[GO] Fog Confirmation Round

[Woodruff]

Then play speed fog.

Why are you so against this and continue to tell others to deal with it as it stands? If you don't like the thought of the option getting implemented, you can just close your eyes when you hit the Activate button so that you don't get a fair chance to see the board.

I've gone into this at length in past threads, but I have several issues with the fog rule. My main objection as it pertains to this suggestion is that there is an inherent element of chance to this game. You will not always get to go first. Your opponent may get a bonus in the drop. Green could be your unlucky color. The dice suck. The sun was in your eyes.

In addition, if I hear one more person cry about how they didn't get a snapshot of the board I'm going to fling that jar of placenta I always have waiting. If you use BOB, snapshots, or any other game enhancing add-on, you have no right to call me a poor sport or accuse me of having an unfair advantage. I will sign on and take my turn as I damn well please. This is a casual site. The idea that missing one viewing of the board will ruin the game for you is unfathomable to me.

I don't think most of us would take it to that extreme, we are just looking for a way to balance out some of the inherent elements of chance that there are in the game already.

My view of this is to side with squishyg in that to "fix" this, what needs to be done is to correct the fog aspect so that it tells you who attacked you and from where (you'd have that information in any sort of real war, after all). In fact, this exact thing has been suggested a number of times, and every time there is a hue and cry about "if you pay attention to the game logs, you can figure everything out". So it seems to me that the right way to handle this is to actually correct the silly implementation of fog as it currently stands so that the "fair" information you're looking for is present, rather than trying to backdoor the fix in this manner.

I'd be ok with that approach and makes sense where you are coming from as opposed to the "play sunny" replies.

I'd like to add that the current fog rule should be modified as you laid it out but then also implement the extreme foggy suggestion from the other thread for those who don't want such an informative game log.

Sadly, that basic suggestion has been rejected several times.

[HardAttack]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

[squishyg]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

The site implodes.

I imagine the game would just start.

[patrickaa317]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

It auto-activates at 24 hours

[kjg21]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

A burst of energy is released and a plane crashes. Just ask the people in Lost.

[agentcom]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

It auto-activates at 24 hours

And it should count as a missed turn. Just like normal. If they've made preliminary rounds part of the game for manual deployment, I don't see how this would be any different.

In manual deploy, you get to deploy but not attack or fort. This would simply remove another element of functionality.

As for those of you that just say "play sunny" I say "Only read suggestions that you approve of" See ya

[squishyg]

what if no one presses the activate button ?

It auto-activates at 24 hours

And it should count as a missed turn. Just like normal. If they've made preliminary rounds part of the game for manual deployment, I don't see how this would be any different.

In manual deploy, you get to deploy but not attack or fort. This would simply remove another element of functionality.

As for those of you that just say "play sunny" I say "Only read suggestions that you approve of" See ya

How will I know if I approve of the suggestion unless I read it?

Silly goose, dissent is good for democracy

[agentcom]

Squishy, I have no problem with dissent. I just don't think anything productive is happening when people say "just go play sunny." Obviously, that is a different type of gameplay. These people want to play foggy. They just want the fog to be equally foggy to all. Equality is also good for democracy.

[Domicas]

Concise description:
After the second player joins a 1v1 fog game, the play is frozen until the first player gets a chance to view the game and take a snapshot.

Specifics/Details:
Change the game so that no moves are possible until all players have entered the game.
The time limit for viewing the game is the same as the time allowed for one turn.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
As it is now, the 2nd player joining a game has an advantage because he gets to view the map and, (if its his turn to play), take his turn before the first player sees the map. This leads to long delays in joining tournament games as each player tries to join the game last. It also leads to hard feelings when a player takes a turn before his opponent sees the map.

This could also apply to multi-player games but it has the most effect on 1v1.

[chapcrap]

This has been suggested before, but for all games that are foggy. I don't mind the suggestion, but I think it should have a timer or something.

[nicestash]

Why not just have the game automatically take a snapshot?

