It also does the oppposite, allows abandonment gameplay with some territories you can't leave.

I saw in another forum that unranked games were not terribly popular, and since team games aren't ranked, that makes team only games unpopular.  Would it be possible to add Team Rankings, where you treat the team as 1 player?  Then you could have ranked team games, and encourage teamwork and bragging rights for powerful combinations of players.

I'd like to see a team score similar to Tournament score created where a player's team score change (on a board or globaly) is calculated off of the average of each team's player's average team scores. 

Example

Team 1 has players with scores 900,1000 and 1400 - so the average is 1100

Team 2 has players with scores 700, 800, and 900 - so the average is 800

Say that Team 1 wins, so each players gains/loses (1100/800)*20 points.

Amidon37 wrote:

I'd like to see a team score similar to Tournament score created where a player's team score change (on a board or globaly) is calculated off of the average of each team's player's average team scores. 

 

Example

Team 1 has players with scores 900,1000 and 1400 - so the average is 1100

Team 2 has players with scores 700, 800, and 900 - so the average is 800

Say that Team 1 wins, so each players gains/loses (1100/800)*20 points.

+1 for Team Rankings

Amidon37 wrote:

I'd like to see a team score similar to Tournament score created where a player's team score change (on a board or globaly) is calculated off of the average of each team's player's average team scores. 

 

Example

Team 1 has players with scores 900,1000 and 1400 - so the average is 1100

Team 2 has players with scores 700, 800, and 900 - so the average is 800

Say that Team 1 wins, so each players gains/loses (1100/800)*20 points.

+1, it would encourage team games.

The calculation is good if Team 2 wins, I guess that's what you meant ;)

What about the team tournaments ranking ?

Amidon37 wrote:

I'd like to see a team score similar to Tournament score created where a player's team score change (on a board or globaly) is calculated off of the average of each team's player's average team scores. 

 

Example

Team 1 has players with scores 900,1000 and 1400 - so the average is 1100

Team 2 has players with scores 700, 800, and 900 - so the average is 800

Say that Team 1 wins, so each players gains/loses (1100/800)*20 points.

Yep yep yep. We discussed this on page 2 of

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/588p2/Any_way_to_get_team_games_ranked

It appeared to have the approval of tom, so my guess is that it had low priority :) It'll happen.

Toto wrote:

The calculation is good if Team 2 wins, I guess that's what you meant ;)

What about the team tournaments ranking ?

No, I meant team 1 to win - but you are correct that I goofed it.

And thanks Hugh, I knew I didn't think of that myself.

I hate when I bury my own suggestion with another one.

Hugh wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

I'd like to see a team score similar to Tournament score created where a player's team score change (on a board or globaly) is calculated off of the average of each team's player's average team scores. 

 

Example

Team 1 has players with scores 900,1000 and 1400 - so the average is 1100

Team 2 has players with scores 700, 800, and 900 - so the average is 800

Say that Team 1 wins, so each players gains/loses (1100/800)*20 points.

Yep yep yep. We discussed this on page 2 of

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/588p2/Any_way_to_get_team_games_ranked

It appeared to have the approval of tom, so my guess is that it had low priority :) It'll happen.

This one got missed - I added to the feature request list.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Could we add partial abandonment, or per-territory specification of a minimum number of units as 0, or 1? 

It's on the request list but it will be very time consuming to code because the code will need to be changed in a large number of areas. This is because there's lots of calculations that need to take into account the minimum units that must remain on the territory and there are checks all over the place to ensure this isn't violated.

How much support for this feature do other designers have?

tom wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Could we add partial abandonment, or per-territory specification of a minimum number of units as 0, or 1? 

It's on the request list but it will be very time consuming to code because the code will need to be changed in a large number of areas. This is because there's lots of calculations that need to take into account the minimum units that must remain on the territory and there are checks all over the place to ensure this isn't violated.

How much support for this feature do other designers have?

