M57 wrote:

weathertop wrote:

where was limited attacks on the list? noticed conquerclub has a 'trench' warfare option; where you can only move 1 space from where are at beginning of turn. (eg. if A,B,C were in a line and you owned A at beginning of turn 1; you could only attack to B. couldn't attack from B to C until turn 2 -- assuming you still owned B at beginning of turn 2)

This is the first I've heard of this as a requested feature in the way you just described it.  Regardless ..it sounds limited.

Much more powerful would be Movement Range Limits, or at least something that scales beyond the basic one territory move limit.

yeah, it was movement range limits, rather than limited attacks. couldn't remember the term we used. and yes i know it is 'limited' as put, i expected it to be a subset of what we talked about (and i was relating to what a competitor has).

Cramchakle wrote:

weathertop wrote:

where was limited attacks on the list? noticed conquerclub has a 'trench' warfare option; where you can only move 1 space from where are at beginning of turn. (eg. if A,B,C were in a line and you owned A at beginning of turn 1; you could only attack to B. couldn't attack from B to C until turn 2 -- assuming you still owned B at beginning of turn 2)

If this sounds like fun to you, then I recommend SimulGear.

nooo. SG is much different, and i've tried it. still don't like it. :^)

weathertop wrote:

M57 wrote:

weathertop wrote:

where was limited attacks on the list? noticed conquerclub has a 'trench' warfare option; where you can only move 1 space from where are at beginning of turn. (eg. if A,B,C were in a line and you owned A at beginning of turn 1; you could only attack to B. couldn't attack from B to C until turn 2 -- assuming you still owned B at beginning of turn 2)

This is the first I've heard of this as a requested feature in the way you just described it.  Regardless ..it sounds limited.

Much more powerful would be Movement Range Limits, or at least something that scales beyond the basic one territory move limit.

yeah, it was movement range limits, rather than limited attacks. couldn't remember the term we used. and yes i know it is 'limited' as put, i expected it to be a subset of what we talked about (and i was relating to what a competitor has).

If it could be controlled on a per territory basis, it would be very useful. It could almost be done with factories. We would just need the ability to "transport" units via factory.

Yertle wrote:

I'd vote that the next big thing is something more for the Players than for Designers (even though what's for the Designers is ultimately for players too), which I would say an Achievement system.  In my own playing experience on ToS, here, and in mobile apps if there are specific Goals/Achievements then I'm more likely to play more and longer than if just a single Win/Loss/Record is present.

Would an Achievement system even be that difficult?  It would see like it's mainly a lot about crawling the data to define if a person has or got an Achievement rather than worrying about the Designer, Players, and Game.

I also would vote for an Achievement system.  I think this benefits the community by giving new users a reason to stay on the site. It takes WarGear.com beyond just a place to play Risk like games and makes the site a game in itself.  I am willing to assist in the conceptual development and start a discussion about the details if that would be helpful.

Raptor wrote:

Yertle wrote:

I'd vote that the next big thing is something more for the Players than for Designers (even though what's for the Designers is ultimately for players too), which I would say an Achievement system.  In my own playing experience on ToS, here, and in mobile apps if there are specific Goals/Achievements then I'm more likely to play more and longer than if just a single Win/Loss/Record is present.

Would an Achievement system even be that difficult?  It would see like it's mainly a lot about crawling the data to define if a person has or got an Achievement rather than worrying about the Designer, Players, and Game.

I also would vote for an Achievement system.  I think this benefits the community by giving new users a reason to stay on the site. It takes WarGear.com beyond just a place to play Risk like games and makes the site a game in itself.  I am willing to assist in the conceptual development and start a discussion about the details if that would be helpful.

As much as I love playing with the new design toys, my vote is also for some non-designer focused stuff.

Achievement system would be awesome & I think has so much potential to help the site in a lot of ways.

+1 for an achievement system.

i think i agree with the Achievement system next, especially with the new win conditions to keep everyone busy for awhile. then we can hash out the next few steps in whatever designer thing we need.

Fine although the AutoCaptureNeutral  could be a good one to slip in first as it's a small update.

Yertle wrote:

I'd vote that the next big thing is something more for the Players than for Designers (even though what's for the Designers is ultimately for players too), which I would say an Achievement system.  In my own playing experience on ToS, here, and in mobile apps if there are specific Goals/Achievements then I'm more likely to play more and longer than if just a single Win/Loss/Record is present.

Would an Achievement system even be that difficult?  It would see like it's mainly a lot about crawling the data to define if a person has or got an Achievement rather than worrying about the Designer, Players, and Game.

+100 about what Yertle said (followed by several other posters). No doubt, this site badly needs an achievement system. 

All what is done to please designers is fine. But it's getting too complicated for 90% of members. I am pretty sure that more then 90 % of games are played on easy maps (WW, Colossal Crusade, Antastic, World War, War, Global Warfare...).

What people want (who am I to say that ?) is a site that works perfectly well, not a site getting more and more complicated.

We the People want the history viewer to work properly, the unit placement to be set on 1 by default, the server to have no more slowdowns, the stats to come with highs, lows and moving averages, a combined overall ranking system, the possibility to undo actions when no dice are involved...

We the People also want a new players' profile page (merging it with the stats page), the tournament ranking to be treated like the GR ranking (history, notifications including calculation details), ... And so many other things.

To sum it up, I think the pleasant amateurism that was nice 4 years ago should now have left room for a more professionnal site with 100 times more active players. 

But before you all jump down my throat for saying unpleasant things to hear, I want to say I have been here for more than 3 years, played more than 2 000 games, and I LOVE this site. I would just love this site to improve or it will go down.

tom wrote:

Fine although the AutoCaptureNeutral  could be a good one to slip in first as it's a small update.

