Mining into problems - Late game loser problem

[Stratego (dev)]

i read an article (link) about RTS games and some points are really true for our AO* TBS games.

eg this:

There is also a late game problem where one player or team has functionally won the game, they have such a lead that they are insurmountable but the losing player is stuck playing out the rest of the match. The match is over but the game doesn’t know it yet. This once again is going to cause player disengagement as the losing player is simply going to want to give up rather than try again.

so i have opneed this topic to gather ideas how to solve the "loser" engagement in game
0. the first obvious would be "helping the loser to get chance to win" but i would think if this as a last resort - as this approach kills the play for the winner (too) - as he was winning and how come the loser getting buffs to compete again.
...
so i thought we could figure out something else that makes the loser play and not leave the games/or resign.
1. collecting something - kills?:
eg. collecting kills till last TC is falling ? if so - what to give to player for the kills?
2. collecting something - else?:
what?

so any other new idea is appreciated.

(as after finishing Unity version we can thing of these too)

[DreJaDe]

There's not much solution to this... Losing makes you lose morale in this game. Have this case a lot of times.

Like during the time where Orcs are just way too OP. In AOF if they play turtle and then break out. Made me quit the game.

I think the best solution to this is the single player. Even if they lost interest in the Multiplayer, they would have smt to comeback. Seen this also with a lot of player.

The forums is way too concentrated with multiplayer I say cause most of us are already done with Single Player when we go here or the interaction itself is usually through multiplayer. I think there's still the Single Player majority that exist.


On the other hand. I want to increase the "Winner" advantage by making that if one player doesn't have any tc. The other players will be able to see all his units on the map.

[DreJaDe]

Maybe we could also have a local multiplayer version in unity.

[b2198]

I also don't think the losing player should get any more help, as stalling games when losing would get really out of control.

About collecting things, I honestly don't know if that's a good idea or not.

On the other hand. I want to increase the "Winner" advantage by making that if one player doesn't have any tc. The other players will be able to see all his units on the map.

I second this. It's not a big deal, but sometimes it might be annoying to try to chase that last flying scout in the map after capturing everything.

I don't think it's a big deal even in cases where you lost your last TC, but still have 2 factories (1 normal and 1 mega) and are trying to capture it back, because if you lost all your TCs, then the opponent probably already has vision of most if not all your units, and denying vision is the last of your problems.

[Stratego (dev)]

thanks!

Maybe we could also have a local multiplayer version in unity.

what do u mean by "local" multiplayer?

[DreJaDe]

thanks!

Maybe we could also have a local multiplayer version in unity.

what do u mean by "local" multiplayer?

In Minecraft... You could connect to the same wifi even without internet to play with each other. Honestly unsure how would that work but yeah... Not a programmer anyway.

Warcraft 3 and other games seems to have this also where there are LAN games. I remember playing them in computer cafes back then.

[Stratego (dev)]

i see thanks!
it is doable naturally.

but is that related to the late game problem somehow? if so how? or consider it a topic-independent idea?

[DreJaDe]

i see thanks!
it is doable naturally.

but is that related to the late game problem somehow? if so how? or consider it a topic-independent idea?

Just the part where players leaves... Cause some player will just want to play without internet. Like the old times.

[Stratego (dev)]

i see, so related to player leaving in general not to current "late game loser demotivation" problem.

thanks!

[TntAttack]

i read an article (link) about RTS games and some points are really true for our AO* TBS games.

eg this:

There is also a late game problem where one player or team has functionally won the game, they have such a lead that they are insurmountable but the losing player is stuck playing out the rest of the match. The match is over but the game doesn’t know it yet. This once again is going to cause player disengagement as the losing player is simply going to want to give up rather than try again.

so i have opneed this topic to gather ideas how to solve the "loser" engagement in game
0. the first obvious would be "helping the loser to get chance to win" but i would think if this as a last resort - as this approach kills the play for the winner (too) - as he was winning and how come the loser getting buffs to compete again.
...
so i thought we could figure out something else that makes the loser play and not leave the games/or resign.
1. collecting something - kills?:
eg. collecting kills till last TC is falling ? if so - what to give to player for the kills?
2. collecting something - else?:
what?

so any other new idea is appreciated.

