Hi, all. I'm not a forum guy, nor do I intend to become one. I just like to check out (and occasionally make) maps, offer (hopefully) constructive comments and have fun. I don't play multiplayer - mainly because I don't have the time. That being said, I thought I'd share the germ of an idea I've been having and let you all discuss it (or not).

I routinely see complaints in comments on the bigger maps that they are, well, too big, and thus impractical for multiplayer games. Victory isn't fun if it takes forever to achieve, I suppose. Anyway, I wonder if Warlight could allow mapmakers to create objective scenarios for their maps. If you've ever played Axis and Allies, you'll know that the Axis can achieve an economic victory without having to conquer all of the Allies. I'm thinking something like that.

For example, take Muppet's 40 Africas map. Imagine a setup in which the first player to control the 4 centermost continents wins, regardless of army production or any other territories held. Or on the Triskelion map by Opum's Razor, victory might require holding the entire Forum of Cicero (the center hex region). Alternatively, a game could be set up so that the first player to reach a certain income level wins.

I really think these features would add a great deal to the depth of Warlight games and should be fairly easy to implement - maybe just by adding another setting that selects whether a territory is an objective or not. Income victories should be easy to implement, as well. (Admittedly, I know nothing about computer programming.)

Anyway, I thought I'd put it out there and let the community chew on it.

Take care, all.

I like this idea.

If this feature also let you add triggers to maps then all my dreams come true.

If your a map maker, you can make scenario distributions.

The map maker could make a recommended template for that map. This has been done in the past.

Edited 5/7/2015 16:00:43

a scenario distribution where some one can win without elimination every opponent? id like to see that template ;)

I've made a few games that have specific conditions for victory and state in the rules that other players are expected to surrender if someone meets those conditions.

Obviously this is dependent on not having assholes among the players.

I do agree though that it would be awesome to be able to have such things actually integrated into the game.

I really, really like this idea. I honestly would love to play games like that.

For example, take Muppet's 40 Africas map. Imagine a setup in which the first player to control the 4 centermost continents wins, regardless of army production or any other territories held.

You could pretty much accomplish that now. Just make a bonus that encompasses that space, and make it worth a ton of armies. Effectively, whoever gets that has enough armies that they automatically win.

You may be thinking, "but they still have to clear out the rest of the map!" In theory yes, but in practice, everyone will surrender as soon as they see someone has the victory bonus. They can say so in chat, and it's confirmed by seeing that person deploy a ton of armies. Even if someone happens to be far away and can't see the deployment, they'll be convinced once they see 90% of the players in the game surrender. In practice, I'm sure the game would end within a few turns as long as there aren't any trolls in the game.

in theory yes
but in practice,noobs don't surrender :P
best example:-Poonsquad Clan
and chances of having at least a handful of noobs in an ffa are not very low
i think we should have such a setup

Edited 5/7/2015 19:50:27

An interesting idea, and worth thinking about.

Some setups should be tested, with invite-only players, perhaps.

@Fizzer What about other scenarios, like hold a capital (territory) for X turns to win. Or what if there was a "survive for x turns"/ win before X turns. Or defend/capture the capital for/within X turns.

Also for the bonus suggestion you had, what if the win condition is for a Team (2 + players) to capture the winning territories.

I think there is some great potential here, and to prevent abuse only mapmakers can create such scenario templates?

like the ideas but for it to be restricted to only mapmakers is a bad idea
those who abuse can simply be blacklisted and reported

I think TBest hit it right on the money.

Nathan wasn't just talking about it controlling a space of territories as like Fizzer and other said, as well it can already be done. The key thing would be the unique, other options for winning such as TBest mentioned, control X territor(y/ies) for Y turns or any of the other ones he mentioned. This could also be a lead into adding formal alliances that actually enforce teams (though not sure how you would code that or anything along those line).

A lot would have to go into this, as well as it may not be something that Fizzer wants, but it would allow for so much more flexibility. Negatively, it may make the game more confusing but positively could be a good overhaul when it changes to WarZone.

Tweaking the card system seems like the easiest method of it. There has been some discussion of it previously too, I do not recall the consensus.

If you can customize the scenarios in which conditions pieces of cards are given (1/13th per turn, survive for 13 turns against zed or whatever. Control certain pieces of map but not others. Whatever) and what the cards yield (probably a catastrophic number of troops, but could even potentially be ownership of territories in order to make an autowin), it could be doable. Make it map-maker exclusive and/or level dependent on what customization you are allowed, like it is now. It'd be work, but not unfathomable at all.

You'd potentially need some sort of icon to indicate it was a changed format from the norm to reduce confusion. Could also be used to clean up diplomacy games from going down the tubes, or merely to customize them (say... taking control of king's landing in SoIaF turns something neutral or gives auto-ownership of the crownlands.). Worth a thought.

I like the idea where you have a massive player and 39 smaller ones and the larger player tries to kill them. The last smaller player to survive wins as the moment he and the larger player are the only ones left the game makes the larger one surrender.

Using the card system for this does sound like an interesting solution.

You could always give the "winner" a whole bunch of Diplomacy cards, set to a very long duration (e.g. 200 turns). That player plays them to create Diplomacy with all their opponents, and then everyone else surrenders (they can't exactly keep playing, after all).

Sorry M. Poireau but terrible idea. You don't want it to become a staring contest especially if the designated winner is on a time constraint and has to leave. Introducing a (I hate to say it) nuke card that you are given pieces if you control X territory for Y turns would be better. Think of it as getting to the launch pad and having to ward off enemies while you charge the rockets.

Basically, I envision this idea as a way for the community to make their own Single-Player modes that are played in multiplayer with others of the community, similar to winning objectives in single-player with the gold stars. It just really depends if Fizzer wants it or not. If it happens, he could take some of the more popular ideas and transfer them over to single player, something I believe he was looking for (new single player ideas).

At the end of the day, we all have to remember that it's Fizzer's game and he knows the direction he wants to take it, and that is the direction it will go.

Edited 5/8/2015 19:29:46