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:
Darth Jordius
Posts: 399
Joined: September 17th, 2007, 4:53 pm
Location: 2 miles southeast of the Middle of Nowhere

Post by Darth Jordius »

I really like this idea, it'd make a sort of FFA but with democracy. I do think that you should only be allowed a certain amount of allies per game, like in a 4p game you could only ally with one person.
Quiz wrote:You are a Dwarvish Fighter. You're surly and handy with an axe. Go chop some trees.
Check out Quietus's Minotaurs!
megane
Art Contributor
Posts: 410
Joined: October 30th, 2006, 4:55 am
Location: The Big Ö (a.k.a. Austria)

Post by megane »

Well, a gifted unit would just have to change sides at the beginning of it's (original) owner's next turn. So, I offer you a skeleton, you accept, then when it's my turn again it changes to your control before I can move it, and it gets to move on your turn. That way it'll never go more often than it would have if it stayed on its starting side (though it will miss a round if the receiver is earlier than the sender in the turn rotation).
that little girl's parents were attacked by ninjas - generic npc
hee hee! - little girl
User avatar
Darker_Dreams
Posts: 608
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

Post by Darker_Dreams »

zookeeper wrote: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.
idea; allow different "team structures" ie; 'alliance' (what you discribed) v 'guild'/'empire' (one player to rule it all, dictating who is in and who is out of an alliance). I'm sure other mechanisms can be constructed- but I think a scenario where two "emperors"/"kings"/whatever are going at it with a field of shifting allies in between would be interesting-
but you wouldn't want the various "lesser nobles" to be able to veto your acceptance or expulsion of an ally (except by voting with their feet).
(such a scenario would probably be a rare case where it would be improved by disallowing claiming allies towns without their consent.)
zookeeper wrote: 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.
This can be abused spectacularly easily.
I'm short on gold, but in my keep. You, my ally, haven't been in your keep in quite a number of turns... I break our alliance, then propose a new one, offering gold and demanding units. (or we do the exchange over 2 turns, breaking then reforming with different demands.)

zookeeper wrote: 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.
I like the idea of buying privacy. I like that a lot.
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Darker_Dreams wrote:
zookeeper wrote: 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.
This can be abused spectacularly easily.
I'm short on gold, but in my keep. You, my ally, haven't been in your keep in quite a number of turns... I break our alliance, then propose a new one, offering gold and demanding units. (or we do the exchange over 2 turns, breaking then reforming with different demands.)
And where exactly is there any abuse of the system in that?
User avatar
Darker_Dreams
Posts: 608
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

Post by Darker_Dreams »

a) it's "abusive" in that it is not the intent of the system. Breaking and reforming alliances simply to transfer resources was not, as far as I understand it, the purpose of the diplomacy system. Thus, it's an abuse...

b) If I am wrong, and that is an intended consequence; The scenario I just described is explicitly listed as an FPI in the thread stickied to the top of this forum; " Transferring gold or villages or units between allied players (Reason: decreases individual tactical responsibility)."


Honestly, I couldn't care less if you want to program that. It reminds me of Civ, where I like being able to "buy" alliances when useful. But apparently others dislike the idea of transferring resources between allies. A lot. Thus, I pointed out that it could be used (abused) to circumvent an intentional limitation.
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Darker_Dreams wrote:a) it's "abusive" in that it is not the intent of the system. Breaking and reforming alliances simply to transfer resources was not, as far as I understand it, the purpose of the diplomacy system. Thus, it's an abuse...
Well then one could simply have options for transferring resources without making an alliance. Not to mention that I haven't very exactly specified what the purpose or intention of my diplomacy system would be.

Also, as one solution to the potential problem of alliances changing all the time, the alliances could always have predetermined lengths; you could propose an alliance for x turns, after which it'd automatically end (perhaps you could renew it immediately, or perhaps there alliance would vanish for a minimum of one turn before it could be renewed again) and it could not be broken during that time by any player action (possible exception; if your ally steals a village of yours, maybe you could terminate the alliance prematurely if you wanted to?). In this case, alliances would be short (sort of like temporary treaties), but your ally could not break the alliance and backstab you.
Darker_Dreams wrote:b) If I am wrong, and that is an intended consequence; The scenario I just described is explicitly listed as an FPI in the thread stickied to the top of this forum; " Transferring gold or villages or units between allied players (Reason: decreases individual tactical responsibility)."


