Return "invisible units" -- Increase fairness -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

I enjoy many aspects of this game. It is a strategy game, and I enjoy strategy. Strategy involves mainly involves skill and knowledge. Sure, it also involves a little luck as well. Strategy should not involve when we decide to play this game… I don't like to be the one to talk about flaws in a game I enjoy so much, rather be the one that complements on the strengths of the game. But usually the best complements come from us being quiet and content.

Well, to get to the point: Many players have issues with the advantages those have that log in after their enemies to place units. I've made a few comments on other posts about this, but in the end the post grows old and the way things are stay the same. There area also many other posts of changes that could be made to reduce the advantages later-players have. Some have mentioned fog of war, different daily cycle times, or other changes.

The easiest fix would be to change it back to how it was. It has been programmed before, and would be easy to reinstate. Basically, (for those who don't know) the game would use "invisible units". Invisible units are those that are newly placed and cannot be seen by other players until the daily cycle runs and the invisible units have moved and attacked (if commanded to).

There are 3 things some players don't like about invisible units:
1) They are invisible… How could I possibly stop a bunch of invisible tanks from running down my defenses when the cycle runs? I need to see them to respond to the attack before it happens!
2) I set air attacks on bases. But the bases are surrounded by invisible units! All my missiles and jets get shot down. How will I ever destroy those bases?
3) He keeps jumping down (or up) my coast with an invisible CT in an invisible transport. How will I ever stop it?

To each of these retorts, there is one common flaw: The player that logs on first already has to deal with these problems. He is already playing as if they were "invisible units"… Look:
1) The later-playing player already gets away with smashing through the front lines of the first player. The first player never sees those tanks until they have moved. The first player can only really play defensive: knowing that any offensive placement of units would be easily countered by the later player. I for one never try to take bases unless I play late, thus giving me the offensive (which gives me an unfair advantage for that day). The later player can also stack his troops to barley outmatch the opponent, thus letting him gain ground and the first player to be pushed back.
2) The first player already has to worry about the enemy placing units around bases that he won't ever see that day because they have not been created yet. The first player can expect his planes to get shot down already. So he simply does not try to destroy those bases. The later player can get away with it though: thus causing an unfair advantage.
3) The first player already cannot stop the CT and transport. By the time he notices that the CT has been built, it has already landed down his coastline. The first player already had his transport and CT shot down before they landed up the coast because the later player saw them. This only grants an unfair advantage to the later player. --Besides, with invisible units, the defender can employ invisible units to destroy the CT where he thinks it will land, or destroy the transport where he thinks it will go. He can also be offensive and earn the same coast hopping advantage.

So all invisible units would do is eliminate the advantages those have who log on later. The first player is already playing with invisible units!

I have not forgotten that this is Johnny's game, and he chooses how it is. I am only putting this recommendation back out there, to open a new discussion and hear some constructive arguments from both sides.

I would even suggest having a poll of this to see where the majority lies.

edited 1x / 3m

I remember when Johnny originally implemented this and the majority opposed it then, there was a related poll.

I think the primary problem here is that the game becomes less enjoyable. Instead of dealing with fronts where you can see your opponents you are going to have active fronts where everyone is playing a grand guessing game in areas that appear to be relatively empty. Combat is no longer fun when you can't see what is happening. It is also not the case that every one here is trying to log on right at the very last moment for maximum advantage, there are a number of us who make the bulk of our moves at reasonable times.

But I do understand your concerns. Perhaps on a small map it may make more sense to have this as a feature that could be enabled or disabled. On larger maps though, especially on developed maps where players are already spending several hours or more a day making moves, it becomes impossible to surprise your adversaries on any substantial scale even if you log in during the last couple of hours before the end of a cycle. Invisible units would just be another hinderence.

I think the more viable solution was the rolling end of cycle times. This would at least balance the scales to some extent.

edited 1x / 3m

I started a thread of FOW, (fog of war) meaning you can see units across from you, and anywhere you have units...what you can't see is deep in their heartland....if you have nothing there you shouldn't be able to see it....

Again I refer to WWII and Gulf War where units amassed due to faulty intelligence....

Perhaps, Ghost Units be allowed....for a very small price, US and England set up cardboard Tanks and planes in England to make the Germans think that they were amassing there prior to DDAY.

French did not cover Belgium in WWII due to not seeing the German build up and attack coming from the north, and Iraq, had God knows how many tanks dug in in an area that was for the most point avoided...b/c they couldn't see the real build up....

I think FOW is the answer, make it that each troop can see as far as they're allowed to move....Jeeps becoming even more important for scouting....Bases have a visible range of Placement for the Jeep and Ships (near water) ....

