Infinite Interactive on Facebook Infinite Interactive on Twitter
Forum
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 190 of 190
  1. #181
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    12
    I dont like fast play rewarding very much. Many players prefer TBS because they like unhurried thoughtfull play. If they wanted something more intense they would play RTS. When I was playing Darklords by email, it took me up to an hour to ponder on how to move my units, what to build, what spells to activate etc. And I could think on current in-game situation sometimes during the day. It was a great experience and i'd be happy if Steve made W5 to be something like that. Asynchronous play its named, you enter the game, do some management, press next turn and leave until another session.
    The Last Citadel - Darklords players ladder (PBEM).
    Let the War begin!

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Molotov View Post
    Many players prefer TBS because they like unhurried thoughtfull play.
    Very well said, thank you for pointing this out.
    That's exactly how I wish to play, and what I consider the target group for asynchronous play.

    What I have in mind is an option to reward skipping irrelevant stuff.
    It is to make the player at hand more fun to me, and to foster my own play grow more systematic.
    Originally proposed it in connection with tools that players may use to structure their play/turns.

    I haven't tried PBEM yet, but consider it perfect the way it is.
    Your opponent left until another session, anyways.

    Warlords Simultaneous Play seems to encourage players to wait with certain actions until the last seconds of the turn.
    (To virtually deny the opponents to react).
    I would rather have streamlined play rewarded than intentionally waiting.

    I am aware Steve did not mention the second kind of asynchronous play in this thread: Hotseat Mode.
    It was asked for a several times, though.

    If you, Molotov, ever play a different way than PBEM (like e.g. Hotseat), then you may wish to play without timed turns, for a more thoughtful play.
    Consider your fellow players tend to timed turns (feel they have to do something about long turns).
    Then you ask the Ending Turn Early Reward option is activated, instead.
    They go for it.
    JACKPOT, right?

    Your reply made me recognize that my way of presenting the reward encourages to overdo it,
    which I don't mind, if players can adjust to the desired level, like e.g. slider bar style.

    Even if rewarding fast play is done as an option, I trust it will be balanced, so that players can still win with better reasoned moves.

    Balancing stuff means you can take one player who does this better and the other that, and let them compete at the same level. It will be easier to find players and you get a wider field of experiences.

    I guess W5 will see events that shift balance temporally in this direction or other, from time to time.

    But please see the concept in a wider context.
    Consider your starting positon left you the choices to delay the uneviteble or do something you would not consider.
    Your opponent just finished his move, and wrote to you:
    "I bet 1000 Gold you need more than an hour for an answer to that."

    (If 1000 Gold cannot turn the game, make it a free turn or whatever instead.)

    Here the reward comes from the opponent, with a risk, and everything is timed voluntarily on eververyone's behalf.

    see page 4:
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Fawkner View Post
    We would need to make the average game a little shorter - individual turns probably need to be shortened, and overall games need to be shortened too. That doesn't mean we can't have epic maps that take hours, but a meaningful game needs to be able to be played in well under an hour.
    Steve stated (page 10 in this thread) he wants to make possible completing a game with meaning in less than an hour, by giving automation tools.
    If I do not even try to use such, while everybody else does, and therefore need considerably more time each turn, I don't mind if somebody else gets a reward for using those tools.

    If you get yourself a preview of the automated solution, then decide to do it on your own instead, you need not be penalized.

    The game gets info about how fast you click, and need not reward that.
    It can make a good guess if you reinforce your A-Grade Stack or Capital, move around irrelevant stuff or just count irrelevant move points (from any Stack to any irrelevant target).

    If you decide about your priorities (among the relevant stuff), you can work out all details for the highest ones and still be faster than a player who examines everything, but into less detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molotov View Post
    When I was playing Darklords by email, it took me up to an hour to ponder on how to move my units, what to build, what spells to activate etc. And I could think on current in-game situation sometimes during the day.
    I value the opportunity to challenge the opponent with perfect turns via PBEM.
    That is very satisfying.
    I feel I should be satisfied with a solution that possibly is only second best in a Hotseat Game, when that's the way (or superior to) everybody else handles low priority moves.
    If Steve's automation could optionally deliver that, I would greatly appreciate.

