People should also realize, especially those players who like to log on to wol every day, that they'll have to play more games simultaneously to average out to a turn every day. That's all well and good, except we don't have many players at the moment, so in the short term you may see less action from your games (punctuated by days where you feel like all you are doing is playing WOL, when you have 4-6 camp games going with the same people and they all happen to be on...but, in the end, isn't that what we really want ).

All in all I think it's worth some serious consideration, particularly since something like this teaches lessons directly applicable to WOK. I don't know how the the vets who stopped playing after the BP changes will feel, but perhaps this is a step towards getting some of that enthusiasm back (and diminishing the ever present greifing over double turns ). The game will not be as micro intensive as it used to be with battle points, but neither will it be as rigidly unforgiving (and at times seemingly unfair) as the turn system is now.

You're able to have that sense of community with other players (agreeing on a few hours when you will all be available over a weekend to knock out some turns) rather than playing timing games to try to avoid (or implement) double turns. I think that'll be a load of stress off many players, and strike truer to the heart of what is good about WOL: capturing that tabletop (community) gaming experience, where players talk to each other and make their own rules (rather than communicating through a faceless system of predefined interactions).

Interesting points, but I dont see Campaigns ever going fully turn-based. It's just too messy and unpredictable.
Players would never know when their next turn is.
Even in a 12hr block, you'd have to log in every hour for 12 hours straight to see when your turn is, or you may miss it and have to wait another 24hrs (and force everyone else to wait too).
It's just not feasible with larger numbers and international players.

And anything other than a true turn-based system means double-turns is possible to some degree.

So all we can do is try to minimise it's effect.
I think if the turn% between your two turns had some impact that might help.
eg playing 18hrs apart in a 24hr game = 75%.
So in that case, while a double-turn may occur it would only be at 75% strength because the 2nd turn took place only 75% of a turn later.

The best way to do that of course is true tick-based.
Either make each troop only 75% effective (like WoL of old), or make it so you can only move/activate 75% of your troops (like my earlier suggestion with Command Points).

Actually, what I was thinking is that (if players wanted) they could simply log in at the end of their block every day (since it would be a time of their choosing) and take their turn (and if it wasn't available by then they could simply check back the same time tomorrow, because if your turn becomes available outside your window, or very near the end of it, the game waits till your next period). The only reason stay logged in and checking would be to speed up the game. In effect, the game would become WarOnline: the postal-chess version.

Of course, as you point out, the more players in game the less feasible this becomes: ultimately, if people so desired, we could simply put some campaign maps within the duels system. If someone wants to get a group of 10 players together and play a truly turn based camp players can do that (with the option to force turns if someone is taking too long). I don't think it would be too difficult to do, and would provide the option for a true turn based camp (without imposing it). It might be worth play testing just to see if it's feasible (and if people enjoy it), even if it isn't the direction regular camps end up going.

As far as battle points go, obviously the switch was a big point of contention, with many vet players saying they'd only play the game if it went back to that system. Of course, the problem (as you mentioned), was micro: a 2 turn per day game actually required 4 logins to be competitive (since you could attack at 40%). However, perhaps there is some middle ground to be found here: while it is important to allow players to take their turns under the time limit (so taking a turn late one day doesn't force them to skip a turn to get back on schedule) I think we can diminish the offensive ability of that.

Taking your suggestion, I'd propose the following (for at 24 hour game): from 18-23 hours from last turn players only have 75% movement and 50% attack power available (in other words, they can only move 3/4 as far and attack for 1/2 as much damage, while defensive retaliation damage is unaffected). The penalty needs to be severe, and non-scaling, because I'd very gladly function at 80-90% to get another turn in on my opponent, while I'd think long and hard if it were only 50% functionality. Having it at 23 hours instead of 24 is a convenience issue: if I can't afford a 50% turn I shouldn't be forced to take one in order to move my turns slightly earlier. On the flip side, players who take their turn later (lets say 36 hours hours after their last turn) would get a small bonus (125% damage). That way, if you are late for your turn, and get double moved, you have some ability to mitigate the loss (though it is not powerful enough to warrant delaying your turn as a consistently viable strategy.