Even though there are features (esp. Movement Count) that I would like to see higher on the list, I have to admit that abandonment as a optional territory attribute opens doors for those that know how to design with factories.   I was just thinking of a board design the other day that I gave up on because it needed the opt. abandonment feature.

I'd like it.

I can find out how much support...  I seem to gain more support the more I explain the concept.  I know Alpha is interested, I'm sure I could rally support, it's a great feature.

I didn't realize how complicated it was.  

The reason I want them so badly is because factories turn everything into a basic coding language that can perform basic loops and triggers to allow for new victory conditions, turn timers, objective markers, cyclical continent structures, and all sorts of really cool other features.  The main hindrance to performing all of these actions is that most of the bullion sequences require the emptying of territories for the True and False switches to be able to activate and deactivate.  Since you have to empty territories, that means the game has to be abandon with immediate reversion to neutral, or else none of the systems will turn off immediately.  The problem there is that abandon with immediate reversion to neutral has a very specific type of game play. 

As long as you don't have the ability to have the factory functions empty territories, but have the rest of the game function normally, then a lot of the beautiful potential is squandered and impossible.

Would it be easier to have a new category of territories, so Add Territories (A) and (B).  Then under the options set (A) to Standard Gameplay and (B) to Abandon, then have the engine read the separate territories as the standard rules apply to them? 

Yes, Gold Bullion.  That must be what I meant.

Edward Nygma wrote:

I can find out how much support...  I seem to gain more support the more I explain the concept.  I know Alpha is interested, I'm sure I could rally support, it's a great feature.

I didn't realize how complicated it was.  

The reason I want them so badly is because factories turn everything into a basic coding language that can perform basic loops and triggers to allow for new victory conditions, turn timers, objective markers, cyclical continent structures, and all sorts of really cool other features.  The main hindrance to performing all of these actions is that most of the bullion sequences require the emptying of territories for the True and False switches to be able to activate and deactivate.  Since you have to empty territories, that means the game has to be abandon with immediate reversion to neutral, or else none of the systems will turn off immediately.  The problem there is that abandon with immediate reversion to neutral has a very specific type of game play. 

 

As long as you don't have the ability to have the factory functions empty territories, but have the rest of the game function normally, then a lot of the beautiful potential is squandered and impossible.

 

Would it be easier to have a new category of territories, so Add Territories (A) and (B).  Then under the options set (A) to Standard Gameplay and (B) to Abandon, then have the engine read the separate territories as the standard rules apply to them? 

+1. I'm now in in forum debt.

If you want a main battlefield with some sort of special off the field territories where you use capitals/vision/factories to do some special things then the range of uses is much greater with abandonment on, but then, like Nygma is saying, that greatly effects your main battlefields style of play - likely in a negative way.

The other option is to let negative factories empty a territory which seems to be the underlying need and simpler implementation, but I could be wrong on this.  I am pretty sure that this change would not effect any board currently out (Pong, Ten, Dev Nygma's FF, DEV Chogyam's board about to be released, what else uses factories?).  For the true/false territories this is all that I need although I admit that the abandonment on/off for each territory has more uses.

Alpha wrote:

The other option is to let negative factories empty a territory

This is already the case with abandon on, right?

I'm guessing that, as tom said, he's got a bunch of safeguards in place to stop this from happening when abandon is on globally via mechanisms known and unknown.  Sounds like anyway he does it, there's a lot of code to go through.

FWIW, This is a classic example of a territory specific feature that could potentially be altered by a widget mid-game.  I.e., events in the the game actually turn on and off abandon for a given territory.

M57 wrote:

FWIW, This is a classic example of a territory specific feature that could potentially be altered by a widget mid-game.  I.e., events in the the game actually turn on and off abandon for a given territory.

FWIW being able to alter any/everything midgame would be awesome - borders and territory maximums especially.

I don't know that I understand the widget concept... what drives the widget and who tells it what to do?