Poll What do you want to see next? (Note the level of difficulty 1-5 for each option) Thanks!

[Stormcat]

additional wish list - the option to sort or to change the archive list to show the games with the latest ended games up top.

- delete old pending games after 60 to 90 days that are waiting for people to join

or drop people who haven't signed in for a certain amount of time (90 days?) from all awaiting games

 

[MNatt]

Interesting that the most popular option seems to be to do something re surrender/resignation/AWOL. I use another risk-based-site as well as MC - not so much as I find it generally inferior. But the one aspect of their system which is clearly superior to ours is the process for players leaving games - which works extremely well:
1. There is a simple option to 'resign'
2. As on MC players go AWOL if absent for 2 turns
3. Once a player goes AWOL they can't come back (which gets around the dishonourable tactic I'm sure we've all seen on MC from time to time of a player going awol, letting the remaining players knock lumps out of each other, then returning to base to pick up the pieces).
4. After a player goes AWOL the troop stacks on their territories wither turn-by-turn - which gets around the problem of AWOL players leaving great big stacks which block off parts of the map.

It's always a good thing to learn from people who do something better than you do it yourself - and in this regard (but pretty much only in this regard) they have a better system.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

4. After a player goes AWOL the troop stacks on their territories wither turn-by-turn - which gets around the problem of AWOL players leaving great big stacks which block off parts of the map.

I like that. Do you consider it a better system than not letting them back + leaving their stacks? I mean, an abandoned stack can add some unplanned variety to a map. What would you say from experience are the pros/cons of the various ways to address AWOL?

 

[MNatt]

I like that. Do you consider it a better system than not letting them back + leaving their stacks? I mean, an abandoned stack can add some unplanned variety to a map. What would you say from experience are the pros/cons of the various ways to address AWOL?

Like I say, it's the one aspect of gameplay on the competition which I think is better than here on MC.

Suppose another player resigns/goes awol - on MC all their troops just sit there indefinitely. Often it's not worth remaining players wasting troops attacking any of the territories with those troops on - so they just tend to sit there and everyone else plays around them.

The way it works elsewhere is that the AWOL/resigned player's troops wither. I don't know what the formula is - but just suppose player 1 disappears leaving 300 troops on one territory, 50 on another, and 10 on another 3. After a couple of turns those numbers start to drop turn by turn. So, they'll go to 250/40/8; then next turn 200/30/6; and so on. It means the remaining players have a bit more of a judgement call to make - do I clear that territory now, or do I wait a turn for the number to come down? And over a few turns the numbers come right down. I'm sure we've all been in the odd long-running game where the board is dominated by big stacks left behind by awol players - under this system that doesn't happen - if a player resigns or goes awol, the other players still have to make decisions about how to deal with his remaining troops, but it's more fluid and (I think) interesting - and eventually the troops belonging to the departed player wither down to 1s.

I like the fact that on D12 players who resign or go AWOL can't re-enter the game. But even if you didn't make that change, there is a clear disincentive to players deliberately going awol (which does happen sometimes, and is annoying) if they know that their troops are going to start disappearing while they're away.

But I'm no tech-wizard - I've no idea how hard or easy it would be to programme that sort of thing.

 

[once]

i think there are two ways of looking at this. i think mnatts idea of decaying stacks of awols is neat. but i also think left back stacks of awol players CAN add unforeseen variety to games. maybe have it both ways & make it an option?
regardless, i dont really understand why awol players need the option to return to games, b/c yes it does get abused. i would say once you are out, you are out. also, i was never a fan of deferred troops for missed turns - this is another feature that does see abuse.

edit: decaying stacks of awols would not be a good idea in assassin games. awols are a big problem in assassin games regardless. i wish there was a good solution to this..

 

[periwinkle]

Funny that you included the diplo tab on your wish list, peri. If memory serves, weren't you one of the founding members of the Enemies of Diplomacy clan?

Nope. I LOVE the diplo tab. Especially for fixed force.

 

[periwinkle]

I don't like decaying stacks at all. Nmatt is referring to another website that does this. It changes the game entirely.
When an enemy is stacking.....you plan around it or it is protecting others and then it disappears within a few turns which changes things up. I say leave it as is. Plus it's way easier to code if you leave it as is.

 

[Sandydirt]

Here's another thought: If I'm not mistaken, ties on dice rolls go to the defender, which essentially offsets any (or at least most) of the attacker's advantage when rolling 3 dice against 2 dice, or 2 dice against 1 dice. I think some thought should be given to awarding ties to the attacker. I feel that this would make attacking more closely reflect reality, and would certainly make it a little less frustrating and more satisfying. Plus I think it might encourage a little more offense and a little less defense, thereby providing more action and perhaps fewer stalemates and games that last forever. It's just a thought for everyone's consideration.

I prefer to keep it to the Risk standard. But I still wonder why rolling 4 against 2 usually loses in this game when 5 or higher against 2 usually wins. Maybe it's just my dumb luck.

 

[zenon550]

Glad to see some of my suggestions added to the vote list, as an addendum to "Add in an indication on the active games screen when someone has added to the team chat” I might suggest two notifications, one for @name notifications naming the account holder (eg. @zenon550 messages would be indicated one way), and other team messages would be indicated another way. Possibly game messages to “all”, (not to one's team) could be shown another way, perhaps by colored icons.

I also think a history (“back”, “archive”) feature would be good as well.

Having the archive list (which I meant for finished games) showing up by last finished (without separating them into victory and defeated) would be even better than the modification I suggested I think.

I also prefer “Resign” to “Surrender” fwiw.

 

[Redstorm]

Interesting that the most popular option seems to be to do something re surrender/resignation/AWOL. I use another risk-based-site as well as MC - not so much as I find it generally inferior. But the one aspect of their system which is clearly superior to ours is the process for players leaving games - which works extremely well:
1. There is a simple option to 'resign'
2. As on MC players go AWOL if absent for 2 turns
3. Once a player goes AWOL they can't come back (which gets around the dishonourable tactic I'm sure we've all seen on MC from time to time of a player going awol, letting the remaining players knock lumps out of each other, then returning to base to pick up the pieces).
4. After a player goes AWOL the troop stacks on their territories wither turn-by-turn - which gets around the problem of AWOL players leaving great big stacks which block off parts of the map.

It's always a good thing to learn from people who do something better than you do it yourself - and in this regard (but pretty much only in this regard) they have a better system.

I definitely like 1 - 3 above. #4 not so sure about.

 

[periwinkle]

Oh I finally remembered!

Time extension button

Click the button and it adds 24 hours onto your turn. You get like 1 or 2 per game? It is for times you know you just need an extra few hours for whatever reason because life gets in the way sometimes.

 

[Stormcat]

I prefer to keep it to the Risk standard. But I still wonder why rolling 4 against 2 usually loses in this game when 5 or higher against 2 usually wins. Maybe it's just my dumb luck.

64 percent odds vs 78 percent. I would agree re not changing from the Risk standard of defender winning ties