A few key points: those players moving within an hour of each other will still have the possibility of being double turned at full strength, so all the turn chasers who insist at moving the second the turn becomes available will not see much appreciable gain (other than comfort in knowing someone moving 2-6 hours after you will not be able to get a full move in before you next turn). Also, since it does not diminish the ability to commit a double turn, they will still occur (though it becomes a calculated risk): getting in another turn at 50% gives your opponent the option of waiting and retaliating with a 125% turn.

Last Edited : Sunday, 27 June 2010 - 19:04

P.S - While I like the idea of command points as a possible resource system (since the current system is a bit too simple for my taste), I think it is an ineffective solution for the problem at hand. Players typically have at least 25% of their units in non-critical locations and thus would still be able to do just as much damage in a double turn (it would also encourage making lots of cheap to "leave inactive" for a double turn). Additionally, since the point of allowing players to move at 18 hours in a 24 hour game is one of convenience, not being able to move a large part of my forces (even when not attacking) would be counterproductive.

Thus, as a possible resource element (to replace the functionality lost when the market system was replaced) I'm all for exploring it, but I think your other idea is more effective for fixing the turn system.

The thing I dont like about <23hrs having 50% penalty is that it's very very limiting. I cant always log in at 5pm each day. Some days its 3pm some 6pm. Anyone who cant log in at the same time (within 1hr) gets majorly punished.
And it still doesnt prevent double-turns.

The other big issue with double turns (why its so bad), is that players move every troop you have in every turn.
All while the opponent is away and can do nothing.
This is even more of an issue when the player with more troops gets a double turn, as they already had an advantage and that advantage is doubled.

The thing I like about Command Points (in theory) is that having a large army is not the only factor to winning (as it is now).
Since all players start with the same Command Points base income, army size has to be matched by income. If you want to use a larger army, you need to increase that part of your resources (at the expense of other things).

Which also means in the case of a double turn, it becomes much harder to attack twice with everything you've got.
It may even be difficult to attack with everything you've got in 1 turn!
Much more strategic that way.

from the way lothar explained it...the game he is playing is full turn based camps...and its working...

Simon, its one player goes at a time, and its only 8 players.
I dont see it working here, especially with 10+ players.
Players could end up waiting days for 1 turn, all the while never knowing when their next turn will be.

well how about the best of both... 6 and 8 player camps have an option to be played with full turn or with the tick... then the dedicated sincere players can play a fair camp with no chance of double turning... i think most people do get more than one chance a day to check in... in a turn based 6 player game of active members, there could easily be many multiple turn days... games could finish quicker...

Well the other nice feature of these games is that you can get an email when its your turn, so you now immediately when your turn comes. Go log in and take your turn. If someone goes missing for past the allotted turn time they can be sent an email reminder its there turn, then skipped or booted if necessary. I have not seen any larger scale 20 player camps in these other games. I think 8 players is about the max, probably for reasons already noted here.

sorry, there's no way we could have 2 different systems.

turn based is great for small games, but doesnt work for larger games. and we cant have different rules/systems.

btw, WoK is due to be based on fewer larger ongoing games (like the proving grounds), so turn-based would work even less.

well i feel that if double turning exists, then this game is not fair... one good double turn and it can spell game over...

my other suggestion is to return to troop regeneration...(health) it would take 20-24 hrs to fully 100% regenerate a troop(some troops could generate quicker than others...adding new strategy)... you couldn't move a troop until it reached 90%...and if moved before 100%, then the troop would have only half its attack power/range/distance...
that would certainly penalize and discourage double turning!

unless a game is fully turn-based (like a battle), its impossible to truly eliminate double-turns.

all we can do is minimise it's effects, while still allowing some level of flexibility.

its no good forcing players to only be able to play at the exact same time every day, even if it's with a 1hr window.

I'd like to point out that Requiem is discussing this for WOK, not Wol. I always get all excited and then he tells me it is for WOK, so keeeeeeeep waiting.

