 12 seconds thereafter because initially he may be in another game and need a little time to access the game where the attack has been made.

TR

Last Edited : Friday, 14 January 2005 - 08:44