Hey, this is a suggestion for a setting i remember i used a while ago, where when your teammate gets booted or surrenders, their territories, armies and cards become yours- this makes it more of a fair game, rather than having to worry about a 2v1 when your partner decides not to play anymore. I find this setting to usually work much better.


Any thoughts?

Are you sure it didn't just make your booted/surrendered teammate into an AI? There is already an option for that obviously but I see nothing about what you propose.

I, for one, would be against such a setting since it would open the game up to cheaters (player A surrenders to cede all his territory to player B who now gets more armies and can potentially dominate the game).

It's very important to me that there never be a situation where it's advantageous to be booted. In other words, even if the majority of the time it's a disadvantage, if there's even one case where it's an advantage then that would be pretty lame. In this sitaution, some players that want to get an advantage could intentionally not take their turn, slowing down the game significantly, just so their teammate can boot them so they can get the booting benefit.

A lot of ideas that offset the boot issue seem great at first, but when you stop to really examine them you realize that there could be situations where people will try to intentionally be booted. I don't want there to ever be a situation like this.

If WarLight gave all of a booted player's territories to their teammates, there could be a situation where teammate A controls a critical chokepoint but has a low income and teammate B has a high income. A could intentionally not take his turn until they get booted, and B inherits the territory, and then deploys to the chokepoint.

Exactly the type of situation I was thinking of.

The people who play this type of game are typically smart and resourceful... you can be guaranteed that someone would figure out a means of making this feature work to their advantage.

I definitely like the thought that a boot should NEVER be seen as advantageous in any way, shape or form. Making a surrender advantageous also makes zero sense... it would completely eliminate one potential strategy of team games (divide and conquer)

You could allow the surviving player to control both players but keep things separate... That is, they can enter their orders, then orders for their teammate.

FD, that would be a more viable option as it would eliminate the benefit of being booted.

I believe your exact idea is a uservoice option in fact.

FD, that is a much better idea, and yes i see you guy's point of how it could be exploited. I'm not sure what uservoice means, however.

or maybe allow a teammate who was booted to return at some point?

So say they have to go 30mins into a real time game, they could then return 30mins later to find it still going and jump back into control.

Hellgunner, Uservoice is a polling place where Warlight players can go to voice their opinions on potential game changes and implementations. Every user gets 10 votes to support whatever changes they feel are most important. Here is the link:

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

What about a feature preventing team-mates from booting other team-mates; only opponents could boot someone from your team. Opponents could then decide whether the boot offered a significant advantage.

Why would you ever boot a teammate? Thats just shooting yourself in the foot... it makes no sense.

New people boot team mates all the time. I've completely stopped playing team games because of how out of control the booting has become.

I know! However i have seen it happen a handful of times, normally by new players.

i find that it tends to be the other team who boot in order to gain an advantage (when they do).

teammates only tend to boot when its clear the person isnt coming back.

I tend to suggest to the other team that they choose when to boot their teammate if they go inactive... then its fair.

I've booted twice in team games... in one, both opponents had been MIA for five days on turn 0. I would have voted to end had I thought of it but that still requires their vote, right?

The other was a case where the player was inactive for 4 days (inactive on profile, not just game) and my team held a solid territorial advantage (team incomes of 53 to a max of 37). I didn't like doing it much but it was a game we were most likely winning anyways.