New multiplayer mode possibility?

Sea Elf · Post by **Sea Elf** » May 4th, 2005, 10:53 pm

I was wondering if anyone could try to make a map or code that lets you make alliences during a game and break them I certainly could I don't know anything about Wesnoth code!

Please reply if you have an oppinion on this.

ryn · Post by **ryn** » May 4th, 2005, 11:18 pm

A: This should be moved to ideas
B: Such a concept is quite interesting and allows for many more options, except for that I don't like the concept of breaking alliances. Maybe you should have an option to disallow that as well? that is, you can ally with a player if both agree, but the alliance can't be broken?
Of course, if no one codes it it's not likely to get in, and I doubt it hasn't been considered before. The main problem is that players can win just by forming a big enough group. If it gets any more support, I'm willing to try to code it, but you should know that I have STL-phobia.

Doros · Post by **Doros** » May 5th, 2005, 3:02 am

If you're allowed to break alliances, how is it any different from just saying, "hey, would you like to team up?" Are you just suggesting that there be a record of alliances in the status screen, or that two people that decided to team up on the others can claim victory once they're the only ones standing?

ryn · Post by **ryn** » May 5th, 2005, 3:47 am

That was my point.

Sea Elf · Post by **Sea Elf** » May 5th, 2005, 4:02 am

If it's possible make it so there are team victories. And on second thought make the alliences permanent

dalk · Post by **dalk** » May 5th, 2005, 10:42 am

I like the idea of breaking alliances

egbert · Post by **egbert** » May 7th, 2005, 9:08 pm

Well the story in Heir to the Throne made the kings son turn against him in battle...

I think that'd be really cool, but somethign should happen where everyone can backstab you for three turns after that

Post by **turin** » May 7th, 2005, 9:11 pm

Backstabbing would perhaps work for a specific campaign scenario, but I think not for your average multiplayer game. All backstabbing does, IMHO, is get people pissed at you, and makes the game less fun. Plus, it would probably be insanely hard to have the AI understand that its allies might not always be its allies. It would lead to you and your allies not really working together (since they might turn on you at any moment). I guess some people might see those as good things, but I don't see them as such.

varradami · Post by **varradami** » May 7th, 2005, 10:22 pm

turin wrote:I guess some people might see those as good things, but I don't see them as such.

It really depends on the game, and how it's being approached. Backstabbing is a key part of some games (such as the board game Diplomacy). However, if people go into a game expecting teams will stick together, and someone backstabs them, it is likely to piss them off (and rightly so).

I think the option of changing teams mid-game would be a nice addition, but should be coupled with a (default) option to lock teams (which disallows this). Thus those who want to allow for teams to change during the game could do so, while others could enjoy games without backstabbing.

Post by **Dragonking** » May 7th, 2005, 10:52 pm

turin wrote:I guess some people might see those as good things, but I don't see them as such.

I concur with Turin. Alliance is alliance. What is the point of setting teams if someone could just betray you? And what is then point of planning bigger attacks?
If it would be an option, I would never join/create such a game.

Post by **Dave** » May 7th, 2005, 11:46 pm

I think that this kind of thing is beyond the scope of the game on the macro scale (i.e. the game is about controlling armies in battles, not about planning entire wars and who one is going to ally with and who one is going to betray), in the same way as having a one-on-one fighting sub-game would be beyond the scope of the game on the micro scale (i.e. the game is about controlling armies in battles, not about controlling individual units and telling them exactly how to attack).

David

Sea Elf · Post by **Sea Elf** » June 4th, 2005, 4:06 am

What about in the battle in the story of HttT where the battle was almost won but then asheivere or whoever turned on the wesnothians.

Or, when Gwiti and Nati Hataal turn on the army of wesnoth

Post by **Dave** » June 4th, 2005, 4:09 am

And what about how Delfador pinned the traitor-prince to the ground with his staff? Should there be an option to do that too?

Sea Elf · Post by **Sea Elf** » June 4th, 2005, 4:11 pm

That would be cool lol

varradami · Post by **varradami** » June 4th, 2005, 6:45 pm

Dave wrote:I think that this kind of thing is beyond the scope of the game on the macro scale (i.e. the game is about controlling armies in battles, not about planning entire wars and who one is going to ally with and who one is going to betray), in the same way as having a one-on-one fighting sub-game would be beyond the scope of the game on the micro scale (i.e. the game is about controlling armies in battles, not about controlling individual units and telling them exactly how to attack).

I disagree, and I speak from experience. While I'm not a big wargamer, I have played a bit with my friends - lots of Mage Knight, some Pirates of the Spanish Main. Also a lot of StarCraft and WarCraft3. All of these are on a similar scale as Wesnoth, and in all of them we have found that temporary alliances not only work, but also add another dimension to the game.

That's not to say we always play that way - having fixed teams is fun. However, having temporary teams, with the potential to backstab, is also a lot of fun if everyone is up for it.

I don't understand the resistence to this idea. A "Lock Teams" option can be added (even on by default), which would keep teams fixed. Those who want backstabbing can turn that option off. Everyone can be happy.