im sure this has been said before but....

Bt it would b funky if we could have spectators im battles...

obviously it would b open 4 abuse but maybe if its just 4 the honouralbe gold badge wearers......most of us aint gonna cheat and im sure it would b interesting...

maybe just in unranked battle..it would b good 4 training newer fellas..and me

Yes very good idea ... maybe even judges and referees.

PS:
Whoops
I meant in campaigns.

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 27 January 2005 - 09:44

If anyone has anything constructive 2 say then say on...

but if you wanna spam(TR) then im sure there must b one of links threads u can use

I don't know where that came from "thefunklub"
(i.e. about spamming)
but my post was intended to be a compliment to the idea.
I did realize after I posted that the suggestion was about
"battles" so I had to do an edit, but I am serious that if spectators could judge a campaign battle it might end once and for all the "bickering" in the forums over "honor".

PS:
However I don't want to risk being classed as a "spammer" so I will be more careful in the future under whose threads I post.

TR

yea do better next time TR. lol

Sorry TR maybe i got the wrong end of the stick....

hopefuly it wasn't the sticky side of the stick. LOL

Now King ur spamming..

im thinking this is a good idea...it could b used in many constructive ways and b a great help for training..and for selected peers 2 keep gangbangers in check..

It's been given before.
Direct spectation gives the chance to cheat, recording is too tricky for a compartively small gain. Examine some past threads on this for Req's official line

cheers CTD

It's obvios some type of spectator game needs to be arranged! An inner castle battle or a empty castle takeover rush? Something please! Anything! We want to see how the big boys do it.

At last a voice of reason....

As i said before, maybe just a unranked battle where u can have 1 or more spectators....it would b great and even if there was cheating... u lose nothing. there would b no point..
it would b great, plus would also b a exelent training tool......

maybe this is an idea 4 the new version though as Req seems a little busy lately

I like this idea but doubt Req would go for it.

Another twist would be to be able to "record" a battle and play it later. There wouldn't be any chance to cheat and you can still learn from your mistakes or someone else's.

Card

I think you said it right off...."obviously it would b open 4 abuse but maybe if its just 4 the honouralbe gold badge wearers......most of us aint gonna cheat and im sure it would b interesting..."


"MOST won't cheat?" That says some, and I bet most, of the honorable (cough) gold badge wearers will. "Open for abuse". Yes. I can't see any advantage whatsoever in this suggestion, except to have someone else help you with startegy tips in the middle of the battle. In that case you don't deserve the win if you need the help. I think clan games are what would be the best response for this suggestion.

I am strongly against this enhancement.

Last Edited : Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 08:15

Here's what I wrote in the thread I started a while back on the same subject:

This has been talked about previously but I thought I'd raise this for discussion again since to me it seems like a very favourable idea.


The advantages of such a feature would be obvious. New (and not so new) players can observe veteran players battle it out and learn accordingly. While battle tournament organisers would be able to observe final matches, take screenshots and so on. Overall this feature, if implemented in a correct way, would enhance the battle experience that WoL offers and maybe even alleviate the boredom of some campaigners waiting for the next tick.

The major disadvantage I guess would be the time involved in coding such a feature. Another disadvantage would be that spying would be possible. A friend of someone who is battling another player could observe the game and communicate the other player's moves and position, basically removing the fog of war. Sadly I can only offer a remedy to this second disadvantage, leaving more code-minded people (and Requiem ofcourse) to deal with the first disadvantage.

This is how I see it were this feature implemented. When you go to the battles page as you go normally, with viewing of occupied games allowed, you click on one of the games that are currently running. Once the page for that particular battle loads, somewhere near the "Enter Game" button you see "Spectate" and another two buttons "Watch Player_X" and "Watch Player_Y". Once you click on one of those buttons the particular player is notified through private message that there is a request to observe his game.

Now as for the two battlers, in the their game window somewhere under "Status" there would be a link "Spectators". On that page there would be a table of people requesting to observe the battle with "Allow/Disallow" buttons to the side of each request. Once allowed a spectator can only see that player's troops(since they only have that player's permission). So basically if you trust someone, you allow them to watch as you see your troops, if you don't know the person requesting to observe, you don't click the allow button. Another thing that would be a good thing to add is a "Block requests" option just incase the player doesn't want to allow any spectators and receive any notices through pms.

I believe if implemented in such a way the disadvantage of spying is diminished significantly, and only leaves the problem of coding...

I think messages from observers to game participants could probably be made to be "auto-blocked" when players join a game to become a "game-observer". Again this is a programming problem but I think this would probably be the most simple way.

TR

That's not a very good idea TR. Since you cannot block people from using other messaging alternatives like MSN, mIRC or ICQ..

The spectator mode feature has to be based on trust IMO. And hell, to be frank I don't care if someone can see my troops in battle and message my opponent about my position. You cannot pick new troops once the battle starts so that doesn't matter, and if they give away my position the opponent will still not benefit from it very much since they need to get into viewing range of my scouts in order to engage. Very few experienced players get outmanuevered and suprised in battles.

Also, if you somehow find out that the spectator is giving away the info, that spectator simply never gets to watch you battle ever again..

well theres also sneeky players who run from battle and specator can help the attacker find the hiding troops so theres a bonus to this...

where is the bonus if there if it is unranked battles only....

just a battle between mates where other mates can sit back and watch.....all this talk of cheating is a little bit beside the point.

Yes... a simple battle, with no fog of war, for all to see. You may think that removing the fog of war would ruin some elements. Try playing a veteran, you WILL be surprised. No auto battles though. Not so simple is now is it?