... and waiting, and waiting ...

as long as double turning is possible, there will be people who take advantage of it... if it is possible, then it should be penalized heavily to discourage it...

is 6 or 8 player turn based duels possible?

Last Edited : Tuesday, 29 June 2010 - 08:57

yeh, multiple player duel type games sound good

not if the game goes fully tick-based.

its very difficult to run both turn-based and tick-based games using the same rules, troops, abilities, techs, etc.

maybe tick based just isn't for me... and its just unfortunate that the turn change takes place at 2am here...

the ability to double turn is the only flaw i can complain about...this game is still awesome and i'll continue to play which ever way things unfold in wok... i just want things to be fair...

Not sure if this topic is about eliminating double turns or speeding up a campaign game. If there is a time window for making moves, you will never be able to stop DTs.
I can deal with DTs as part of the game, would like to see games go more quickly.
I think an easy way to speed up the game, is to reset the clock after the last turn.
If last players plays at 17:40, clock resets at 18:00.
Then minus time for availability of troops by half the difference. ( 24:00 - 18:00 )
If available in 20 hrs, it would decrease to 17, or reset time, whichever is greater.
Game turn would never be greater then 24 hrs., but could be reduced, especially at the beginning before battles start.
I noticed an option for a 3T, could replace that with a turn reset game.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 30 June 2010 - 08:17

The more I think about it, the more I see command points as being a possibility, though I wouldn't necessarily call it a fix...more like breaking everyone's kneecaps so we're all a little crippled.

It could be kind of like the barracks system is now: you can build as many as you want, and collect huge numbers of troop points, but you only have a finite amount of gold to field them with. I like how this system gives the player a huge number of options, but the means to only implement a small number at a time. By the same token you may amass a huge army, but you may only be able to command a certain number at a time.

This may actually fit in well with the "summoner" model WOK seems to have (where you choose your "cards" before the battle and may only be able to control a few units if you are not very powerful). This also opens the door to "counter" abilities, where you temporarily reduce another players control over his unit/units or temporary boost the number you can control (to make a big push, or to handle a second front that just opened up).

Think about it, say you have a large army, but can only control half of it in a given turn: you have the ability to boost your control for a limited time, maybe 10 turns, and go on the offensive but you're taking a risk. If you can't take your opponent within the time limit a good portion of your army will be stuck on the field (wide open to counter attack).

Or, you have the big guy attacking the little guy: the larger player has more troops and land, but may not be able to make use of all those resources to crush the smaller player outright. He must, instead, play tactically to push his advantage (rather than rely on his bulk to simply overwhelm the player).

Req talked before about the importance of having to make meaningful choices (in regards to how you spend and protect your resources), and I think this has the potential to create some very significant ones. The endgame of a camp is, typically, one player emerging as the clear dominant and either fighting the rest of the peons (to keep things interesting) or bowling over his weaker neighbors one by one: with command points his advantage is not nearly as overwhelming and the endgame actually becomes interesting.

Of course, it will slow down the game (not how fast people take turns, but how fast they can accomplish things): however, I think this could be a good thing. Ganging up on another player, or multiple players becomes very difficult: the emphasis becomes on smaller armies and precise strikes rather than building up an overwhelming force and steamrolling around the map. It forces players to be active early and often, and if handled well such a system may mitigate a lot of the grieffing issues players have.

If we tried this in WOL, or WOK, I'd suggest a system similar to a game like Stronghold 2 (great game for medieval tactical-strategy btw). Besides gold, advanced units required "honor" points to field: so, knights were incredibly powerful, but since honor was difficult to accumulate, you could never field a huge number of them. In WOL, basic units could use a very small amount of control, whereas 3rd-4th tier units would require a very significant amount. Of course, unit balance might need to be adjusted, but I think it's important to differentiate 10 stacks of spearmen from 10 HC when calculating control costs (otherwise we just go back to the armies of old, where every troop was master lvl).

Last Edited : Wednesday, 30 June 2010 - 10:56