If there's an 'easy' Designer feature you could get in there, that would be great, but I won't argue with the sentiment that it's time for a major player-oriented feature, and though an Achievement System wouldn't be my personal choice, I can see that it will make a broad impact on the site in general, and have a positive impact on membership.

Those things are not unpleasant to hear Toto. I think that's a good list. 

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

Fine although the AutoCaptureNeutral  could be a good one to slip in first as it's a small update.

If there's an 'easy' Designer feature you could get in there, that would be great, but I won't argue with the sentiment that it's time for a major player-oriented feature, and though an Achievement System wouldn't be my personal choice, I can see that it will make a broad impact on the site in general, and have a positive impact on membership.

I would like to reiterate that there is a reasonable chance that factory caps are an easy Designer feature.  So it might be worth doing that while thinking through something more complex.

Also an achievement system wouldn't be my choice either.  I've not enjoyed them on other sites.  But I'm kind of a curmudgeon that way, and I know that a lot of people do enjoy them.

Hey everyone,

First, I'll put it out there, I'm also not a big fan of doing an achievement system.  When I read through the compiled list on the wiki, some things don't even make sense to me.  For instance, "progressive disclosure" to me seems to be a negative more then a positive.  I don't think that boards should be held back as many new people to the site are quite capable of playing them and shouldn't be forced to play 10 games of rating x, to unlock y, then ten games of y to unlock z, etc (or whatever the requirement might be).  This could just discourage people from sticking with it if the board they want to actually play is withheld from them simply due to the achievement system.  If people were to be protected from the complexity of more advanced boards then all that need be done is make it such that accessing the description page for a board would consequently unlock it.  Not an achievement per say, but not a hindrance to accessing the boards they want to play while at the same time trying to protect people from the complexity of some boards.

Something like "most dangerous player", I'm assuming by kills we mean eliminations here?  To truly capture most dangerous then shouldn't all the elimination totals (standard games, team games, standard tournament games and team tournament games) be combined into a total eliminations to truly capture who the most dangerous player is?  Also, this would obviously advantage players who have been around forever (as suggested) so maybe "most dangerous" should be relative to how many players they have faced in acquiring all those eliminations.  For instance, if someone has 1000 eliminations while facing 5000 foe (20%), well that is a lot less impressive then someone who has 900 eliminations while facing 2000 foe (45%).  This would also allow new players to be instantly relevant and be able to compete for the title although a minimum games played might be prudent to weed out small sample size (usually 20 games works quite well and doesn't take long to reach - I've noticed that h-rating takes about 20 games to stabilize and become more relevant so I chose the same)? Then, so people can track where they stand, a new table would need to be put somewhere to display such things.  Same for things like "public enemy number 1", "most conniving", "stealth", "assassin", etc.  All of these things would need to be tabled so if someone wanted to win the achievement they could see where they currently stand.  A lot of "ranking" infrastructure and new pages for sure!

For a new player feature, I wouldn't mind an aggregate ranking though.  That would encourage diversification in game play and an increased participation in all the site has to offer if anyone wanted to climb up the "ultimate" ranking.

It might take a while for the community to hash out what they want in an achievement system, so maybe something quicker should be implemented in the mean time.  So, as a side note and out of curiosity, Tom, you said that you think that AutoCaptureNeutral would be a quick and easy designer feature to implement.  I was curious if you felt that TokenTerritories would be easy or difficult to implement?

Cheers!

Erick

AutoCaptureNeutral would be easy to do. TokenTerritories would not.

Great comments so far keep it coming!

>Also, this would obviously advantage players who have been around forever (as suggested) so maybe "most dangerous"

There could be titles based upon the last month and the last year.  i.e. Most Eliminations in the last 30 days and Most Eliminations in the last 365 days.

>If people were to be protected from the complexity of more advanced boards then all that need be done is make it such that accessing the description page for a board would consequently unlock it.

I think something easy like this is fine.  I figured any barriers to unlocking boards would be small (like win 1 game to open up intermediate boards, and win 1 game on an intermediate board to open advanced boards).

I think most video games have some sort of progressive disclosure.  Whether it's a racing game with tracks/cars you have to unlock, or a platformer where you gain new abilities, or a FPS where you find better weapons & gear.

@Tom - if you're going to offer both AutoCaptureNeutral and AutoCaptureNeutralReset, could you also pair AutoCaptureReset with AutoCapture?  I know I would use both.

What does everyone think? Does that make sense?  Remember, these are the easy ones for Tom.  Per Territory Mins and Token Territories are much more work, and a ways off.

Also I don't know how Tom is planning to set ACNeutral up, but do people agree that RESET should trump NON-reset in the event of two or more continents being active?

What do others think?

tom wrote:

TokenTerritories would not.

Do not care.

Ozyman wrote:

>Also, this would obviously advantage players who have been around forever (as suggested) so maybe "most dangerous"

There could be titles based upon the last month and the last year.  i.e. Most Eliminations in the last 30 days and Most Eliminations in the last 365 days.

I would still prefer the percentage based system of eliminations per foes faced even if it was broken down per the last month, per the last year, or for eternity.  Eliminations per foes faced captures "most deadly" more concretely by not allowing "most active" to taint the results.

It's a big public site, it works good, you have lots of access to interesting boards.  I think these are all plusses for newcommers, and general users. 

I have to +1 that restricting access to boards might have the wrong effect. 

Quick question Tom,

Would it be possible for you to implement that capitals be divvied out randomly at the beginning of the game and not seat assigned?  This would be a way to create semi-token territories (every non-token as a capital), though, they'd not be as good as real token territories.  But it might be easier for you to implement such as a stop-gap?  Plus, such would have many other uses as well.

Thanks

Erick