Make allies impossible take your villages control

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:
Post Reply
User avatar
tekelili
Posts: 1038
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by tekelili »

I made a search looking for previous topic, only one I found was asking for allow allies choice if take or not take control of a village of your own. This idea was rejected due to be difficult to code. I think I am proposing something different and easy to code, because when your ally boss die, current behavior is his/her units can enter in your villages without change flag (sorry if am wrong in something)

Why I propose this:

I think current behavior creates a problem in team games. I recently was asked to play a map I use to avoid play, hamlets 2v2. My reason to avoid this map is because clearly better tactic is one ally try to grab all villages and become his mate in a free upkeep army. This tactic, sooner or later depending on map, uses to become better tactic for a team. For me this is a problem, because players are forced to chose between reduce one team player to a lesser role and spoil his/her fun in game or share villages and risk to be disaventaged if oponents team achieve this tactic.

In resume, for the best fun of game, I propose your ally´s units have same behavior when enter in one of your villages that currently when his boss is dead.

sorry is this was already proposed, I didnt find it.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
Anonymissimus
Inactive Developer
Posts: 2460
Joined: August 15th, 2008, 8:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by Anonymissimus »

I'd say this CABD. Even the idea from the other thread.

Make an era which stores at the beginning all villages into arrays. Should be several arrays depending on ownership, one for each side (presumable empty at the beginning) an one for neutral villages. Make a capture_village event or a moveto event which filters for village locations. If no unit did yet move into that village during this game, store the village as belonging to the unit's side. If any unit did already move there, use [capture_village] to set village ownership back to the side whichever moved there first and display some message about that the side of the unit which just moved there can't capture this village.

It can even be made optional by displaying messages with options during the first side turn events to all the sides: "Do you want to allow side x to capture your villages ? yes no" This requires some more variables and complicates the event setting the ownership a lot however.
What probably doesn't work is detecting village ownership in the moveto or capture village event itsself since ownership is set to the moved unit's side previously to the execution of that event...

Could be a nice era. I won't code it however. Probably. :P
projects (BfW 1.12):
A Simple Campaign: campaign draft for wml startersPlan Your Advancements: mp mod
The Earth's Gut: sp campaignSettlers of Wesnoth: mp scenarioWesnoth Lua Pack: lua tags and utils
updated to 1.8 and handed over: A Gryphon's Tale: sp campaign
Atz
Art Contributor
Posts: 313
Joined: August 21st, 2008, 2:22 am

Re: Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by Atz »

Anonymissimus wrote:What probably doesn't work is detecting village ownership in the moveto or capture village event itsself since ownership is set to the moved unit's side previously to the execution of that event...
It should be possible to work around that. Just create a variable to hold the previous owner of the village. If it's nobody (ie. it's the first time it's been captured), you, or an enemy, congrats, it's yours and the variable is updated. Otherwise, throw up a box with the choice to take it or not.

Another way of doing it might be to have a "move without capturing" option on the right click menu, which might be a little cleaner... I think you could just check the current owner of the village at the click's location before moving, so you wouldn't have to store variables for all the villages.
Last edited by Atz on June 1st, 2011, 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Max
Posts: 1449
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 12:41 am

Re: Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by Max »

tekelili wrote:I think current behavior creates a problem in team games. I recently was asked to play a map I use to avoid play, hamlets 2v2. My reason to avoid this map is because clearly better tactic is one ally try to grab all villages and become his mate in a free upkeep army. This tactic, sooner or later depending on map, uses to become better tactic for a team.
never heard of this before - does this really make much difference?

and how would this proposal help with this issue? wouldn't e.g. an option to have pooled resources (per team) be better to eliminate this "exploit"?
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by Dixie »

I'm not sure I'm in favor of pooled ressources, you'd really have to trust your ally to not burn through your fair share of the gold. And it would be hell in campaigns/with AI allies, since allies would just buy the most expensive stuff with your gold regardless of use and throw it away...
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
User avatar
tekelili
Posts: 1038
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: Make allies impossible take your villages control

Post by tekelili »

Max wrote:never heard of this before - does this really make much difference?

and how would this proposal help with this issue? wouldn't e.g. an option to have pooled resources (per team) be better to eliminate this "exploit"?
I know lot of good players in MP server that know this tactic and becomed agree with me in achive it in some games (at the right moment). My teams have won lot of games achieving it. Sometimes, playing with a "noob" mate, I know he wont give me his villages, so I wait to right moment and ask him (sometimes have to be very persuasive) to take my villages and won game game thanks to it. I still remember when asked Dauntless (1st player of ladder at that moment) for play a clash game he controlling both loys, me controlling both elves. He asked me in game chat: "Can I use a dirty trick?" I answered: "Sure, use all your resources :)" When my scout discovered he was giving all villages to just 1 player I told him: "I am using the same dirty trick :P"

I didnt have to play on MP server to discover this tactic. I was playing with a friend Dark Forecast (Mainlain 2p survival) in local game in my first month after discover wesnoth. We were being destroyed in every game (we were really noob :P). One day I decided play alone controlling both sides, and around turn 17, one side took all villages (I played 2 elves with white mage as boss, so plenty of heal out of villages). Scenay becomed then quite easy to me to beat.

This tactic it is almost impossible to achieve from turn 1, you usually have to wait some turns. So I think my proposal wont change how scenary gameplay was designed, because is still good for teams that every player grab "his" villages on turn 1 and 2. But pooled resources will change gameplay, would be weird for example, that a boss in Path of Daggers (2v2 map with team keeps very far from ecah other) could recruit every turn after lost almost all his villages.


Anonymissimus: I cant be sure about this, but I was expecting code to do this was already in core files (or partially done), because when one team boss dies, their units detect villages ownership: if it belongs to a mate, dont change flag/if belongs to an oponent team, remove flag.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
Post Reply