And finally my option of Satellites that are expensive but can be placed forever over an area of land....

I fought for a month against 4 people that for the most part waited til I placed my units, I fought against a guy that was 4x's bigger than me that waited for me to place my units so he could put 1 more unit in the same path so he always won.....

This is frustrating to the game....

and I will start a new thread about another subject not to hijack this one....

I'm going to make an attempt to address this issue in the next version. I think it's going to be a two step build/use cycle. One day, you give the orders to "build" objects. The object's spot is reserved, but it's just a faded, unusable object. During the cycle, if you still own that sector, the object is built. Now you can do something with it.

I believe this would prevent users from having a late advantage. It does add a one day delay to making progress, but I suppose that also adds strategy. You have to plan a step ahead on what resources you think you'll need. After all, it's not like a person can build a base and then build a tank in an instant.

The only problem is time. I'm currently working longer hours and have been mired in a big project that leaves me with little time or desire to do extra coding on my free time. I'd love nothing more than to work on GT games full time, but such is life!

GT has to be what it is for the time being, but I have every intention of making an improved version! I think my plan will be to roll out improvements in smaller versions, rather than go right to a completely restructured v2. But, that's all in the future for now.

I know it can be frustrating when the game isn't evolving or improving. Please bear with me if you can!

Johnny wrote on :

I know it can be frustrating when the game isn't evolving or improving. Please bear with me if you can!

Please do not take our comments as gripes or boredom with the game...and we know you are but one Johnny.....

we make due...and work around.....the game even w/o improvements is still a ton of stra-teegery fun.....

made all the more fun with the added bonus of banging your head against the wall when the guy you are fighting starts placing units at 4:30 AM. But i love the game, and any changes would (probably) only make it better.

edited 2x / 1m

I'm not one to comment on these public message boards very often, but I have noticed this as well. I'm currently fighting with Rick on one map in particular and I at least felt that I was having limited success with aerial attacks on a few of his bases. I had also noticed that the two of us were apparently logging in around the same time each day since I would see troops move or get created or whatnot. A few days ago, though, my jets and missiles began getting shot down much more often and he was able to create more and more bases, turrets, and construction trucks. I attribute a lot of this to shifts in when we were able to log on and make our changes.

I, myself, am more of a morning player, making most of my moves before noon. Occasionally I will get to work a little in the evenings, but most of the time family life prevents it, so, if I want to accomplish anything, it has to be done in the morning. Therefore, I am at the mercy of Rick's invisible troops (of which there are undoubtedly many), and would have to second the motion to reinstate the "invisible troops for all" concept were it really as simple as flipping a switch and activating some dead code in one of Johnny's cron jobs.

On the other hand, I had independently arrived at the solution that Johnny discussed in his post, so I must agree with Johnny that if he didn't leave the code in in the first place and simply comment it out or do some sort of pre-processor conditional coding, I would rather see the implementation of the two-stage approach for buying and moving troops.

Ultimately, as a fellow software developer who has worked for years on a war strategy game similar to this one without ever being able to get it up and running to the point where it was actually a game that people could play and not just busy work for myself, I have the utmost respect for what Johnny has accomplished and, if he says he needs more time to get it right, I say give it to him. Sometimes something small that seems like it would be so simple to tweak can require thousands of lines of code to implement correctly and, as I spent most of my day tracking down (which is why I am still up this late on my computer), even a single character out of place can often have devastating consequences capable of bring down entire systems. Kudos to Johnny for single-handedly creating and bringing to fruition a game of this complexity using cross-browser techniques and requiring no fancy plug-ins.

Personally you may have an advantage by planning moves later if all goes right like that player goes first or goes b4 another player shoots down the other players troops so its not a total advantage however you may get lucky if the stars align

I think modifying the game to run on a 25 hour cycle is the best solution (and the simplest) to go with, without changing the game at all. If the 25 hour cycle doesn't work (after trying it out at least a month) then MAYBE invisibility could be considered.
I'm not really too pleased with the invisible idea, even with Johnny's thoughts, just because of the first few days of gameplay being so limited already. On the same note, it's just one day of a difference. We play for months, what's one more day?

Manaco wrote on :

I think modifying the game to run on a 25 hour cycle is the best solution (and the simplest) to go with, without changing the game at all. If the 25 hour cycle doesn't work (after trying it out at least a month) then MAYBE invisibility could be considered.
I'm not really too pleased with the invisible idea, even with Johnny's thoughts, just because of the first few days of gameplay being so limited already. On the same note, it's just one day of a difference. We play for months, what's one more day?

I agree.