(as after finishing Unity version we can thing of these too)

1. Idk.

2. Series of Matches

The problem with the game when losing is that the losing screen flashes and you are kicked out. All your hard work, and time, gone.

You invested in an empire, and when it fell, it was forgotten. This lack of connection between each game match makes the player feel less attached the each game.

Here's my solution. It's not going to work for all maps, but basically the losing player "retreats".

Once he successfully retreats (the exact mechanics on how it works is to be explored), the winning player "wins" that round and has the option to "pursue".

In simple terms, the retreating player saves whatever is left in his current match, and has the opportunity to offer the winning player a second round.

Here is where it's gets a bit unclear. The retreating player, if he is willing for a second one either
- Chooses a new map
- Game generates new map
- Game generates new map on chosen scenario*
- Game generates new map, with player ability to "customise" start with about e.g. 50 turns cost.
- Game generates new map, with player ability to "customise" start and gets to deploy whatever units he kept alive from the last match.

Winning player depending on map situation is
- Evenly matched with his opponent
- Disadvantaged

How exactly depends on the scenarios*.

Scenarios are pretty open to discuss at this point. Ideas include.
- Path of retreat scenario: Losing player triggers this by
> Button
> Tech
> Ability e.g from unit e.g. hero unit or leader unit
Player gets to keep whatever unit he can successfully bring back from the battlefield to a specific tile or set of tiles.

Additionally, there could a retreating effect that prevents the player from moving a unit for 2 turn, if unit either
>>dies
>>gets hit

We can cancel that unit's retreating effect.

- Diplomacy

Special diplomacy tech that allows for
- Negotiated peace. Game ends. Game restarts evenly, perhaps with 50 turn pre game addition.
- Foreign Support: Gains help from reinforcements elsewhere
- Foreign Alliance: Gains ally

Suppose losing player retreats successfully with
- Foreign Support: Losing player gets a large batch of reinforces equal or around the value of the winning player.
- Foreign Alliance: Losing player gets an extra teamate in new match so 2v1.

Possible outcomes in match 2:
- Lose player wins
- Win player wins

Same "rules" apply for this match also. The losing side can "retreat" or end the game there.

If last rounds winner lost, then when he retreats he too can research the diplomacy.

Example: Player 1 vs player 2. (Consider AoS)

Player 1 beats player 2. Player 2 retreats with massive loses. Due to this, and his foriegn Alliance tech, the new match gives him 10 turns head start and an additional team mate. (Team mate should be multiplayer, but should support AI team mates as well)

In match 2, player 1 with his "surviving" unit from the last match is the "attacker". He charges against the defenses of player 1 and his team mate.

Player 2 almost loses, but he beats the invader back. Game can end here but if continued player 2 will "attack" player 1 in the same map from match 1.

Ideally, everything built from match 1 will remain. This time match 3 will be player 1 vs player 2 and his teammate.

If player 1 has the Foreign alliance (make it hard for he to obtain this as he was the attacker and he won match 1) then player 1 will have a team mate as well.

Eventually, player 1 loses. Player 1 retreats to another map, where he the defender and gets a unit bonus.

Player 1 defends valiantly but is finally destroyed in battle. There is no more retreating from here.


Maps involved:

Player 1 HQ>>>Main Battle Starting Match 1>>>>> Player 2 HQ

The formula might need to be adjusted a bit for multiplayer, but it should be similar.