Honestly, I couldn't care less if you want to program that. It reminds me of Civ, where I like being able to "buy" alliances when useful. But apparently others dislike the idea of transferring resources between allies. A lot. Thus, I pointed out that it could be used (abused) to circumvent an intentional limitation.
I'm not clueless enough to propose something like diplomacy for mainline (that'd really be clueless). My potential diplomacy stuff would be for UMC use, where FPI does not apply.
User avatar
Darker_Dreams
Posts: 608
Joined: February 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

Post by Darker_Dreams »

zookeeper wrote:
Darker_Dreams wrote:a) it's "abusive" in that it is not the intent of the system. Breaking and reforming alliances simply to transfer resources was not, as far as I understand it, the purpose of the diplomacy system. Thus, it's an abuse...
Well then one could simply have options for transferring resources without making an alliance. Not to mention that I haven't very exactly specified what the purpose or intention of my diplomacy system would be.
True enough... though the name "alliance" or "diplomacy" system does rather forward certain assumptions.
zookeeper wrote:Also, as one solution to the potential problem of alliances changing all the time, the alliances could always have predetermined lengths; you could propose an alliance for x turns, after which it'd automatically end (perhaps you could renew it immediately, or perhaps there alliance would vanish for a minimum of one turn before it could be renewed again) and it could not be broken during that time by any player action (possible exception; if your ally steals a village of yours, maybe you could terminate the alliance prematurely if you wanted to?). In this case, alliances would be short (sort of like temporary treaties), but your ally could not break the alliance and backstab you.
I like this stuff. I do think there should be a minimum "between reformation" time (or the option to set one).
zookeeper wrote:
Darker_Dreams wrote:b) If I am wrong, and that is an intended consequence; The scenario I just described is explicitly listed as an FPI in the thread stickied to the top of this forum; " Transferring gold or villages or units between allied players (Reason: decreases individual tactical responsibility)."


Honestly, I couldn't care less if you want to program that. It reminds me of Civ, where I like being able to "buy" alliances when useful. But apparently others dislike the idea of transferring resources between allies. A lot. Thus, I pointed out that it could be used (abused) to circumvent an intentional limitation.
I'm not clueless enough to propose something like diplomacy for mainline (that'd really be clueless). My potential diplomacy stuff would be for UMC use, where FPI does not apply.
But most players assume mainline rules hold true (to some degree) unless told otherwise or looking to manipulate the rules. Unless some structure is included to either formalize transactions or express that they are fine I (for one) assume mainline concerns hold. Alternately, hindering them (or providing an option to do so) indicates that this may or may not be true.
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Darker_Dreams wrote:
zookeeper wrote: I'm not clueless enough to propose something like diplomacy for mainline (that'd really be clueless). My potential diplomacy stuff would be for UMC use, where FPI does not apply.
But most players assume mainline rules hold true (to some degree) unless told otherwise or looking to manipulate the rules. Unless some structure is included to either formalize transactions or express that they are fine I (for one) assume mainline concerns hold. Alternately, hindering them (or providing an option to do so) indicates that this may or may not be true.
Well of course the players would get a notification at the start of the game that the scenario/era in question uses non-standard rules, and would be given at least a right-click menu option they could use to read up on those rule deviations and how they work. Anything less would indeed be extremely silly. ;)
Darth Jordius
Posts: 399
Joined: September 17th, 2007, 4:53 pm
Location: 2 miles southeast of the Middle of Nowhere

Post by Darth Jordius »

I don't know about forming initial alliances costing money, but I'd say switching alliances should cost a pretty penny.
Quiz wrote:You are a Dwarvish Fighter. You're surly and handy with an axe. Go chop some trees.
Check out Quietus's Minotaurs!
Locked