<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 36   1  2  Next >>   
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 17:21:17

Hannibal Barca
Level 35
Report
i've been thinking that it could be interesting if the kill rates could be adjusted territory by territory would allow certain territories to be better for defense or a good place to base an attack c
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 17:41:31


wakanarai 
Level 58
Report
https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

put it there and maybe fizzer will think about it
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 17:47:47


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
While I understand the desire for such a feature I don't think it is even remotely practical.

For one, the map would become so complex with the modified kill rates as to become unplayable. How can you identify the kill rate of a given territory without ruining the aesthetics or playability of the map? Mind you, any change would have to work across all platforms.

Such a modification just introduces far too much complexity to be worthwhile
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 18:37:04


Cata Cauda
Level 58
Report
I agree. Warlight should be kept simple and easy for newcomers.

Edited 8/18/2015 18:37:18
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 21:50:34

Wildzar
Level 56
Report
actually it can be applied very simply for small-medium maps using only 2 different kill rates (offensive and defensive) showing them with the symbols + and - on the territory....
and about newcomers... they don't have all maps available.

Edited 8/18/2015 21:53:21
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 22:44:12


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
Every terretory got already his worth in form of borders to a good bonus (attack value) chokepoint to defent the opponents entry to your bonuses (defense). They got values alteady. Not as clear as if you say: got 10%more attack rate, but in form of a better/worse placement
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 23:25:57


❤HankyPinky
Level 58
Report
I originally agreed with Richard, because I couldn't understand how you could identify what was going on at a glance.

Then I liked Wildzar's response with the plus/minus.

I don't think the plus/minus would work on every map, though, but you could do something like put the army numbers in a square box for +defense, put the numbers in a 3 sided square for-defense, put a ^ above the numbers for +attack and put a v below the numbers for -attack.

Whatever makes it intuitive at a glance
territory based kill rates: 8/18/2015 23:43:30


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Yeah, seems cool on the surface, but would be a problem to display. Can you imagine playing a map with these altered rates on your phone? Yuck. Not to mention all the math you'd have to do for your moves.

I think that is too complicated personally.
territory based kill rates: 8/19/2015 00:08:36


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Hanky pinky, what exactly is a "three sided square"?

Wildzar, setting that only works for one type of map is a horrible idea. Such settings should be usable on all maps. In your setup, instead of having one number there would need to be three different values in each territory. So many maps would need to be redesigned, including the ever popular MME, in order to support these additional values (some of the bonuses are already to small to support three digit numbers let alone two more numbers).
Not only would this overly complicate the map and ruin the aesthetics but it would also greatly increase the complexity of the game.

So in other words, implementing such an idea would both ruin the look/feel of the game but also the gameplay!
territory based kill rates: 8/19/2015 02:32:09


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
+1 MoD & ChrisCMU
territory based kill rates: 8/19/2015 08:26:16


Pink 
Level 60
Report
interesting idea, wont happen
territory based kill rates: 8/20/2015 11:00:02

Wildzar
Level 56
Report
about this idea....
one of our clan members had this idea, I simply found it interisting and I would like to say why...

this game is a strategic simulation of battles and in the reality any battlelfield has some points easier (or more difficult) to defend or to attack from (i.e. walls of a castle or mountains) as mentioned even in the "art of war". That's why I support the possibility to make the simulation more "real".

about the feasibility it is a different matter... we are here to discuss if it is possible and eventually how. Personally I believe that it should be possible to make it simply and without wasting the graphic and the playability of the maps (I suggested + and -, but for sure there are simplier ways like using dots etc.), and to who tells that it will become complicated to play I answer that they should try some of the ultra-weird settings that some players already sometimes apply and they will see that the game is already quite complex and this eventual addition will not make it so crazy. I also say again that there is no need to apply it to all the maps (some settings are pointless in some maps...)

just think about it.
territory based kill rates: 8/20/2015 15:14:42


knyte 
Level 58
Report
+1 MOD. If you want real-time games to still be enjoyable, you need WL to be a game where calculations can be made quickly so that decision-making can occupy the most time (and the best decision-makers, not the fastest calculators, are the ones who end up winning). Territories are already at the right level of complexity for that on most strategic maps.

