This topic contains 5 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Willis 12 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #3490

    sleestak
    Participant

    An important game dynamic is truces – e.g., players ganging up on a shielded tank. Too often everyone goes for the most vulnerable tanks, accepting that the shielded tank will win, so they might as well get the few kills they can. Kudos to the shield user for being smart. Everyone else gets what they deserve for sealing their own fate.

    Just the same, here is an idea…

    Create a truce prompt to solicit pacts between multiple tanks. Truced tanks are displayed in the same color. Truces can be called off at any time at the end of a round. Limit truce solicitations to two per player per round, to avoid abuse. IMHO, streamlining the truce process (from today’s clunky chatting) would help the weakest players the most.

    #18850

    BOY
    Participant

    @sleestak wrote:

    Just the same, here is an idea…

    Create a truce prompt to solicit pacts between multiple tanks. Truced tanks are displayed in the same color. Truces can be called off at any time at the end of a round. Limit truce solicitations to two per player per round, to avoid abuse. IMHO, streamlining the truce process (from today’s clunky chatting) would help the weakest players the most.

    went back and read this one, pretty cool idea, really. Sleestak delivers again. I think that would be a great way, to handicap the veterans. Perhaps it could be made so that the higher your rank the fewer truces you are allowed. Penalties would apply for killing your ally and so on and so forth. Similar to a temproary team except the stats are not combined.

    #18851

    Willis
    Participant

    The idea is nice but it does not seem realistic. If your going to make a truce, whats more likely to occur?

    A) “yo *player* truce?” – “k” – *half the players not realize their truced*
    B) submit official truce request to *player* – wait for player responce – player accepts – colors adjust to show everyone your truced.

    What I’m getting at is people won’t waste their time declaring truces they’ll just have a verbal agreement not to shoot at each other. Sometimes people may not even say it in the game they know they won’t shoot at each other till the end due to the layout.

    Certainly is nice but I doubt it to be used. I don’t see any perks and applying penalties would only re-enforce the “clunky chatting” as sleestak refered to it.

    #18852

    Blasterman
    Participant

    Willis, mind deleting the second post, it’s the exact same as the first!!! 8)

    #18853

    BOY
    Participant

    @willis wrote:

    The idea is nice but it does not seem realistic. If your going to make a truce, whats more likely to occur?

    A) “yo *player* truce?” – “k” – *half the players not realize their truced*
    B) submit official truce request to *player* – wait for player responce – player accepts – colors adjust to show everyone your truced.

    What I’m getting at is people won’t waste their time declaring truces they’ll just have a verbal agreement not to shoot at each other. Sometimes people may not even say it in the game they know they won’t shoot at each other till the end due to the layout.

    Certainly is nice but I doubt it to be used. I don’t see any perks and applying penalties would only re-enforce the “clunky chatting” as sleestak refered to it.

    No way dude 😛 answer B is the right one
    instead of a color change which is really hard to identify quickly – a number should be assigned to the start of the players names in bold font that are allys such as “[Truce A]”

    I dunno willis, I think that you are right that this wont eliminate all the verbal truces necessarily, I think though that it actually will streamline things, and players will use it so long as it seems easy to understand and the screen is not cluttered. The truce list could also be added at the sideof th screen along the edge in small font for instance.

    Other features could make it useful, as i said, penalties for killing allys, shared round wins, or split round wins, (point scores would be needed) rewards for killing trucers etc……. would make lots more fun of things i think, would end all the bickering about truces (or the vast majority of it) it would be less likely for me to aggree to a verbal truce if i dont know you, i would rather use the truce interface so as to properly trust you. yes, a penalty applies for killing ally, yet, it can still be done for a win perhaps. But you see, if I formally agree and I get killed, it amounts to my fault more thant the backstabber really.

    #18854

    Apollo Tangent
    Participant

    I’m not sure if Gavin would want to put forth the effort in coding what you’re requesting since truces are not that common in the game. Unless it has become more prevelent in the recent past…

    It’s an interesting idea though.

    A.T.

    I make my chat less clunky by typing trw? <<< that would mean truce willis?

    and if he says k… I’ll just kill him for skill points because he is so highly ranked now… (just kidding).

    A.T.

    #18855

    Willis
    Participant

    Oh leave it to Apollo to be a back stabber 😛

    Well the only sort of penalty I would suggest when a trucer betrays another – (again this is very tight-rope, becuase the more penalties mean the less chances feature is used) – would be kamakazi.

    Let me clearify: In the event a truce is still in session and player A kills player B with their primary weapon (ergo – no funky deaths taking out another by mistake) – player A dies on the spot gains a self kill and like a self kill looses 1 kill point on the game-scoreboard.

    Its very harsh, but very fair IMO.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.