Make the ability to attack/bombard an implicit requirement

[ender516]

Concise description:

• Since the game engine now recognizes requirements (sometimes known as losing conditions), it should generate an implicit one which requires a player to have at least one territory which can attack or bombard.

Specifics/Details:

• There are a few maps in play where it is possible for a player to be on the board without the ability to affect the outcome of the game. The Home Runs on the Baseball map and Alcatraz on San Francisco leap to mind.
• Once a player is reduced to just territories like these, they are forced to continue taking turns, only to deploy with no hope of making any difference to the game. This does not add to their enjoyment of the site. (Yes, they shouldn't have got into that spot, but it is not always entirely their fault.)
• Players in this situation may deadbeat, delaying the game for the other players. On the other hand, a freemium player may be stuck with a game taking up a precious slot.
• The solution is to have the game engine automatically generate a Map XML <requirement> which contains all the territories on the map that can attack or bombard any other territory, with the <required> value being set to 1. Then, whenever a player gets completely stuck, they will be eliminated by the mechanism already in place for the losing conditions.
• For efficiency, if this <requirement> contains all the territories on the map (that is, if there are no black holes like Alcatraz), then it can be dropped from consideration.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• No one gets trapped in a game that they cannot really play.
• No one gets delayed by deadbeats who don't show up to take a pointless turn.

[Metsfanmax]

One thing worth pointing out -- a player can still win the game in these situations if their opponents deadbeat out.

[Dibbun]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

[ender516]

One thing worth pointing out -- a player can still win the game in these situations if their opponents deadbeat out.

True, but that seems highly unlikely. The opponent is assured of a win if they keep working at it, so why would they deadbeat?

[Metsfanmax]

One thing worth pointing out -- a player can still win the game in these situations if their opponents deadbeat out.

True, but that seems highly unlikely. The opponent is assured of a win if they keep working at it, so why would they deadbeat?

Well of course they wouldn't intentionally do that, but real life comes up and people miss turns.

[ender516]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

[Metsfanmax]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. Imagine that you waste the majority of your troops getting your intended target down to his last territory, and before you can finish them off, they get eliminated by a game mechanic and you get no points for the kill!

[greenoaks]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

no, in an assassin game getting booted would give the win to someone OR force a reshuffle of targets. both of which would be unfair.

it would also be possible to win a game from that position if the games where Nuclear spoils.

[ender516]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. Imagine that you waste the majority of your troops getting your intended target down to his last territory, and before you can finish them off, they get eliminated by a game mechanic and you get no points for the kill!

no, in an assassin game getting booted would give the win to someone OR force a reshuffle of targets. both of which would be unfair.

it would also be possible to win a game from that position if the games where Nuclear spoils.

I don't usually play assassin or terminator, but I thought with the new requirement mechanics, the player who captured or annihilated the territory which triggered the losing condition got credit for the kill, so it would not be much different than the situation now when someone eliminates a player's last territory: the points in a terminator game go to the last attacker, and the win in assassin goes to the person assigned that target, regardless of who did the deed.

I can see that there might be an issue in either type of game if the losing condition was triggered by the loss of a killer neutral territory. Does anyone know what happens now in terminator and assassin games?

And with regard to Nuclear spoils, I suppose it would be just possible that a player's last set of spoils might nuke an opponent into oblivion, but once you are reduced to, say, just Alcatraz, you will not be getting more spoils.

[blakebowling]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. Imagine that you waste the majority of your troops getting your intended target down to his last territory, and before you can finish them off, they get eliminated by a game mechanic and you get no points for the kill!

no, in an assassin game getting booted would give the win to someone OR force a reshuffle of targets. both of which would be unfair.

it would also be possible to win a game from that position if the games where Nuclear spoils.

