PDA

View Full Version : Feature request



rasqual
08-12-2005, 10:38 PM
How about intelligence reports that cost jewels? That's basically what spies do, anyway. ;-)

So if I want to see when a particular user is active, for example -- I mean, I want to be able to have access to reports that show when the person did what -- bought armies, gained jewels, etc. (sysop-type info!), I can. For a price.

There has to be some way to counter it, though. There needs to be some evidence that someone is spying on you, and some means to discover clues about that.

How about this? Each participant in the game -- or at least, those with designs for spying on other players -- would be free to carve out some "home territory" in the game -- territory that's not really conquerable. It's just geography. Nothing especially obtrusive about it.

BUT. . .

When you go a-spying, you leave traces of your activity. These traces evanesce after a few days, but during their life you cannot eradicate them. They show up in your home territory -- though people may not even know where that is. They discover that your spies operate safehouses in such areas by finding these traces of your activity, so to speak.

These traces of activity are placemarks that are very hard to see -- some translucent placemark of a neutral color. They have descriptions that give oblique hints about the spying activity, and who it's being done by. This would have to be automated, of course.

Furthermore, the earth is covered with comparable placemarks with "noisy" data. Some of it is just literally nothing -- just noise. Something to waste a counter-agent's time clicking on. Other of these are red herrings -- stuff that looks like inside information, but it's either "error" or a ruse.

And so forth.

Just a thought. ;-)

Mickey
08-13-2005, 09:08 PM
How about intelligence reports that cost jewels? That's basically what spies do, anyway. ;-)

So if I want to see when a particular user is active, for example -- I mean, I want to be able to have access to reports that show when the person did what -- bought armies, gained jewels, etc. (sysop-type info!), I can. For a price.
Cool idea. It's on the to-do list now.


How about this? Each participant in the game -- or at least, those with designs for spying on other players -- would be free to carve out some "home territory" in the game -- territory that's not really conquerable. It's just geography. Nothing especially obtrusive about it.
I'm liking this idea, as it's similar to the "how can we attack the troops that aren't in a city" thoughts. The issue is still how to let people carve out that space, but I'm getting some ideas together.


When you go a-spying, you leave traces of your activity. These traces evanesce after a few days, but during their life you cannot eradicate them. They show up in your home territory -- though people may not even know where that is. They discover that your spies operate safehouses in such areas by finding these traces of your activity, so to speak.

These traces of activity are placemarks that are very hard to see -- some translucent placemark of a neutral color. They have descriptions that give oblique hints about the spying activity, and who it's being done by. This would have to be automated, of course.

Furthermore, the earth is covered with comparable placemarks with "noisy" data. Some of it is just literally nothing -- just noise. Something to waste a counter-agent's time clicking on. Other of these are red herrings -- stuff that looks like inside information, but it's either "error" or a ruse.
That's getting quite complex there. This is a good idea for in the future, but probably not something I can implement real soon.

rasqual
08-13-2005, 11:50 PM
How about an option to capture -- not just obliterate -- armies? What is this, no one ever surrenders? Or are the invaders ever and always adopting a scorched earth policy toward the hapless defeated: "nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!"

There needs to be some method whereby peaceful turnovers can be accomplished, too. Threaten a weak enemy with overwhelming force, and offer terms.

Obviously, suggestions like this depend on a re-imagining of the game as something more holistic, more strategically and tactically sophisticated, than we presently find it. The platform is here. You've implemented a fun, crazy first stage where interested parties can meet and see how ruthless each other are. ;-) The next step: think 20 steps beyond any of the suggestions you're getting in these forums. Plan. Consider whether an architectural/feature decision will make the game richer and implicate other areas of the game, or whether it just adds some isolated window dressing.

Speaking of window dressing, in addition to allowing users to pick their own colors (and transparency, as I suggested elsewhere), how about the city shape? The extrusions could be round, square, triangular, or (?).

KUTGW.

- Scott

Mickey
08-14-2005, 12:27 AM
How about an option to capture -- not just obliterate -- armies?
Good thought. It's on the to-do list now.


There needs to be some method whereby peaceful turnovers can be accomplished, too. Threaten a weak enemy with overwhelming force, and offer terms.
The problem is that we don't know when a player might come back to the game. As such, "offering terms" probably wouldn't work. We could maybe have automatic terms (example: if one player has 5x more armies, they win and the loser can keep their remaining troops).


Obviously, suggestions like this depend on a re-imagining of the game as something more holistic, more strategically and tactically sophisticated, than we presently find it.
Agreed. I initially was more focused on the how - how to make a network link pass extra variables, how to create dynamic polygons, etc. Now I can focus more on the details of the game itself.


Speaking of window dressing, in addition to allowing users to pick their own colors (and transparency, as I suggested elsewhere), how about the city shape? The extrusions could be round, square, triangular, or (?).
Ahh, great idea. It's on the to-do list.

rasqual
08-14-2005, 12:45 AM
The problem is that we don't know when a player might come back to the game. As such, "offering terms" probably wouldn't work. We could maybe have automatic terms (example: if one player has 5x more armies, they win and the loser can keep their remaining troops).

Right. Think of it this way -- if the paymaster isn't around to give them their wages (he's a hands-off general who'd rather play with his grandchildren in Williamsburg ; -) then the troops start losing loyalty. In the absence of leadership, whoever's in charge has to feed his troops, and you offer them some of your own logistical resources, OR certain defeat. The calculus is clear enough for any hungry, unpaid major to appreciate. ;-)

- Scott