Important Dates

Latest Posts

Topic: Long term fun in Multiplayer Matches [Poll)]

the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 349
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-02-26, 22:30

In multiplayer matches ther has been consensus which most players, that fights get boring after some time, cause you always follow the exact build order. First i place that building, then the next and in every game i do it exactly the same way, since there is no need to change. If i try sth new i would lose or at least be not that efficient like with build number 1. Since we had so many positive aspects of this game, but this is one players dont play multiplayer anymore. I think about stopping, king of nowhere thought about it some weeks ago, hasi doesnt play anymore and it is just the reason that fights are nearly the same every game. We have the same build up every game we play.

My suggestion would be to bringt sth like random events in the game. I know i proposed it before, but the best and original solution for this problem would be if we put a stone scissor system in in, which means every player decides to play more one strategy and for every strategy there is a counter. This could super easily be done, like in other games sword superior to speer superior to bow. Moreover we dont need to implement any difficult stuff, since we have 4 unit promotions which we can easily make in the way that if i improve one or decide to go one way with my economy following my build, i will have a superior unit to it.

It has thousands of more positive arguments, the only argument against it i heard so far was, i dont want to have the chance to lose against a lower rated player. I dont want any other player to catch up or have a chance in competition against me, which should NOT be the case. Everyone should have a chance to improve in this game and win some time, this keeps the fun. Indeed even this single argument is the other way round since players will keep plaing if they sometimes get the chance to win. Tomorrow stonerl opens a poll for us where everyone of us can decide if we might try to work on this.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1496
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-27, 00:01

the-x wrote:

In multiplayer matches ther has been consensus which most players, that fights get boring after some time, cause you always follow the exact build order.

Why do you do that at all? You could try so many different build orders.

First i place that building, then the next and in every game i do it exactly the same way, since there is no need to change.

How is "it gets boring" no need for a change?

If i try sth new i would lose or at least be not that efficient like with build number 1.

I doubt it. Why do I beat you with different build orders? Maybe you should improve yours.

Since we had so many positive aspects of this game, but this is one players dont play multiplayer anymore. I think about stopping, king of nowhere thought about it some weeks ago, hasi doesnt play anymore and it is just the reason that fights are nearly the same every game. We have the same build up every game we play.

I don't think that this is the reason. As I said, different build-ups are possible.

My suggestion would be to bringt sth like random events in the game.

Like making the outcome of a hero fight random-based? face-tongue.png

I know i proposed it before, but the best and original solution for this problem would be if we put a stone scissor system in in, which means every player decides to play more one strategy and for every strategy there is a counter.

Maybe this already existing and you just don't know about it?

This could super easily be done, like in other games sword superior to speer superior to bow. Moreover we dont need to implement any difficult stuff, since we have 4 unit promotions which we can easily make in the way that if i improve one or decide to go one way with my economy following my build, i will have a superior unit to it.

I'm not convinced. You didn't explain in the other thread why it should be "easily", and now you claim it again instead of explaining.

It has thousands of more positive arguments, the only argument against it i heard so far was, i dont want to have the chance to lose against a lower rated player.

That's not the only argument.

Everyone should have a chance to improve in this game and win some time, this keeps the fun.

Why shouldn't this be the case?

Indeed even this single argument is the other way round since players will keep plaing if they sometimes get the chance to win.

Which player has never a chance to win anyway?

Look, in chess it's like the following: There are some players which are so strong that almost nobody has any realistic chance against them. But this doesn't stop chess from being a very popular game.


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1527
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-02-27, 02:15

the-x wrote:

In multiplayer matches ther has been consensus which most players, that fights get boring after some time, cause you always follow the exact build order. First i place that building, then the next and in every game i do it exactly the same way, since there is no need to change. If i try sth new i would lose or at least be not that efficient like with build number 1. Since we had so many positive aspects of this game, but this is one players dont play multiplayer anymore. I think about stopping, king of nowhere thought about it some weeks ago, hasi doesnt play anymore and it is just the reason that fights are nearly the same every game. We have the same build up every game we play.

that is TOTALLY NOT why i'm not playing multiplayer much. in fact, build order is different for every map.

as i stated, the main reason i don't have much drive to play is that against ws i am pretty much guaranteed to lose, and against everyone else i am pretty much guaranteed to win - except against you if you rush, then it's close but it's not the kind of game i like.

and adding random elements is definitely NOT what i would like in this game. hey, i just defeated worldsavior because he got unlucky and there was absolutely nothing he could do about it. [sarcasm mode] that really makes me feel like i accomplished something! all hail me, i am a great player! [/sarcasm mode].

finally, you open one such thread every few weeks, and everyone says no. face it, you are the only one wanting to push the game in that direction. asking anew every few weeks is not going to accomplish anything


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1496
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-28, 00:01

king_of_nowhere wrote:

as i stated, the main reason i don't have much drive to play is that against ws i am pretty much guaranteed to lose, and against everyone else i am pretty much guaranteed to win

Well then, what would you think about matches where you and me have equal win chances because of an advantage for you? Would you like to play such a match?


