New multiplayer mode possibility?

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 4th, 2005, 7:01 pm

varradami wrote:I don't understand the resistence to this idea.

There would never be any reason to break an alliance. Interestingly, you could win the game instantly by allying with all other players.

Like "I backstab you because I'm feeling like being evil! Never mind that I don't get anything useful out of it..."

scott · Post by **scott** » June 4th, 2005, 7:02 pm

You may have noticed this, but Wesnoth is not ... [any of those games]. But, alliance breaking can go into the fork as a preference. I don't know what to call the fork yet - PrefNoth? In fact, RPG mode could be another preference, so RPGNoth would be a subset of PrefNoth.

Post by **Dave** » June 4th, 2005, 7:30 pm

Let me just quote a Red Hat employee who I think put this far more eloquently than I can....

Ulrich Drepper wrote: The fundamental problem is that configuration options are bad. Be it at runtime or at compile. Ideally there is one configuration which works everywhere. Every new configuration increases complexity. Not linearly but instead exponentially. Each option might influence every other option. This is a disaster not only for users, but also the developers. It means exponential growth of testing. Which of course won't happen and therefore the code is basically untested. For developers this means that often only one or two configurations are really tested. Any us of another configuration is probably doomed to failure in any non-trivial project.

(from http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/7326.html -- and no I don't agree with everything he said there, but that paragraph was great).

David

skullcrusher · Post by **skullcrusher** » June 6th, 2005, 6:47 pm

Changing alliances would be a good option for mature players who understand that this is only a game.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 6th, 2005, 8:28 pm

skullcrusher wrote:Changing alliances would be a good option for mature players who understand that this is only a game.

Care to back up your statement with any evidence whatsoever?

skullcrusher · Post by **skullcrusher** » June 6th, 2005, 8:44 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:
skullcrusher wrote:Changing alliances would be a good option for mature players who understand that this is only a game.
Care to back up your statement with any evidence whatsoever?

Well there's me. Perhaps you. Seriously, if someone is going to sulk because their ally flipped on them then don't invite that person back. Alliance flipping should be an option. Good players should not have to suffer because of the immaturity of others.

Ankka · Post by **Ankka** » June 6th, 2005, 9:11 pm

skullcrusher wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote: Care to back up your statement with any evidence whatsoever?
Well there's me. Perhaps you. Seriously, if someone is going to sulk because their ally flipped on them then don't invite that person back. Alliance flipping should be an option. Good players should not have to suffer because of the immaturity of others.

Good players win with or without allies.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 6th, 2005, 9:19 pm

skullcrusher wrote:Well there's me. Perhaps you. Seriously, if someone is going to sulk because their ally flipped on them then don't invite that person back. Alliance flipping should be an option. Good players should not have to suffer because of the immaturity of others.

Care to provide any reasons whatsoever why backstabbing would be in any way a good thing?

skullcrusher · Post by **skullcrusher** » June 6th, 2005, 9:23 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:Care to provide any reasons whatsoever why backstabbing would be in any way a good thing?

Sure. Suppose you play multiplayer without teams. It may be advantageous to ally with another player to bring you closer to the victory. Didn't anyone here ever play Risk?

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 6th, 2005, 9:27 pm

skullcrusher wrote:Sure. Suppose you play multiplayer without teams. It may be advantageous to ally with another player to bring you closer to the victory. Didn't anyone here ever play Risk?

You can already do that.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » June 7th, 2005, 2:42 am

I think you may want to try Ã‚Â¨Doesn't anyone here ever play Diplomacy?Ã‚Â¨.

However, i don't see alliances as something you want to break, after all, Wesnoth is not a game where the last man standing wins.

And yes, i did break alliances in Starcraft, but just when playing with my friends, becuase we had time to spare. It was like Ã‚Â¨i have 10 min moreÃ‚Â¨ and then Ã‚Â¨ok, break alliances and everyone to the center for a last standÃ‚Â¨ and the one with the highest score won, regardless if he survived or not.

ryn · Post by **ryn** » June 7th, 2005, 3:28 am

for making AND breaking alliances, we simply need an option to send a message to any player, but to that player alone. For unbreakable alliances, we need a new feature. Perhaps the first would please more people, as well as making the MP experience more pleasant.

Multiplayer Scenarios / Campaigns · Post by **Rhuvaen** » June 7th, 2005, 6:27 am

Elvish Pillager wrote:You can already do that.

ryn wrote:for making AND breaking alliances, we simply need an option to send a message to any player, but to that player alone.

No, there's more to it: sharing ZOC's (like not being held up by your allies), and sharing the map view, at the very least. So technically, this is NOT currently possible in multiplayer.

I still don't think it's a grand idea for Wesnoth, since Wesnoth is about skirmishes, not political dealings on a grand scale like Diplomacy (although these often provide a good storyline). This is one of the reasons why a campaign is broken up into scenarios.

Tomsik · Post by **Tomsik** » June 7th, 2005, 6:51 am

IMO changing aliances is good idea for big map with few players and any allliances on start, all aliances you make later.
and IMO player should can give gold to ally

Post by **Boucman** » June 7th, 2005, 7:35 am

Just to clarify the discussion (I have no opinion on the matter except that it should wait for post 1.0 if implemented)

what you want is not so much a way to "ally" and/or "betray" other player

what you want is a way to easily enable and disable some player interactions on a blink

an array where for each player you could give and take away advantages whenever you want

like
"prevent my units from atacking"
"show him my map"
"share victory" (works if you win only. he has to tick his box for you to win if he wins)
"share healing"
"share leadership"

etc... the idea is that you can provide him with bonus and take them away whenever you want, however, he is the one who decides if he gives you bonus.

everything else is trust through negociation etc...

what do you think ?