Create winning teams for relic and wonder victory instead of letting all allies…
Description
Details
Event Timeline
Comment Actions A bit more clarification: Comment Actions The trick here is defining when the counter needs to be reset, to me defeating a player defending a wonder is enough reason to reset the countdown, one can argue differently however. But as the case is specifically named in the commit message Reset counters on playerDefeat requesting verification, further discussion should be in a trac ticket imo. Comment Actions
It's not in question that the code does what it claims, it's concerned that what it does is not what is reasonable. Objectives should be as straightforward as possible, as simple as possible, so I'd rather have went with only the first rule as was the case before (which doesn't mean that there might be a simple alternative satisfying more). If my allies were defeated or declared war on me, that shouldn't make me lose the victory timer. (Nitpicking about the phrasing in the victory condition descriptions:
#4648 doesn't speak about defeat or diplomacy changes at all, it was only about making the set of winners independent of the playerIDs. Comment Actions Since the commit does what its supposed to and the behavior was intended in the first place, accepting this as there is technically nothing broken here. Comment Actions So when I commit a bug and call it "commit a bug", it's not broken because it does what it claims to? Comment Actions The objective is straightforward now, as the timer is reset on every event that the "winning team" changes
Certainly agree for lms, but in an allied victory game loosing a team member for me is enough reason to say the "team" is defeated. But as there is a new team meeting the victory conditions, a new timer is set for that team.
The resets doesn't invalidate "win if held for X time" as the team holding the wonder/relic doesn't hold it anymore as the team broke up. Comment Actions (One string concern for wonder.json if this concern is not addressed.)
Previously the objective was to build or capture a wonder and keep it for X minutes to win, or be an ally of that player at the time of victory. The player that owns the wonder is the one that has the most vital interest to defend it, allies may withdraw their alliance for strategic reasons.
For me it isn't, so we must use a stronger measure than opinion and weigh specific advantages and disadvantages of the proposed rules instead.
No, both the team and the sets of mutual allies are still the same. The wonder victory description is wrong because it doesn't state the defeat part anywhere. The timer will be reset when the Wonder is destroyed or captured or in allied victory when the owners alliances change.", So I ask to ensure that a player still wins wonder victory after holding a wonder for X minutes, even if his ally behaves against the interest of that player or messes up: The current ruleset has so many constraints, that it is much less likely to fulfil, making it an unattractive victory condition. I urge you to reconsider what your anti-use cases were that lead you to change this to begin with. If it's a weird situation, for instance that someone can win by allying the wonderowner a second before the victory, that effect must be compared to the negative impact that changing it to the current state lead to. Victory conditions should not be be optimized to make it easy for the developer to think through all possible consequences of the rule (which group of players can win) but to optimize player experience (ease to think through everything is a playerinterest too, but not the only one). As I said the wonder owner is the one who in doubt has to invest order of magnitude more for the team to achieve wonder victory, so it shouldn't be to his disadvantage if his allies do things that lead to their defeat. Another impact contrary to the idea of wonder victory that gives it it's name is that you can reset the wonder victory timer either by destroying or capturing the wonder or by defeating one ally.
Those are opinions without arguments, I like red over blue, so what? There are less sentences explaining your opinion than above statements.
I think there is a logically wrong conclusion / fallacy here.
X is equivalent to Y is more symmetrical than X implies Y, but that doesn't seem like an argument to change it that way. Comment Actions se>>! In rP21441#31054, @elexis wrote:
It's not a bug. It's a different perception of how it should work. But I agree a reduction in the team should not reset the timer. If this still needs some discussion, I think we should discuss this in the forums or in a ticket. | ||||||||||||||