Team change during game

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
User avatar
Quietus
Art Contributor
Posts: 474
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 3:37 pm
Location: Worthing, UK

Team change during game

Post by Quietus » February 22nd, 2008, 7:33 pm

I checked the FPI and the first 10 pages of the ideas(well flicked over) and didnt see this so i thought i'd give it a shot, please lock if it already has been suggested.

IDEA: To be able to change your team alignment during game. i.e. if you wish the game to last longer, you could change your team alignment so that you can attack your ex-allied factions.

E.g. Loyalists (me) + drakes on team 1 vs. team 2 and team 3. Team 2 and 3 have pretty much been defeated. The option would alloy me to leave Team 1 and attack the Drakes. Basically leaving the team and forming an individual team of myself.

This may be completely impractical, but i thought i might bring it up just because it struck me whilst playing previous games, that my ally tends to steal my keep whilst im out, and i have about a 3 turn treck to reach his base. Had i been able to attack him, i could have saved the time and got some EXP in the process

Thanks for reading :wink:

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9740
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper » February 22nd, 2008, 7:55 pm

Can be done with WML. I've actually planned on implementing a proper engine for handling diplomacy in WML (of course including alliance switching), just haven't gotten around to it yet.

We wouldn't want this to be a standard mainline feature for various reasons.

CarpeGuitarrem
Posts: 250
Joined: November 19th, 2007, 7:46 pm
Location: One among the Fence

Post by CarpeGuitarrem » February 23rd, 2008, 4:50 pm

The glaring problem with this is that games could devolve into a tag-team-fest. Say you have Red and Blue. Player 1 and 2 on Red, Player 3 and 4 on Blue. Player 3 joins Red, and all three sides pummel it into submission. Then what? They all maneuver until one thinks they're in position to take out the other two. And then they switch. And fight until it's 2 players left. Followed by a duel to the death.

So I suppose maybe it wouldn't be too bad, the only part I don't like is the initial tag-team.
Glory in Blood...Needs Programming Help!

If you have time, check out my ongoing serial story...
The Hidden: Secrets of the Future's Past

User avatar
Quietus
Art Contributor
Posts: 474
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 3:37 pm
Location: Worthing, UK

Post by Quietus » February 23rd, 2008, 6:31 pm

Well there's always the age of empires approach. Even if you have change your diplomacy so that another team is you ally, that doesnt mean they have changed so that you're theirs. In multiplayer it would be different, because players could agree to change.

If thats a real problem, just eliminate the tag team altogether. If you change team, then you have no team, and its a stand alone map.

Caeb
Posts: 68
Joined: September 11th, 2007, 2:02 am

Post by Caeb » February 24th, 2008, 12:23 am

already implemented in one of appleide's maps from an earlier 1.3 version, I think...

ahh, here it is: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=

User avatar
cool evil
Posts: 244
Joined: September 13th, 2007, 10:56 pm

Post by cool evil » February 27th, 2008, 11:29 pm

How about this? In multiplayer, every team starts off as a free indepedent force, throughout the game they can form alliances and so on, to prevent people teaming unfairly, we could have a rule saying that no alliances could over a specific number of forces.
Have no fear, Vlad is here!

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin » February 28th, 2008, 12:53 am

Just play a FFA and agree not to attack the person you're "allied" with.... why do you need a formal alliance?
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

User avatar
Darker_Dreams
Posts: 608
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

Post by Darker_Dreams » February 28th, 2008, 1:10 am

turin wrote:Just play a FFA and agree not to attack the person you're "allied" with.... why do you need a formal alliance?
shared view?

User avatar
Aethaeryn
Translator
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 15th, 2007, 10:21 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Post by Aethaeryn » February 28th, 2008, 1:18 am

I prefer non-formal alliances in FFAs. More likely to have a backstabber, or pile up on the few shared fronts to cause tensions. And no shared victory!
Aethaeryn (User Page)
Wiki Moderator (wiki)
Latin Translator [wiki=Latin Translation](wiki)[/wiki]
Maintainer of Thunderstone Era (wiki) and Aethaeryn's Maps [wiki=Aethaeryn's Maps](wiki)[/wiki]

User avatar
krotop
2009 Map Contest Winner
Posts: 433
Joined: June 8th, 2006, 3:05 pm
Location: Bordeaux, France

Post by krotop » February 28th, 2008, 8:50 am

Darker_Dreams wrote:
turin wrote:Just play a FFA and agree not to attack the person you're "allied" with.... why do you need a formal alliance?
shared view?
and ZoC, and teamchat.
Don't trust me, I'm just average player.
***
Game feedback for the Nightmares of Meloen
Art feedback by mystic x the unknown

Weeksy
Posts: 1016
Joined: January 29th, 2007, 1:05 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Weeksy » February 28th, 2008, 10:40 am

A gold cost to change teams (25% of your gold, 30 gold minimum, as a suggestion) would help too much rechanging of teams.

megane
Art Contributor
Posts: 410
Joined: October 30th, 2006, 4:55 am
Location: The Big Ö (a.k.a. Austria)

Post by megane » February 28th, 2008, 11:14 am

It could just be a game option, off by default: "allow team changes."
that little girl's parents were attacked by ninjas - generic npc
hee hee! - little girl

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9740
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper » February 28th, 2008, 11:36 am

The possible diplomacy engine I've thought about would probably work like this: you can make offers to other players during your turn. They can accept, decline or stall during their turn. So diplomacy wouldn't be instantaneous; if you'd want to ally with one of your enemies, you'd have to send him a request for alliance, and then when his turn arrives he could accept or decline it. Also, taking in a new member into an existing team of more than one side would require everyone in that team to accept the new member, and expelling a member would likewise require everyone but the expelled to agree. You could attach at least one condition to a proposal, for example you could ask for an alliance and if the enemy accepts, they'd also get one of your units. Or you could offer a unit of yours to an ally on the condition that he pays you x gold for it.

Of course you also couldn't make conflicting proposals, like asking for an alliance with several enemy teams at the same time.

It might be good if the proposals were public (visible to everyone, not just the parties involved), so the other players see if someone is for instance just spamming everyone they can with similar proposals. Maybe you could make a proposal secret by paying a bit for it.

User avatar
Vendanna
Posts: 624
Joined: September 16th, 2006, 10:07 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Vendanna » February 28th, 2008, 1:52 pm

zookeeper wrote:... Or you could offer a unit of yours to an ally on the condition that he pays you x gold for it...
A question about that one, to offer an unit... it should haven't moved/attacked? because imagine this case.

Opponent has dark adept, you have a melee unit.

Melee unit doesn't managed to kill the DA, you offer your unit to your "friend" after the attack is done, so he has a second chance to off the dark adept before you lost the unit to its damage.
"Mysteries are revealed in the light of reason."

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Post by AI » February 28th, 2008, 2:14 pm

If, in a scenario, a unit changes sides, it retains whatever MP it had left, which only get refreshed on turnchange. So no, that wouldn't work.

Locked