    When you do not know if any remaining Move Points have any relevance, it's a good moment to consider ending your turn early (if you get a reward and do not have to anticipate and react to last seconders).

    (A tool that automatically finds relevant Units with (a relavant amount of) Move Points left may come handy here, Steve ;-)

    My line of thought that led me to rewarding ending the turn early:
    When players have to wait, added confidence that the player they wait for does as fast as (s)he can helps to endure.
    Failing to play streamlined costs, so that is fine also.
    Last edited by Timewalker; 05-10-2014 at 01:13 PM. Reason: clarification

  3. #183

    Some advantages of Hotseat

    Granted, Warlords V is likely to support mobile devices, and it is likely every player will have a device.
    If you still actually meet (like our boardgame group that sometimes played Warlords before or after some boardgame(s)),
    Hotseat Mode helps equaling out conditions.
    It may even be used to reduce internet traffic and server load.
    What if you can even continue your game after internet or server broke?
    Your eyes will thank you, if you play Hotseat with a good large screen instead of hours of simultaneous at your Smartphone.
    While the sensation of companionship is more intense in a boardgame than in Hotseat, the latter is still better than Teamspeak.
    I like to watch my allies and opponents study the battlefield, ponder where this group or that will head after fulfilling their current quest, try to sound out, give clues.
    Some peeps may enjoy having guests, others enjoy getting an invitation or being out a while.
    Joining a Hotseat game is the easiest way to try out the game, requiring no download or registration.

    The next step to asking players what they want and giving it to them will be guessing what they really need, and carefully leading them there.

    The fact that players ask less and less for slow games may well mean they have more and more trouble getting themselves into a mood/condition where they are ready to enjoy it.
    If so, you want to be the first one succeeding in guiding them there, Steve ;-)

    (After a substantive trip to the thoughtful, they are even more ready for a cinematic climax.)

  4. #184
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    45
    [QUOTE=Timewalker;2669]Granted, Warlords V is likely to support mobile devices, and it is likely every player will have a device.
    If you still actually meet (like our boardgame group that sometimes played Warlords before or after some boardgame(s)),
    Hotseat Mode helps equaling out conditions.
    It may even be used to reduce internet traffic and server load.
    What if you can even continue your game after internet or server broke?
    Joining a Hotseat game is the easiest way to try out the game, requiring no download or registration.

    Wise words! Good point you made! Warlords (any) without hotseat doesn't work for me An absolutely must have . Hope there's gonna be some good news soon about what is going on with Steve and new games. Cheers

  5. #185

    Streamlined Play is more fun to watch

    I once was flamed for visiting Cross/Altar with every possible unit in a Hotseat game, as that was called irrelevant.
    As a consequence, timed turns were forced upon me, which caused a lot of frustration.

    Now I know the player who flamed me would not attack in 2 waves, and some units actually are irrelevant against his strongest stack, blessed or not.

    He would have been fine if I had acted upon priorities, like blessing only strong units.

  6. #186

    Warlords Simultaneous Play a local optimun? - Go for Global!

    See page 8, post #77: Many good points in that post, thank you, Moorkh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moorkh View Post
    - a different kind of simultaneous turns where every player plans their turns at the same time, but they are only executed server-side once everyone has finished.
    Did you miss out on that, SevenNine?
    How could I?

    I expect the majority of folks who post here to be either fans of Simultaneous Play or Asynchonous play, and to post about how to make thier favoured way of play even better.
    It is still a minority that mentions Warlords Simultaneous Play as something to improve.
    But, heh, it is a minority that mentions Warlords Simultaneous Play anyways.
    Hope we can tip the scales, Steve?
    I still ask for adding a variant, not replacing what a half of your fanbase has grown to love.