[chapcrap]

Why not just have the game automatically take a snapshot?

It's a different snapshot for each person.

And I think it's probably easier to code a new round at the beginning of the game where people can take snaps if they want than to actually take the snaps.

[Domicas]

Does anybody object to this idea?

[agentcom]

I don't. I've indicated my support for it in the past. And my preferred method is the one that chap indicates: Another round (similar to manual), where both players have the chance to "play" a limited turn. In the case of manual, you only get the deploy phase. In the case of this setting, you wouldn't even get that. You'd probably click "Start Turn" and (just like after you make a fort in a chained/adjacent game or after you've deployed all your troops in a manual game), your turn ends.

An interesting situation would occur in foggy manual games, as you would have 2 rounds of this type of "non-turn." Two considerations arise from this. First, the "fog/view/snap" turn should come after the "manual/deploy" turn. Second, in a 20 round limit game, you have now decreased the amount of playable rounds to 18, rather than 19 or 20.

Finally, my preferred solution would be to allow for "Round 0" coding in these games, but I have a feeling that is more difficult to code based on my limited knowledge of coding.

Mod hat on: I'll probably be merging this with similar subject matter at some point.

[Domicas]

So how does this work? A suggestion was made, people seem to like it and nobody objects. Does it get implemented or are we just wasting our time here?

[agentcom]

So how does this work? A suggestion was made, people seem to like it and nobody objects. Does it get implemented or are we just wasting our time here?

Well that depends on your definition of "waste of time." This would be a rather large change, but one that many people support. In fact, I'm not sure who opposes this in one form or another. Generally, if a lot of people like a suggestion, it might get stickied so that it stays at the top of the page for a while. Then, when a lot of the details get worked out, it can get move over to Submitted Suggestions. That's one of the site owner Lackattack's "grab bags" for when he does site updates. The process is far from perfect, but that's what you get with a system run by a revolving door of volunteers. Sort of makes sense that it would end up that way.

Anyway, here's where I see this suggestion going, but it's going to take a while because this hasn't quite made the radar of my to do list. But if nobody gets to it before me, I'd probably bring all the suggestions about a waiting period together into one thread. Keep in mind that this has been rejected before, so by default, it would probably be pulled together in the Rejected Suggestions. However, if after reading through all the threads, I find that there's really no opposition to it (which I think may well be the case), I'll probably sticky it here. If (1) there's still not a huge amount of dissent; (2) the coding problems (if any) are resolvable; and (3) the moderators with powers greater than mine don't have a problem with it, it would get moved to Submitted Suggestions. The Suggestions team and the Tech Team are working on some ways to try to streamline the final step, which is getting things out of Submitted Suggestions and into actual gameplay. It's a work in progress though.

As you can see, the process takes time. And there is already quite a lot of suggestions in Submitted Suggestions. Some of those have quite the history.

I don't mean to sound like a downer, but just want you to know how the process currently works. It takes time--many say too much time. But that's how it is. I hope this helps.

[darth emperor]

An interesting situation would occur in foggy manual games, as you would have 2 rounds of this type of "non-turn." Two considerations arise from this. First, the "fog/view/snap" turn should come after the "manual/deploy" turn. Second, in a 20 round limit game, you have now decreased the amount of playable rounds to 18, rather than 19 or 20.

I don't see the need of two rounds. With the deployment-turn you get to see the map, before anything happens... it's true that with the second round, you get a chance to see where they deployed (if you are nearby), but based on the log, is very predictable. So I would take out the view for fog in manual games.

[thehippo8]

Concise description: Lock

• -out players from making false starts in the 12-hour get a snap-shot period.

Specifics/Details:

• Rather than have players accidentally move in the first 12 hours of a 24 hour period where they would default the game for premature move by stopping the opponents from being able to take a snap-shot - how about in such clan tournaments there be an option to stop people from being able to move in that 12 hours period? Anti-idiot device.