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
Solstice_s_Return
Avatar
Joined: 2020-01-28, 13:24
Posts: 57
Ranking
Likes to be here
Location: Finland
Posted at: 2020-03-02, 08:31

I haven't played multiplayer matches as of yet, but as a game designer I hate introducing additional randomness into a game. My experiences come from board game designs, so it is a bit different but not so much after all. In boardgames typically core mechanics include some randomness, but I always seek ways to mitigate them to give more control to the players. If I find myself thinking about whether to add some random element because the game doesn't seem to work properly without, then most likely the game isn't worth enough to get developed any further. So which one is the case now? I guess it isn't time to introduce an additional random factor.

But if some changes need to be considered, I'd consider adding a layer of complexity as long as it fits seamlessly into the game. It is usually like a sword with blade in both ends and so it needs a very careful consideration because simple and elegant is usually most beautiful, but here it has to be remembered that I'm not talking about simplicity in absolute terms. It is just how to implement it while leaving all clutter aside.

I have an idea which might improve the game. In one sentence: Add wear and tear factor to military equipment with an appropriate bunch of its repercussions. If someone is intrested, I can start an another topic to explain the whole idea.

An another thing here is automation. The current system is very much linear. With the aforementioned idea there'd be one or two new control knobs to change this into non linearity. Automation plus linearity isn't propably the best match, but with non-linearity there can be many different outcomes with exactly same equipment to start with.

Edited: 2020-03-02, 08:49

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1527
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-03-02, 15:04

WorldSavior wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

as i stated, the main reason i don't have much drive to play is that against ws i am pretty much guaranteed to lose, and against everyone else i am pretty much guaranteed to win

Well then, what would you think about matches where you and me have equal win chances because of an advantage for you? Would you like to play such a match?

i only read this now, but alas, no. i don't like to play with advantage or disadvantage. it feels disrespectful towards the guy with disadvantage. i have a peculiar sense of gamer honor

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

I haven't played multiplayer matches as of yet, but as a game designer I hate introducing additional randomness into a game. My experiences come from board game designs, so it is a bit different but not so much after all. In boardgames typically core mechanics include some randomness, but I always seek ways to mitigate them to give more control to the players. If I find myself thinking about whether to add some random element because the game doesn't seem to work properly without, then most likely the game isn't worth enough to get developed any further. So which one is the case now? I guess it isn't time to introduce an additional random factor.

personally, i think the problem with this game is that attack is too strongly advantaged. if there is a symmetrical situation, attacking is often better than being attacked. so, whenever two players make contact, one of them will attack. this leads to short games whithout time to fully develop the economy, that should be the core of this game.

I said times and again that we should give some advantage to the defender to allow for an equilibrium to develop. and then the game can devolve around improving the economy.


Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3159
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2020-03-03, 10:18

Here's the previous discussion: https://www.widelands.org/forum/topic/4590/


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 349
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-03, 11:48

My Opinion is that if we only make defense stronger there might be a nice equilibrium at the beginning where players dont attack. But this equilibrium will stay and might lead to neverending games. If we have the circles in which units win against other units we will keep the fun and games will come to an end sooner or later.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1527
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-03-03, 11:57

the-x wrote:

My Opinion is that if we only make defense stronger there might be a nice equilibrium at the beginning where players dont attack. But this equilibrium will stay and might lead to neverending games.

this equilibrium will stay until someone manages to gain a strong military advantage, so he can attack. which is prettu much the principle we want to implement in this game: victory through stronger economy.

If we have the circles in which units win against other units we will keep the fun and games will come to an end sooner or later.

no. either people will make untis of all three types, so there is still equilibrium. or the first promoted unit both players make will decide victory. if we call the three kind of soldiers rocks, papers and scissors for simplicity, say you start by making rocks, then you make contact with the opponent, oh, he made papers, you lost. oh, he made scissors, you won. since you have to take that decision well in advance, without knowing what the enemy will make, there is absolutely no skill going into the process.you would reduce this game to a single toss of the dice.


Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 706
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-03, 12:09

no. either people will make untis of all three types, so there is still equilibrium. or the first promoted unit both players make will decide victory. if we call the three kind of soldiers rocks, papers and scissors for simplicity, say you start by making rocks, then you make contact with the opponent, oh, he made papers, you lost. oh, he made scissors, you won. since you have to take that decision well in advance, without knowing what the enemy will make, there is absolutely no skill going into the process.you would reduce this game to a single toss of the dice.

Perhaps it's not necessarily be like that. If I understood the-x's explanation (in german) below the poll correcty, this is somewhat similar to how they do it in Wesnoth: Heavy infrantry wins against skeletons, who win against necromancers (well sometimes…) who win against heavy infantry. If the change propsed here is to be similar to that system it could be a very nice improvement to the game.
Only downside is that I have absolutely no idea how anything like this could be actually implemented.


Top Quote