Also, as usual: gameplay > realism

Edited 8/20/2015 15:15:10
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 03:32:25

Jesse906
Level 59
Report
Sounds like a really cool idea, would definitely make the game a lot more interesting. Especially for experienced players.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 03:50:20


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Err hate to break this but calculations are a part of the game. You should have a skill advantage if you can make proper calculations at a breakneck pace.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:14:47


knyte 
Level 58
Report
Yes, calculations are part of the game. However, for the vast majority of players, the math of Warlight is simple (and most of the legwork is already done for you by Analyze Attack or a more accurate analysis script like the one used by Math Wolf). Right now, you can do your long-distance planning for the next few turns (and generate + apply a broad overall strategy for the entire game) in a RT game within 5 minutes. Even if you're quick at performing those calculations, you aren't required to perform so many each turn that it gives you a significant advantage over your opponent- definitely not to the point where being able to perform calculations quickly allows you to beat players who are significantly better at risk management and decision-making than you are.

However, with territory-based kill rates, you'll now have to account for varying long-distance behavior depending on the path you send an army. It's just like that old "veteran armies" suggestion where users are now burdened with a lot more calculation than in the status quo, calculation that risks two things:

1. A real-time game where there's scarcely enough time to perform good decision-making because of the significant time investment that goes into exploring options. Less time to make decisions would likely lead to performance that is not only much poorer but also more varied, except for a small subset of players who can perform math in their head very quickly or have enough experience to build intuition on the map. It would make the WL competitive environment much less inclusive.

2. Games which are decided ultimately by luck as players don't have nearly enough time to make all necessary calculations and must instead randomly (or semi-randomly) go through a small set and pick the best option within that set. This means that a player who- by luck- stumbles upon the better situation within their small sample would ultimately make the better decision, but primarily due to luck.

Hence my view that WL's calculative aspect needs to be kept simple.

Keep in mind that I'm not stating that calculations aren't (or ought not to be) an aspect of the game- at the core of WarLight, some basic arithmetic and probability and involved (and as a rather quantitative person, I'm not complaining at all). However, they're simple enough so as not to consume very much time and instead let players focus primarily on the decision-making aspect (weighing options and deciding which risks are worth taking) of the game. I think it's important that decision-making remains at the core of WarLight and therefore think that ideas like this one that will place more emphasis on calculation ought not be implemented.

And of course, at this point you might contend that strategic decision-making is itself mathematical- which is something I agree with, at least within the context of WarLight. However, decision-making in WarLight is about devising mathematical models as opposed to deriving mathematical expressions.

When figuring out the odds of getting a Scandinavia FTB on Strategic 1v1, the number of turns it would take to compensate for armies lost in taking the Canada bonus, or the change in probability of successfully taking a territory that your opponent also borders if you end up attacking it second with the same number of armies, you can simply use known information (kill rates, success odds, projected army losses) to quickly derive mathematical expressions and calculate their results. But when figuring out your optimal strategy for a game, you ultimately construct a (non-explicit) model of the game and its possible outcomes, based on assumptions that you use to determine which sort of data is important, how you're going to use that data, how you're going to disrupt and contain your opponent, etc. In the realm of decision-making, these assumptions (and your ability to refine, expand, and trim your model) have a significantly greater impact than your ability to simply calculate and input data based on known expressions. Instead of utilizing the known (expressions) to navigate through the known (data), you're instead constructing models based on assumptions to figure out how you're going to deal with the unknown.

It's like the difference between solving a Pre-Calc exam problem in high school and solving an engineering problem in real life.

Edited 8/22/2015 04:31:38
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:37:04


Hostile
Level 58
Report
How about you receive free armies for taking a territory but you cannot move them ? They stay in the city forever. You can still add extras armies and move how you want.

The fixed armies will greatly improve defense of cities. As for terrain type, you can have a terrain that kills x armies or by percentage every turn. This will replace the negative minus ones in maps



Attacker advantage is simply double borders.

Terrain can be made to stick armies for one turn if want rivers.



Warlight isn't a hex wargame. The only reasonable idea for me is fixed armies.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:46:06


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:48:06


knyte 
Level 58
Report
No. I mostly wrote it because I expected you to respond with a GIF like that (or maybe some really shitty "rap" lyrics that prove you passed pre-K and know how to rhyme) and exit the discussion. I mean, it was pretty clear you didn't read my first comment either.

You tend to seriously overestimate the amount of intelligence I think you have. :)

Edited 8/22/2015 04:50:11
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:50:26


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
I make 10 minute real time games. 10 minutes is enough time to write an essay. In the time you can write an essay, you can do many things.

It's sad when you expect me to put up a gif. It really takes out the comedic aspect and nobody wins.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:53:15


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Intelligence has nothing to do with gifs on the Internet.

territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 04:54:14


knyte 
Level 58
Report
Intelligence has nothing to do with gifs on the Internet.


That's exactly why I expected you to respond with a GIF.

Edited 8/22/2015 04:58:10
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 05:15:40


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
No. I mostly wrote it because I expected you to respond with a GIF like that (or maybe some really shitty "rap" lyrics that prove you passed pre-K and know how to rhyme) and exit the discussion. I mean, it was pretty clear you didn't read my first comment either.