    Currently I see the actual Warlords Simultaneous Play as a local optimum:
    Every proposal to tune it instantly feels like a major change, and they are all reasonably different to each other.
    It obviously worked well, and gained a fanbase, at least as long as it was fresh and new.
    To keep it as simple as it is, you have to leave it exactly as it is?
    Therefore it is difficult to develop it further.
    (I see there are enough sound explanations for the acceptance of W4, but -)
    Did that influence the creation and success of W4 maybe?

    The smallest change to what we have, and simplest way to do it (at least at first glance):
    1. Move Phase: Command your moves, see them done.
    2. Combat Phase: Command your attacks, see them done.

    I see that the common ground of the existing proposals.
    If you disagree, Moorkh, SevenNine, plz. let us know.

    The game Battle Isle uses those two phases, with a twist, I have been told: when one player has his move phase, the other has his battle phase.

    The principle this solution keeps: You instantly get your order resolved, it is not postponed to subsequent phase(s).
    The principle this solution drops: every hostile encounter is resolved in a battle.

    A game that features alternatives to resolve a battle already:
    Might and Magic Heroes Kingdoms (depending on the relative strength: the attacker may flee, be captured or paralyzed or there are killed and routed units without combat spells and effects having actually triggered)

    If a square looks like a mountain pass, it is still large enough an entire stack could camp there.
    Blocking all that may be difficult for a single unit of cannon fodder. We can still treat them equal as in a plains surrounded by plains, for better playability, if we like. (The Hero will outsmart them, anyways.)

    If two Stacks have move paths crossing each other do you really want to calculate when exactly each one enters and leaves the square?
    That would feel more timebased to me.
    We can assume, instead, that they will be there at different times, for better playability.

    A Stack that stays at a square to block it, should invest something to fortificate.
    That would justify them to block passing enemies, and make them target.

    A Stack that stays without fortification feels abandoned, evades passers-by and returns. (No need for visualizing that, you may just see the other stack passing, IMHO.)
    Last edited by Timewalker; 05-08-2014 at 10:48 PM. Reason: shortening

  7. #187
    Is there a place you're collecting names? I'd be down for kickstarters for another Puzzle Quest, another Warlords and another Warlords BattleCry. Have the die hards already ready to go so you can start off with a bang.

  8. #188
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7
    I'd be well in the Warlords camp, but am not so bothered about the other two. I've been playing a bit of things like Age of Wonders III lately, and looking at the similar items out there ... but really the main thing that achieves is making me miss the simplicity and somehow mad replayability of Warlords ><. We need it!

  9. #189
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7
    Saw this morning that Blizzard now has warlords.com for the new WoW expansion. That's not what it should be for!!

  10. #190
    My wish is a simple one: Hardcore turn-based strategy/wargame with a minimum of other elements to distract from the core gameplay of cities producing units, units waging war, and heroes supporting the war effort rather than dominating it. And a heck of a lot of work done on the AI to make it play the game well.

    Boring as it may sound to people who like exploring new ideas, what I am wishing for is essentially something between Warlords 2 and Warlords 3 in terms of complexity and focus done to the standards of those games with better AI and a state of the art UI.

    Specifically,

    CRPG elements to be kept at Warlords 3 level or lower: heroes to lead armies and explore ruins, but not to dominate battles. Magical equipment boosting hero stats rare and precious, more common finds would be gold, city-production boosts, or allies. The game should not be about the heroes or leveling them up (could still be featured, but should not dominate gameplay), but about waging war.

    No techtrees.

    No unit design.

    No missions.

    No spellcasting.

    ----

    As much as I like hybrid strategy/CRPG/whatever fantasy games, there are plenty of those on the market, where armies are essentially accessories to heroes and the games often devolve to nursing heroes. Games focusing mostly on the warfare part of strategy are, by comparison, few and far between.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •