<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 21 of 21   
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/16/2012 15:39:01

RvW 
Level 46
Report
On the latest update (a week after the previous one; don't forget to take a vacation Fizzer! ;) ) a cool new feature was added: highlighting of non-standard settings. In the update message Fizzer wrote:
If there are any settings that you’d like to highlight that currently aren’t possible, please create an idea for it on the UserVoice forum.


Due to the way UserVoice works, I think it's a good idea to collect some suggestions here on the forum first, then post one (hopefully not-too-big) list of requested highlighting options on UserVoice in one go.

The ones I'd like to propose myself are:
  • Improve the existing
    "Highlight if the luck modifier is greater than [x]%"
    setting to
    "Highlight if the luck modifier is [greater/smaller] than [x]%"
    to make it possible to only highlight low-luck games
  • Add "Highlight if rounding mode is [weighted round/straight round]"
  • Add "Highlight if abandon/blockade card percentage is 100% or lower"
  • Add "Highlight if a bonus value is raised or lowered by more than [x]%"
    With the current settings, it's possible to set bonuses with a default of 5 or less to zero (bonuses with a default of 4 or less can even become negative) and changing a 1-bonus to a 6-bonus is still a huge change (while lowering superbonuses on USA big by a dozen or more is a relatively small change).
    Note that changing something from non-zero to zero would be 100%, from zero to non-zero +inf% and from positive to negative (or the other way around) something larger than 100%. Suggested default: somewhere between 25% and 50% maybe?

Of course, if someone thinks one of these is a horrible idea (or has a further improvement), feel free to tell me that as well as completely new ideas!
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/16/2012 15:48:19


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Agreed with the % change in bonus values... makes more sense to me that way. The rest I couldn't care less about.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/16/2012 15:59:49


dunga • apex 
Level 57
Report
Just an outside question about the update.

About the percentages attacks, they being allowed will still be standard right?
I use it a lot, for various reasons, and in many different games or settings.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/16/2012 16:14:50

RvW 
Level 46
Report
If you want to check defaults, just reload the multiplayer screen (if you still had it open from before the update), start creating a new game and look what the defaults are. :)
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/16/2012 16:48:01

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report
About the percentages attacks, they being allowed will still be standard right?


The default state of the box comes from what template you're using. It will default on if you're using one of your own templates, or the strategic 1v1/2v2 templates. It will default off for the rest of the built-in templates.

Of course, if you don't like the default, you can always turn it on and save that as your own template and use it from then on.

(The "Custom Game" button is just a shortcut to customizing the "Normal Game" template, so there's actually always a template in play when creating a game.)
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 03:56:07

RvW 
Level 46
Report
The default state of the box comes from what template you're using. It will default on if you're using one of your own templates, or the strategic 1v1/2v2 templates. It will default off for the rest of the built-in templates.

Just played Europe Challenge. I noticed a few things:

  • Attack-by-percentage is unavailable, but attack-only and transfer-only are available. This seems inconsistent?
  • Usually ("previously") when an AI moves troops between territories, it does so with "transfer-only, 100%". With attack-by-percentage unavailable, it now uses "transfer-only, 1000000". I understand that's necessary for a multi-attack game, but for a game without multi-attack, why not use the number of armies currently on the territory; this is just ugly...
  • As a technicality, due to the removal of attack-by-percentage (and the possible additional removal of transfer-only and attack-only??), the rules for the single player levels changed (not dramatically, but still). In the past you mentioned not wanting to change the AI because that would invalidate the single player scores...

    This is not intended as encouragement to flush the scores; I'm thinking more along the lines of "maybe flushing scores is not necessary for small changes". :)
    Switching them back on is a valid solutions, but that would be at odds with the intention to provide a gentler learning curve to newcomers; the single player also serves as a tutorial after all. Maybe it could be left off for the first 3 (??) levels, then made available in the later levels (where it's more useful, people already have some experience and it could be mentioned in the tutorial-hints at the start of the level...?).


I'm impressed with just how polished WL is... and I'm outright amazed by your ability to keep improving areas which I would've consider "finished". If you'd tell me you had ten full-time developers working on it, I'd instantly believe you!
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 07:55:37


Ⓖ. Ⓐrun 
Level 57
Report
I'd like to see team names on the 2v2 ladder

it would be cool to be able to have your own team name
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 08:19:36


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
team a, or team b, or team c is already your team name
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 08:29:46


Ⓖ. Ⓐrun 
Level 57
Report
on the ladder?

All I see is Daenium {Warlighter} and General Arun {Warlighter}
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 08:39:30


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
oh i see...

hhave you guys even made it into the rankings anyway?
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 14:00:51

dreuj 
Level 58
Report
another suggestion:

highlight if the distribution is [automatic/manual]
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 15:35:56

Grzechooo 
Level 30
Report
@nike
I highly doubt, deducting from Arun's "successes" in seasonal ladder.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 15:49:50


dunga • apex 
Level 57
Report
I agree with RvW that taking out percentage out as default and keeping attack only and transfer only is incosistent.
Percentage attacks being allowed were always available, taking it out as default seems a little bit unfair to players like me that developed percentage strategies into gameplay.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/17/2012 16:49:38

RvW 
Level 46
Report
I'd like to see team names on the 2v2 ladder

Arun, can you try to stay on-topic; that has absolutely nothing to do with "Highlighted settings"...!?

@dreuj:
Oww, hadn't thought about the Open Games situation yet, I only considered the "euhm... what were the rules for this particular game again" scenario. Good idea, I'll include it!
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/18/2012 12:59:02

RvW 
Level 46
Report
Just thought of something which may or may not work:
  • Add "Number of cards received each turn"
The idea is to summarise the huge difference between a game with cards (where, if at all possible, you really want to conquer at least one territory per turn) or without cards (where you sometimes just want to sit and wait).

Benefits:
  • Should capture all scenarios, since it's the parameter that actually matters.
    If it's higher than one, you are even more inclined to try and capture a territory.
    It's more relevant than a list of all cards in the game (which might be misleading for non-zero starting pieces but zero weight of some card; even though it's part of the game, earning a card piece won't ever get you a piece of that card).
  • It's always just a number.
    A list of all cards in the game is potentially a long list (I feel the highlighted section should remain short). It would also pretty much just duplicate the "Cards" section.

Drawbacks:
  • As illustrated by this post, its use is non-obvious; how to succinctly explain to "everyone" what this is good for?
  • Unlike the other preferences, this will always show up (I'm not sure whether that is a problem, just thought I'd mention it).

As an added bonus, maybe it would even be possible to make this line act like a "anchored hyperlink"; when you click it, the window automatically scrolls to the "Cards" section of the settings window?

In general I'm very much opposed to special-casing; it can quickly become a huge mess. Therefore, I feel the need to "justify" this special handling of cards a bit. It seems to me that cards are, by far, the most complex setting of a WL game; there are a lot of interdependent settings, which cannot really be summarised. Actually, I think the fact they already have a section to themselves demonstrates this.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/20/2012 21:28:49

RvW 
Level 46
Report
Okay, seems like that was all the suggestions. I've made a UserVoice suggestion; if you like these ideas, please vote for it: http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/3016066
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/21/2012 19:52:44


[WM] ᵀᴴᴱ𝓕𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓰𝓮 
Level 59
Report
I'm not sure if this should be written here, but i'd very much like the Highlight to be only actual highlight of important settings instead of another column with all highlighted in one place.. that imho makes it harder to read it.. and furthermore i loved the way it was when game settings were in two-column view.. i knew exactly where were all the important settings, and it took me less than 3seconds to read them all.. now it takes definitely to much time when i have to scroll one big column..

please - if it is possible.. just add the previous look as a option to account settings.. i strongly believe i'm not the only one, who agrees on the above.. I of course can understand how that old style was bad for low resolution players etc.. but for high-res it was a blessing everything was on the screen at once.
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/22/2012 16:24:30

RvW 
Level 46
Report
i loved the way it was when game settings were in two-column view.. i knew exactly where were all the important settings, and it took me less than 3seconds to read them all

Give it a little time; you'll get used to where the settings are in the new window.

Actually, the highlight feature (and mostly the "Highlight" section) is intended exactly to give you that quick overview. Have you already customised (here: http://warlight.net/SettingsHighlight.aspx) what you find the important settings?

I of course can understand how that old style was bad for low resolution players etc.. but for high-res it was a blessing everything was on the screen at once.

Speaking as a programmer: having to maintain two different styles is a programming nightmare. (Yes, I know it sounds easy, but in practice, it's not.) Of course you're very much allowed to ask Fizzer to bring it back, but personally I really doubt he'll do it...
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/23/2012 08:16:03


[WM] ᵀᴴᴱ𝓕𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓰𝓮 
Level 59
Report
the problem with getting used to it is, i usually quick looked more settings that i am able to highlight.. in particular: boot times; starting terr number; base per turn, starting, neutral, wasteland armies; luck; kill rates and bonus overrides..

From the above, i can only highlight luck IF it's more than x; direct boot time, kill rates and bonus overrides.. still have to scroll all the way to see more, while on single screen double column view i had everything on the screen the moment i clicked settings, and knowing exactly where the particular information is "located" it was an instant to read all.. higlights are a great idea, but i miss the two column layout so much..
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/23/2012 12:20:26

RvW 
Level 46
Report
i can only highlight luck IF it's more than x
Try using x = -1 :)

Pity you didn't reply before I put up the UserVoice... Ah well, I guess you can still post a comment with these additional suggestions (to keep everything in one place; even if the UV gets enough suggestions for Fizzer to implement it, I'm not sure he'll read this thread as well). I think your list is:
  • Auto boot times (wouldn't it make more sense to just go with shortest boot time instead; no direct boot and 5 minutes auto pretty much boils down to the same thing as 5 minutes direct, right...?)
  • Starting territory number (I don't know about Fizzer, but (as mentioned in my reply to dreuj) I completely forgot about this screen also being used to check settings of games before you join them)
  • Base armies per turn (same comment as above)
  • Neutral armies per territory (same as above; once the game is on its way, you'll either have a few neutrals in view or, by the time you ran out of those, it doesn't matter any more anyway (games with high levels of fog are an exception of course))
  • Wasteland armies (don't you also want to include the number of wastelands? and, maybe restrict this to auto-distribution games; in manual distribution you can access much better information (up to their location) by simply pressing "Home" to skip to the first turn -- the fewer settings in the "Highlighted" section, the better it will work)
Highlighted settings - further suggestions: 7/23/2012 15:18:53


[WM] ᵀᴴᴱ𝓕𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓰𝓮 
Level 59
Report
-1 ... RvW - clever, but now tell me how should i apply highlight to "other than 75%"

regarding boot times - you are right.. but it should include both direct or vote to boot whichever is shorter (or actually if it exists in the game concerned)

yup. quickly checking settings before game starts is what i mean.. i mostly play the same games hosted by same people, cause often the game starts before i join since it takes time to check if i accept the settings or not..

regarding it working better or not.. all the highlights have a setting to turn them off, so i think everyone could personalize it to his needs.. some highlights could be off by default and just an option to turn them on. :)
Posts 1 - 21 of 21