I don't usually play assassin or terminator, but I thought with the new requirement mechanics, the player who captured or annihilated the territory which triggered the losing condition got credit for the kill, so it would not be much different than the situation now when someone eliminates a player's last territory: the points in a terminator game go to the last attacker, and the win in assassin goes to the person assigned that target, regardless of who did the deed.

I can see that there might be an issue in either type of game if the losing condition was triggered by the loss of a killer neutral territory. Does anyone know what happens now in terminator and assassin games?

And with regard to Nuclear spoils, I suppose it would be just possible that a player's last set of spoils might nuke an opponent into oblivion, but once you are reduced to, say, just Alcatraz, you will not be getting more spoils.

I say this would be fine in standard, and terminator. However in assassin and team games, this shouldn't be enforced.

[greenoaks]

Another is that I may want my teammate to stay alive and deploy on me, even if they can't attack anything.

Now that is a valid point which I had not considered. I guess I tend to think in terms of standard games, not team games. So we would not want this feature active in team games. I think it would still be reasonable in terminator and assassin games, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. Imagine that you waste the majority of your troops getting your intended target down to his last territory, and before you can finish them off, they get eliminated by a game mechanic and you get no points for the kill!

no, in an assassin game getting booted would give the win to someone OR force a reshuffle of targets. both of which would be unfair.

it would also be possible to win a game from that position if the games where Nuclear spoils.

I don't usually play assassin or terminator, but I thought with the new requirement mechanics, the player who captured or annihilated the territory which triggered the losing condition got credit for the kill, so it would not be much different than the situation now when someone eliminates a player's last territory: the points in a terminator game go to the last attacker, and the win in assassin goes to the person assigned that target, regardless of who did the deed.

I can see that there might be an issue in either type of game if the losing condition was triggered by the loss of a killer neutral territory. Does anyone know what happens now in terminator and assassin games?

And with regard to Nuclear spoils, I suppose it would be just possible that a player's last set of spoils might nuke an opponent into oblivion, but once you are reduced to, say, just Alcatraz, you will not be getting more spoils.

other people in the game get spoils too so while you are alive you have a chance of winning

[Joodoo]

Great option for Standard and Terminator, but may be controversial for Assassin (as it's still possible for the stuck player to win)
For team games, it should be made as an option (the team with the stuck player decides if he/she should be eliminated)

[greenoaks]

Great option for Standard and Terminator, but may be controversial for Assassin (as it's still possible for the stuck player to win)
For team games, it should be made as an option (the team with the stuck player decides if he/she should be eliminated)

when are you suggesting we decide?

i know my decision would depend on the spoils my partner has but i wouldn't know that before the game starts.

[ManBungalow]

Not even a week ago, I won a game on King's Court by keeping players trapped strategically on Archers/Catapults and eliminating them for multiple mid-cashes (escalating) at the right time. Sorry Ender, I can totally understand why you're suggesting this, but I don't approve. This changes things, and people don't like change. Particularly when bus drivers are involved.

[ender516]

Not even a week ago, I won a game on King's Court by keeping players trapped strategically on Archers/Catapults and eliminating them for multiple mid-cashes (escalating) at the right time. Sorry Ender, I can totally understand why you're suggesting this, but I don't approve. This changes things, and people don't like change. Particularly when bus drivers are involved.

What I am suggesting would not apply to King's Court. Archers and Catapults can bombard, so the implicit requirement would not be triggered.

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

[chapcrap]

I think this would only be appropriate in Standard games and even then I don't think that it should be appropriate because of the deadbeat option. I say no to this.

[Metsfanmax]

I think this would only be appropriate in Standard games and even then I don't think that it should be appropriate because of the deadbeat option. I say no to this.

I also think we should consider whether we really want to be protecting someone whose only remaining way to win is for his opponent to stop showing up!

[jefjef]

No. No.

[chapcrap]

I think this would only be appropriate in Standard games and even then I don't think that it should be appropriate because of the deadbeat option. I say no to this.

I also think we should consider whether we really want to be protecting someone whose only remaining way to win is for his opponent to stop showing up!

