tom wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Player elimination still seems to be happening first.

Are the eliminations the result of a direct factory reassignment or due to negative factories and abandon on resulting in the territory being converted to neutral?

I know that for one of my boards, the direct factory reassignment to a capital seems to happen before any of the other factory assignments, but I do have it set up (currently via continent id although it may not be reliable) so that these continents/factories appear first in the details box below the board.

Just out of curiosity, was the alphabetically pulling of continents implemented?
*edit: Will this effect the details box below the board?  That is, will continents be listed alphabetically?

Factory reassignments should occur in order of the continent name.

The continent list below the board will probably not pick this up - I could add a code change to the Player to effect this if required.

(edit The ordering in the details are) Not too big of a concern for me, I was just curious. 

If the factory reassignment eliminates a player and ends the game, then all other assignments don't happen right?  I believe this is what Nygma was trying to preempt. 

Alpha wrote:

(edit The ordering in the details are) Not too big of a concern for me, I was just curious. 

If the factory reassignment eliminates a player and ends the game, then all other assignments don't happen right?  I believe this is what Nygma was trying to preempt. 

That would make sense, else in theory everyone could be terminated.

Yes that's true... is that what messes up Pong?

I believe so, I think that the score change takes place after the elimination (so not at all) so the score board is not correct at the end of the game (there are probably still some other minor bugs related to the continents on this board as well which I think are refer to in another thread).  I haven't actually finished a game of pong so I am not sure.

tom wrote:

- In two player games or games with only two players remaining, surrenders do not require the approval of the other player

I saw in a seven game, when I went to surrender it warned me.  Something like "because this game has only two players left, surrendering will take effect immediately."

In fogged games could this be used to 'cheat' and determine that the game is down to just you and one other player?

Good point it does. I'll fix that.

Ozyman wrote:

tom wrote:

- In two player games or games with only two players remaining, surrenders do not require the approval of the other player

I saw in a seven game, when I went to surrender it warned me.  Something like "because this game has only two players left, surrendering will take effect immediately."

In fogged games could this be used to 'cheat' and determine that the game is down to just you and one other player?

One easy fix would be to simply change the wording.

"If this game only has two players left, surrendering will take effect immediately."

tom wrote:

Yes that's true... is that what messes up Pong?

This is correct.  The elimination happens before the negative factories revert the other territories to neutral, so the score board changes from 4-5, with the +1 factories, but the -1 factories that are supposed to get rid of the extra territories in the 4, never happen, thus it shows a 9.  (which is weird that 4+5=9, no?)  It is happening because the capital is captured and the player is eliminated before the territories empty to neutral.

Edward Nygma wrote:

tom wrote:

Yes that's true... is that what messes up Pong?

This is correct.  The elimination happens before the negative factories revert the other territories to neutral, so the score board changes from 4-5, with the +1 factories, but the -1 factories that are supposed to get rid of the extra territories in the 4, never happen, thus it shows a 9.  (which is weird that 4+5=9, no?)  It is happening because the capital is captured and the player is eliminated before the territories empty to neutral.

From a coding perspective this is going to be difficult to do - if the win check happens at the end of all the factory auto-assignments then the game win check code could end up with a situation where all players have been eliminated (e.g. if factory auto-assignments resulted in 2 eliminations) so it will fail to find a winner. It would be possible to rewrite it so it checks and records the winner, then still allowed the rest of the reassignment to proceed without halting but it will take some work to achieve.

Generally I think the game should halt when there is only one player remaining, I'm not sure whether there is justification to change this behavior.

Nygma - I think that you can fix the problem by renaming the continents which eliminate a player to start with "z" or something similar so that they are the last assignments made.

I can't fix it... The continents are happening, they just don't empty to neutral, since there's only 1 player left...  It makes sense, don't worry about it Tom.  Thanks anyway.

Bug Fixes

- When surrendering in a 2 player game, the remaining player gets awarded an elimination

- Instant notifications for games you have been invited to link to the game join page instead of the game view page

- Player - Fixed bug where Continent box did not reappear without a reload if you switched between tabs

- Player - Continent box now shows scrollbar correctly for large numbers of continents (e.g. World War)

- Player - Background set to dark grey in work mode to allow visibility

Question about surrendering in team games.  If the game gets down to 1v2 or 1v3, can the 1 surrender automatically or do they need to wait for the other team to accept?  Similarly, if one team wishes to surrender and there is only one other team, is it automatic when the surrendering team votes? 

These scenarios came to mind so I thought I would ask and maybe it isn't important.

Good point that needs to be added as a feature as well - I think it's sensible that 1 vs n can always surrender without waiting for agreement.

tom wrote:

I think it's sensible that 1 vs n can always surrender without waiting for agreement.

I still supremely disagree with this statement if a FFA game.  Auto-surrenders (with current functionality) could drastically change a game.  If a player is nearly eliminated but then just Surrenders, then anyone that has worked at eliminating him for the bonus would potentially be hurt.  Personally I think this would be a bad move.   

(That said, if the territories were kept or an auto-bot (Rollout! ) and the elimination bonus was still up for grabs then potentially that would make auto-surrenders more bearable...although I still think there are some cons and people would use them incorrectly, but at least it wouldn't change the swing of the game as much.)

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

I think it's sensible that 1 vs n can always surrender without waiting for agreement.

I still supremely disagree with this statement if a FFA game.  Auto-surrenders (with current functionality) could drastically change a game.  If a player is nearly eliminated but then just Surrenders, then anyone that has worked at eliminating him for the bonus would potentially be hurt.  Personally I think this would be a bad move.   

(That said, if the territories were kept or an auto-bot (Rollout! ) and the elimination bonus was still up for grabs then potentially that would make auto-surrenders more bearable...although I still think there are some cons and people would use them incorrectly, but at least it wouldn't change the swing of the game as much.)

I think tom was referring to 1 vs n team game surrenders only.

Yertle wrote:

I still supremely disagree with this statement if a FFA game.  Auto-surrenders (with current functionality) could drastically change a game.  If a player is nearly eliminated but then just Surrenders, then anyone that has worked at eliminating him for the bonus would potentially be hurt.  Personally I think this would be a bad move.   

(That said, if the territories were kept or an auto-bot (Rollout! ) and the elimination bonus was still up for grabs then potentially that would make auto-surrenders more bearable...although I still think there are some cons and people would use them incorrectly, but at least it wouldn't change the swing of the game as much.)

I'm 100% with Yertle on this, and I see the bot as the premier solution.

Bots can potentially weigh in on a number of other issues.  For instance if a player misses their turn, a bot could take it for them.  Premium members could turn on and off an auto-bot if they think they might be booted, maybe with x - number of bot turns allowed before their ability to come back into the game is disallowed.

I hesitate to suggest this because I don't want to discourage the idea of a Real-time engine, but bots could play in RT games to create the illusion of their being more players.  Bots play fast!

Alpha wrote:

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

I think it's sensible that 1 vs n can always surrender without waiting for agreement.

I still supremely disagree with this statement if a FFA game.  Auto-surrenders (with current functionality) could drastically change a game.  If a player is nearly eliminated but then just Surrenders, then anyone that has worked at eliminating him for the bonus would potentially be hurt.  Personally I think this would be a bad move.   

(That said, if the territories were kept or an auto-bot (Rollout! ) and the elimination bonus was still up for grabs then potentially that would make auto-surrenders more bearable...although I still think there are some cons and people would use them incorrectly, but at least it wouldn't change the swing of the game as much.)

I think tom was referring to 1 vs n team game surrenders only.

Sorry yes I meant 1 player v 1 player or 1 player v1 team should be allowed.