This is why you're going to hell, knyte. You can't stop insulting. With the same amount of rudeness:

Genghis is implying that you should shorten your answer as not everyone has as much life lack as you do, and it's annoying to read long descriptions on Warlight format, which you'd know if you could read past pre-K levels.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 05:24:55


knyte 
Level 58
Report
I made my response as succinct as I could while still conveying what I felt needed to be conveyed. I'm not going to take out important sections (and lengthen the discussion as Genghis then retorts with something I've already pre-empted) just because a few people are going to complain about a few paragraphs. The actual discussion matters a lot more than that.

Unfortunately, not every discussion can be carried out using dank memes and overused GIFs. You don't have to read it if you don't want to- it wasn't written with you in mind, anyway.

You certainly don't have to complain about the length and derail the discussion- your discomfort with lengthy posts doesn't make your feelings special.

Edited 8/22/2015 05:33:47
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 05:58:34


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
In my defence, I'm a dope rapper for a white guy.

I do have to agree with Xy though. Your post was incessantly long. You only need 1 reason, and then say more if people want more.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 06:08:02


knyte 
Level 58
Report
That one reason was already in my original post. Your response was non-responsive because it merely reiterated something acknowledged in the original (of course calculations are a part of the game). So I just gave you a full response because short comments clearly didn't work since it's easier to pretend to read them and throw out something completely non-responsive. Figured that you'd either completely to fail to read it or decide not to respond.

As I've already stated, that wasn't intended for you or Kapy. I'd much rather read a response from people who actually play and understand the strategic side of the game- people who, in my experience, are much more likely to read and even enjoy discussions on game mechanics. I did my part to try to raise the discussion above Genghis-and-Kapy level and maybe one day reach MOTD-and-Math-Wolf level.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 06:24:22


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
If you knew how to write "succintctly", you would never use the word succint.

Let me shorten your dissertation, knyte.



Well, for big player majority, one can plan ahead for the next few turns while making overall strategy for the game. Even if you're calculating very fast, you still won't have advantage over one who calculates slowly.

If players have more calculations to do, two bad things can happen:

1. RT games would have really less decision-making time - playing would be poorer, but more varied. Players with supermaths skills or high experience with map will always have advantage. Competition would be less inclusive.

2. Games are chosen by luck, as players must (semi) randomly pick best choice in set. Whichever player randomly finds better goings would make the better choice mostly since luck.

WL should have some basic arithmetic and probability in games, but only if simple enough to focus on decision making rather than maths.

Don't get me wrong, I think strategic decision-making is mathematical, too, but it's different; the difference between solving a maths problem in high school and solving an engineering problem in real life.

When figuring your best strategy for a game, you will build a (nonexplicit) game model based on assumptions; what datum kind is important, how to use the data, how to erase your opponent(s), so on. Under current system, these assumptions have much greater impact on WL skill than to just compute and input data on known expressions. In short, you must build assumption models to figure how to deal with X.


Edited 8/22/2015 06:30:06
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 06:29:37


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Unfortunately, not every discussion can be carried out using dank memes and overused GIFs. You don't have to read it if you don't want to- it wasn't written with you in mind, anyway.


Actually, they can, but that would get repetitive quickly.

You certainly don't have to complain about the length and derail the discussion- your discomfort with lengthy posts doesn't make your feelings special.


Do not see Genghis really complaining, just telling you - if you can't write well, I'm not going to read your stuff.

As I've already stated, that wasn't intended for you or Kapy.


Actually, it really looks like you were talking to Genghis.

Genghis: hate to break this but calculations are a part of the game.
knyte: Yes, calculations are part of the game.
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 06:35:52


knyte 
Level 58
Report
You didn't shorten my post so much as convert it into Engrish, leaving out some major parts and making about half of the content in your summary confusing and lacking context. It looks like you just went through and dropped random words. Thanks for the attempt, however.

Actually, it really looks like you were talking to Genghis.


I was responding to Genghis' point. That doesn't mean my intended audience was Genghis.

That said, this thread isn't a discussion of my writing ability. It's unfair to OP to further derail this discussion. Let's keep it to the idea of territory-based kill rates only, and keep the GIFs and personal shit on OT.

Edited 8/22/2015 06:38:09
territory based kill rates: 8/22/2015 06:37:06


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
I'd much rather read a response from people who actually play and understand the strategic side of the game- people who, in my experience, are much more likely to read and even enjoy discussions on game mechanics.


I actually play 3/4 normal WL games, and I'd say I have "understand the strategic side of the game", please.
Posts 1 - 30 of 36   1  2  Next >>