Johnny wrote on :

The only problem is time. I'm currently working longer hours and have been mired in a big project that leaves me with little time or desire to do extra coding on my free time. I'd love nothing more than to work on GT games full time, but such is life!

GT has to be what it is for the time being, but I have every intention of making an improved version! I think my plan will be to roll out improvements in smaller versions, rather than go right to a completely restructured v2. But, that's all in the future for now.

I know it can be frustrating when the game isn't evolving or improving. Please bear with me if you can!

Thanks for your response Johnny. Thanks for reading and considering my suggestion. I like your future plans to resolve this issue. I wish it could be faster, but I understand that a busy life comes first. :)

Thanks to everyone else that offered their views as well. I am still a fan of "invisible units" though, but that is fine. :p

I don't want to sound too much like a complainer. I'm just a big fan of this game and when I notice something that could take a bit of improving, then I'll throw it out there so everyone can enjoy the game just a bit more.

I do have another possible addition that would mix the two ideals of how units should be built and seen: Perhaps allow sea units and CT's to be visible when they are built, and have all other units invisible until the daily cycle. That would help reduce the beach head hopping and other CT skipping. So even though a CT may be visible by a base upon creation, the units around it would be invisible. Sea units and any new units they carry would also be visible upon creation. Just throwing that out there too.

Rick wrote on :

I do have another possible addition that would mix the two ideals of how units should be built and seen: Perhaps allow sea units and CT's to be visible when they are built, and have all other units invisible until the daily cycle. That would help reduce the beach head hopping and other CT skipping. So even though a CT may be visible by a base upon creation, the units around it would be invisible. Sea units and any new units they carry would also be visible upon creation. Just throwing that out there too.

Just my two cents....
If invisible units was the way it goes... I like this idea.
But I much more like Johnny's comment about a two-stage attack and move cycle.. That seems to make more sense to me. I would even take it as far as making bases take two turns to be established. One turn to plan it and place it, then after that it could be usable to create units.. It may slow the game down a little, but it seems to be fair to everyone that's playing it.
one could not simply create a base, place a bunch of units and attack without the other person (because they couldn't get on at 1am) knowing... Perhaps the enemy could see the 'construction' of the base in progress and be able to plan accordingly...to a base that will be there tomorrow.
It's obviously something that will take some tinkering and brainstorming, but overall, this whole game is an enjoyable experience and I look forward to seeing how it progresses! Thanks Johnny!

If the two stage system were implemented, would units in progress be canceled if the base were destroyed before completion? And for the construction of bases, would a ct have to reman on that square for the construction phase, or could it keep moving? If it has to stay, would an in progress base be canceled if the ct were destroyed?

Rick/All,

The problem wasn't just with the invisible CT and transports although it was a major red flag of the problem. The reason invisible units break the game is that regardless of the unit type you basically get 1 free play cycle in stealth mode. This means on a front line situation both sides could be basically Ninja assassinating each other with 0 way to attack each other.

I like Johny's one cycle wait or lockout on movement however that still doesn't fix the problem unless they are also immune from attacks.
Look at this scenario: I create a jeep early in the day put it where I want and wait until tomorrow. Well while Jeep Jimbo is sitting there making plans drink coffee my opponent at anytime can set an attack probably air and kill that unit before I can move it once.

The lockout cycle as gives the offensive player in anyone battle and advantage. But those were potential problems we'd talked about before and I'm sure Johnny is all over it in GT 2.

Thanks Johnny still love your game.

my understanding of the 2 day cycle for units creation was that 'ghost' units are created, then after the cycle runs the units is actually created, replacing the shadow that shows the sector as occupied.

I've been reading the forums here all day. Great game Johnny. The 2 stage method would probably work fine but it would slow the game down.

I vote for a 23 hour cycle instead of 24 or 25 hour. (Currently it's once a day = 24 hours)

With the 23 hour cycle, there would be 24 cycles after 23 days, so we would gain one cycle every 23 days.
With the 25 hour cycle, there would be 24 cycles after 25 days, so we would lose one cycle every 25 days.

For anyone confused, making it a 23 hour cycle would push the cycle time up one hour each day, so one day it would run at 4 am, the next day at 3 am, the next at 2 am, etc. This way would make it a lot more fair for everyone in all parts of the world- everyone would get their turn to be one of the last to take their turn for that cycle so that they can see the other players' moves that they've done.

In theory, this shouldn't be too hard to implement, should it Johnny? Can you update the cron job time from within the cron job? I'm sure you can find a way to do that without too much trouble. You just might need to be careful of other cron jobs that are running at different times to make sure it won't impact, be impacted by, or be conflicted with those.

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 16 of 16

Message Board

Categories

Search