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

• Mid clan tournament this issue has arisen. It is understood that automatic snap-shots are not available because players have to log on and take the snap-shot. But there are instances where games are forfeit for premature moves where it is idiot error rather than anything else. If there was an option (to be ticked) which stopped players from doing that (such as the servor error which pops up when you try and start a Battle Royale game when you've already joined one in the last month) then this issue would go away. Not sure how serious an issue this is but I can see it ruining otherwise good competition when someone is tired, travelling, limited connection or otherwise makes this error. Thoughts?

[blakebowling]

It doesn't make sense to implement this as an option in the game. It would make much more sense to simply implement snapshots in-game, Store one when the game starts (from each player's perspective) and make it available to that player.

[Pedronicus]

It doesn't make sense to implement this as an option in the game. It would make much more sense to simply implement snapshots in-game, Store one when the game starts (from each player's perspective) and make it available to that player.

you know, it really would be helpful if a few more admin actually played some decent level clan games so they understood the importance of what we are requesting.

[agentcom]

It doesn't make sense to implement this as an option in the game. It would make much more sense to simply implement snapshots in-game, Store one when the game starts (from each player's perspective) and make it available to that player.

you know, it really would be helpful if a few more admin actually played some decent level clan games so they understood the importance of what we are requesting.

Oh boy, first of all, some version of a 12-hour snap period has been suggested before, but the OP is just about clans so ...

First off and in response to the quote above, there's a fair share of clan representation among the moderators--maybe even "decent level" clan representation. Maybe not in the admin, though, if you were intentionally making that distinction.

Second, the best work-around that I've seen for this (as long as you're just talking about clan wars ... and also applies to tourneys) is to put "FOG RULE" or something similar in the game title. Talk to your clan leaders about getting this done.

Third, why should this just be incorporated for clan wars? If someone takes the time to develop it as a site feature, then I think it should be available to all players starting a game. The only downside of a 12-hour snap period would be to freemiums who want to play quickly. So maybe you only make it an option rather than a standard feature of fog games.

[sirgermaine]

Of course, the site as a whole is hypothetically designed such that a player who logs on once a day won't ever miss anything, so it would really make more sense to have a 24-hour waiting period, just to be consistent with the 24-hour turns. It would presumably be a turn 0 like with manual troops. I would agree there is no reason to limit this to clan games.

[jghost7]

Of course, the site as a whole is hypothetically designed such that a player who logs on once a day won't ever miss anything, so it would really make more sense to have a 24-hour waiting period, just to be consistent with the 24-hour turns. It would presumably be a turn 0 like with manual troops. I would agree there is no reason to limit this to clan games.

This.

So, maybe instead of adding a full turn of dead time, you could start at -12 hrs. So, game initializes at 6pm today, and the 24 hr timer would begin at 6am tomorrow.

I don't think the starting player should be only allowed to use 12 hrs on their turn if something like this is implemented.

I do think that blake is right though, an auto snap probably would best and easiest.

Thanks,

J

[agentcom]

Of course, the site as a whole is hypothetically designed such that a player who logs on once a day won't ever miss anything, so it would really make more sense to have a 24-hour waiting period, just to be consistent with the 24-hour turns. It would presumably be a turn 0 like with manual troops. I would agree there is no reason to limit this to clan games.

Presumably jghost was saying "This." to the blue part, which I also agree with, but I thought the red part was a good point. Never thought about that before.

[jghost7]

Of course, the site as a whole is hypothetically designed such that a player who logs on once a day won't ever miss anything, so it would really make more sense to have a 24-hour waiting period, just to be consistent with the 24-hour turns. It would presumably be a turn 0 like with manual troops. I would agree there is no reason to limit this to clan games.

Presumably jghost was saying "This." to the blue part, which I also agree with, but I thought the red part was a good point. Never thought about that before.

Fixed.

He has a valid point here. What I suggested did not contradict his point, but just showed an alternative solution. I used a 36 hr variant rather than his 48 hr version, but they are both consistent with the first player having a full 24 hrs to play the turn.

Thanks,

J