Ha, well that's not exactly what I'm trying to advocate. I'm just saying he still has a shot. And the other thing is if it is not a 2 player game, then the other players left still have to account for him.

This just happened to me in a King's Court game. Game 9536568

All that blue has left for the past 5 rounds or so is an archer. There is no way he can win the game, but he's right next to me with a large stack on the archer. What if he decides to get mad at me? I have to pay attention to that. Because of that, yellow is going to win the game. He probably was going to win anyway at that point, but I would have been a bigger threat had it not been for blue. It's all part of the game. It's my fault for not eliminating blue when I had the chance. That's what I get.

Not only is this not a good idea, I think it would be very difficult to implement. If you could set it for only standard games. When would it take effect? Let's say I'm going after someone in King's Court. Do they immediately get taken out of the game once they only have archers and catapults left? So I don't even really need to worry about them at all? Does it take effect at the beginning of the next turn? What if I take out all of territories except archers and catapults and it costs me a lot of men and they have a large stack somewhere else on an archer. They have 5 terts left and another player doesn't know they are only down to archers. So, he has to attack them too. If they aren't there anymore, he gets advantage. The whole idea skews gameplay so much.

[ender516]

I think this would only be appropriate in Standard games and even then I don't think that it should be appropriate because of the deadbeat option. I say no to this.

I also think we should consider whether we really want to be protecting someone whose only remaining way to win is for his opponent to stop showing up!

Ha, well that's not exactly what I'm trying to advocate. I'm just saying he still has a shot. And the other thing is if it is not a 2 player game, then the other players left still have to account for him.

This just happened to me in a King's Court game. Game 9536568

All that blue has left for the past 5 rounds or so is an archer. There is no way he can win the game, but he's right next to me with a large stack on the archer. What if he decides to get mad at me? I have to pay attention to that. Because of that, yellow is going to win the game. He probably was going to win anyway at that point, but I would have been a bigger threat had it not been for blue. It's all part of the game. It's my fault for not eliminating blue when I had the chance. That's what I get.

Not only is this not a good idea, I think it would be very difficult to implement. If you could set it for only standard games. When would it take effect? Let's say I'm going after someone in King's Court. Do they immediately get taken out of the game once they only have archers and catapults left? So I don't even really need to worry about them at all? Does it take effect at the beginning of the next turn? What if I take out all of territories except archers and catapults and it costs me a lot of men and they have a large stack somewhere else on an archer. They have 5 terts left and another player doesn't know they are only down to archers. So, he has to attack them too. If they aren't there anymore, he gets advantage. The whole idea skews gameplay so much.

As I said in my reply to ManBungalow, this would not apply in King's Court, as archers and catapults can bombard. Only when a player could neither attack nor bombard would the automatic elimination occur.

And as I said in the original post, this would work like a requirement/losing condition, which takes effect immediately upon the loss of the territory which results in a player no longer meeting the minimum requirements for survival. The point is to release a player from a game in which he can take no active part.

The issue of team games may be of some concern, since the stuck player can deploy on team mates, and thus can contribute.

Great option for Standard and Terminator, but may be controversial for Assassin (as it's still possible for the stuck player to win)
For team games, it should be made as an option (the team with the stuck player decides if he/she should be eliminated)

From my understanding of Assassin games, a stuck player could only win if someone else killed his target for him: hardly the mark of a great assassin. And the current game engine has no mechanism for taking input from a team with regard to a decision.

[chapcrap]

Ok ender, you had me at

this would not apply in King's Court

Actually, I guess it would be ok, but I don't think that it would be a whole site modification. It seems like maybe more of a map to map change. If it is takes effect in the same way as a victory condition, then perhaps this is something that should be looked into as a losing condition for maps. Such as taking a home run ball in baseball and then having all other territories eliminated. Or having only a Baathists loyalty left in Battle for Iraq!

