Show defeat dialog when you’re defeated

[ancestral]

I was playing my first game in a while; a FFA multiplayer game on Lagoon when I realized the game hadn’t ended when my leader was killed.

Gambit correctly noted that the game continues until there is a winner. However, I found it curious that it only told me I was defeated when someone else won.

Therefore, why not show the defeated dialog box when you’re leader is defeated? Furthermore, why not rework the current defeated dialog box into “Player X is victorious!”. (Naturally, even when you’re defeated, you can still affect who the winner is, so you can still continue to play after the dialog displays.)

[Zarel]

Well, that's because you aren't defeated. All leaders on your side have to be defeated before your side loses, and you don't lose until your side loses. Sure, you lose an L2 unit and the ability to recruit, but if you're close to winning, that shouldn't matter much.

[zookeeper]

Well, that's because you aren't defeated. All leaders on your side have to be defeated before your side loses, and you don't lose until your side loses. Sure, you lose an L2 unit and the ability to recruit, but if you're close to winning, that shouldn't matter much.

No, currently you lose if your leader is dead. If your leader dies, then you have lost, although you can still continue to play if your teammates are alive. Which is something I've pretty much always found to be silly, because at that point either you have no real incentive to continue to play (because you've already lost) or you aren't really considered to have already lost (because your team might still win).

Still, the last time I checked the MP devs weren't interested in making the winners and losers be teams, not sides.

[Vendanna]

Not to tell that once your side win, you will get the "you have been defeated" message. (giving less incentive to allow your teammates win j/k)

[Gambit]

The idea is not a gameplay change. He just wants more accurate information to be given to the player.

[ancestral]

The idea is not a gameplay change. He just wants more accurate information to be given to the player.

Correct!

As far as I’m concerned, this should only be a change to multiplayer games. It would change one dialog box and add an extra dialog box when your leader dies.

[Rya]

In FFA there really should be a "defeat" dialogue when your leader dies.

In team matches it should actually be a "You have won" dialogue if your team wins, even if you don't have a leader.

[Noy]

In team matches it should actually be a "You have won" dialogue if your team wins, even if you don't have a leader.

Should it? You're so right! Why didn't we think of it that way!

Seriously, your pontificating on these forums is getting tiring.

[Rya]

Maybe you should listen to me instead of making ironic comments all the time. Of course it should. It's common sense. In a team match the team that won should get the win dialogue, simple.

[Caphriel]

Still, the last time I checked the MP devs weren't interested in making the winners and losers be teams, not sides.

In team matches it should actually be a "You have won" dialogue if your team wins, even if you don't have a leader.

This is why you keep getting snarked. Someone says the developers weren't interested in it that way, and then you suggest that it ought to be done that way. You keep doing stuff like this. "I think it should be like so" is not a convincing argument in favor of anything, and the overall impression you are conveying is that you just want the developers to adjust the game to suit your taste.

On topic, I'm curious as to why the developers aren't interested in making the winners in team games be teams instead of sides.

(Notice, Rya, how I reserve judgment until I hear the reasons, and how I assume the reasons are well-considered rather than that the developers are idiots. Even if the answer is "developer taste," arguing taste vs. taste with the developers is pointless. They're making the game, so obviously it will reflect their taste.)

[Noy]

You've just fought an fantastic battle crushed your enemies with your ally and you're going to enjoy the fruits of your spoils.... oh wait you can't because you're dead. In a pre-modern age, individual leadership was always more important than any cause or ideology. Thats especially important for some of the factions like the undead; without you most of your underlings would just die.

Finally, having an allied leader as a "reserve leader" shouldn't be an exploitable situation that allows you to use your own leader recklessly in order to win. I'd be amenable to changing it to something slightly different, but you've definitely lost and its not a victory.

[Caphriel]

You've just fought an fantastic battle crushed your enemies with your ally and you're going to enjoy the fruits of your spoils.... oh wait you can't because you're dead.

Unless you're a deathblade. Those guys are party animals

I almost never play games to the death of all leaders on one side. One team usually resigns before the point, so the win/lose dialogue isn't even seen. Until this thread, I had no idea that you'd get a defeat dialogue at the end of a game your team won if your leader had died.

I've always considered my team winning as a win for myself regardless of my leader's mortality-status, and always thought that the ability to sacrifice your leader without negatively affecting your position otherwise was, while a bit silly, how the game was intended to be. I've frequently used leader trades to punish enemies for spending too much time away from their keep, or a leader sacrifice to destroy the position of an enemy player and bring about their death. If my leader dies with one round of income in the bank, but my enemy dies with five rounds, that's just peachy. If the end result is more experience for me and more units left on the field for me, even better. I would probably like/support a change to make leaders more non-expendable. Droid the side to represent their leaderless nature?

On topic, I think showing the "You have been defeated!" dialogue when your leader dies, as ancestral suggested, would address this by making it perfectly clear that defeat occurs on an individual basis.

[Sorrow]

Heh, In team games I don't really care if the game says I lost. If my team won. We won.

[Zarel]

I'd be amenable to changing it to something slightly different, but you've definitely lost and its not a victory.

How's about "You have been defeated, but your team/side won!"

That would also give a good reason why the dialog is displayed at the end of the game, and not when you're actually defeated.

[Soralin]

"Your allies are victorious! They will not forget your noble sacrifice as they loot and pillage your undefended empire."