I suppose I see what you're saying, but I don't think it should be implemented on maps already in play unless they are still BETA or will be taken back to BETA. I still think this is going to affect gameplay. If it is added on to future maps as a losing condition, then I do not mind. I think that would actually be a new wrinkle in gameplay that could be intriguing. I just don't want gameplay effected on maps that are already in play.

[ender516]

Well, the point of the suggestion was to fix existing maps in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal. The idea arose from a discussion of XML revamps that would take advantage of the losing condition feature, so your comments just take things back to where they started. Also, adding this kind of requirement to the XML explicitly would be somewhat lengthy, listing nearly every territory on the map for the sake of excluding the black holes. The game engine could determine this fairly easily.

This suggestion might affect gameplay on some maps, but it was framed in a way intended only to speed up the end game for someone in a game they could not win. I don't see how knowing that this feature was in place would affect the earlier stages of the game. If I can squeeze my opponent in San Francisco onto Alcatraz, then I have won, with or without this.

[greenoaks]

Well, the point of the suggestion was to fix existing maps in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal.

existing maps do not need fixing. your opinion is not the opinion of this site or of the many thousands of people who play here.

This suggestion might affect gameplay on some maps, but it was framed in a way intended only to speed up the end game for someone in a game they could not win. I don't see how knowing that this feature was in place would affect the earlier stages of the game. If I can squeeze my opponent in San Francisco onto Alcatraz, then I have won, with or without this.

no you haven't.

in team games that player can still contribute to their teams deployment
in terminater games you have other players to deal with, some of whom may want a shot at points by eliminating the restricted player
in assassin games any player on the board can win if their target is killed, it's not necessarily the most dominating player
in nuclear spoils games any player can win if nukes eliminate the remaining player(s)

[chapcrap]

The fact that this would only be feasibly applicable, without affecting game play, in 2 player, standard, non-nuclear games on a just a few maps seems like it should merit very little importance.

[ender516]

Well, the point of the suggestion was to fix existing maps in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal.

existing maps do not need fixing. your opinion is not the opinion of this site or of the many thousands of people who play here.

Thank you for your opinion. Good to know where to go for the right answer. Could you please post in all the Suggestions topics so we can get all the information we need? Then the Suggestions mods can shut it all down. Also, thanks for removing the part of my post which got in your way.

The idea arose from a discussion of XML revamps that would take advantage of the losing condition feature, so your comments just take things back to where they started. Also, adding this kind of requirement to the XML explicitly would be somewhat lengthy, listing nearly every territory on the map for the sake of excluding the black holes. The game engine could determine this fairly easily.

Some people do believe existing maps need fixing. I'm here to discuss. Are you just here to make pronouncements?

This suggestion might affect gameplay on some maps, but it was framed in a way intended only to speed up the end game for someone in a game they could not win. I don't see how knowing that this feature was in place would affect the earlier stages of the game. If I can squeeze my opponent in San Francisco onto Alcatraz, then I have won, with or without this.

no you haven't.

in team games that player can still contribute to their teams deployment

A fair point which has been raised already, but not a deal breaker in my mind. Would you routinely allow one of your teammates to get into a spot like this?

in terminater games you have other players to deal with, some of whom may want a shot at points by eliminating the restricted player

The points in a terminator game would be handled just as they are now in any map with a losing condition: the player whose action triggered the elimination would get the points. So, instead of the points going to the player who took Alcatraz away from the stuck player, they would go to the player who took away the stuck player's second-last territory. Not much of a difference.

in assassin games any player on the board can win if their target is killed, it's not necessarily the most dominating player

You must be very proud when you win an assassin game because some other player kills your target for you.

in nuclear spoils games any player can win if nukes eliminate the remaining player(s)

In any game, any player can win if luck favours them. Sure, it would be awesome to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by nuking your opponent(s) with your last set of nukes while trapped on Home Run 2, or having someone do it for you, but really, what are the chances?