[Lucifer]

As I see it, there's the following things we can do:

- Make winning player win faster
- Make losing player lose (or quit) faster
- Make game end preemptively

Make winning player win faster:
This can be done by increasing the advantages the winning player has. Some ideas to do that:
-- Let them build a higher number of factories per TC. Like, 1.4x or something.
-- Let them build a higher number of factories after they control >=70% of all TCs. For example, gaining control of the 7th out of 10 TCs lets you build 3 more factories rather than 1.
-- Give them a higher unit cap after they control >=70% of all TCs.
-- A new condition like "Conqueror's morale" that applies to all your units when you control >=70% TCs. All your units gain +2 speed and +5 power. This lets you complete the game faster when you already have a hundred units but they're taking forever to walk to the enemy.

Make losing player lose (or quit) faster:
-- When the opponent has >=70% of TCs, give the losing player a prompt of
============================================================================================================
= "The enemy has a decisive advantage. You can resign and try again another day. What doesn't kill you make you stronger." =
= "Resign" "Continue the battle" =
============================================================================================================
Moreover, you can give a REMATCH option in the same prompt, for example,
"The enemy has a decisive advantage. You can resign, or offer a rematch. What doesn't kill you make you stronger."
"Resign" "Offer rematch" "Continue the battle"
Offer rematch would give the opponent a prompt asking if they accept. On a Yes, app automatically creates a new game, with same map and settings as this one, and adds both players in it.

-- When you are losing, apply some morale loss debuff to your units. I would not recommend this one.

Make game end preemptively:
This can be done by giving alternate win conditions:
-- Controlling >=90% of TCs
-- Having more points than the enemy at the end of turn X (like turn 100 or something)
-- Alternate game modes like capture the flag, king of the hill, etc. We can adapt many interesting game modes from other games. For example, capturing the "Capital" of the enemy (their 1st TC).

[Stratego (dev)]

very good approach you wrote to consider: to speeding up winnning somehow!

[TntAttack]

As I see it, there's the following things we can do:

- Make winning player win faster
- Make losing player lose (or quit) faster
- Make game end preemptively

Make winning player win faster:
This can be done by increasing the advantages the winning player has. Some ideas to do that:
-- Let them build a higher number of factories per TC. Like, 1.4x or something.
-- Let them build a higher number of factories after they control >=70% of all TCs. For example, gaining control of the 7th out of 10 TCs lets you build 3 more factories rather than 1.
-- Give them a higher unit cap after they control >=70% of all TCs.
-- A new condition like "Conqueror's morale" that applies to all your units when you control >=70% TCs. All your units gain +2 speed and +5 power. This lets you complete the game faster when you already have a hundred units but they're taking forever to walk to the enemy.

I highly disagree. The last thing a losing player needs is insurmountable odds. Why even persist if the victor is determined by number of unlocked gem units, spawn tc and early build? If the "final" battle is the literally the first engagement, I think many will feel frustrated.

Make losing player lose (or quit) faster:
-- When the opponent has >=70% of TCs, give the losing player a prompt of
============================================================================================================
= "The enemy has a decisive advantage. You can resign and try again another day. What doesn't kill you make you stronger." =
= "Resign" "Continue the battle" =
============================================================================================================
Moreover, you can give a REMATCH option in the same prompt, for example,
"The enemy has a decisive advantage. You can resign, or offer a rematch. What doesn't kill you make you stronger."
"Resign" "Offer rematch" "Continue the battle"
Offer rematch would give the opponent a prompt asking if they accept. On a Yes, app automatically creates a new game, with same map and settings as this one, and adds both players in it.

-- When you are losing, apply some morale loss debuff to your units. I would not recommend this one.

No one enjoys losing. All the effort built up, only to see a screen that says gg, now time to restart everything again.

Basically the issue I am hinting at is that repetitive "Pre game boredom". I recommend giving the losing player a better way out. A way to "resign" with some dignity and retain some progress.

Make game end preemptively:
This can be done by giving alternate win conditions:
-- Controlling >=90% of TCs
-- Having more points than the enemy at the end of turn X (like turn 100 or something)
-- Alternate game modes like capture the flag, king of the hill, etc. We can adapt many interesting game modes from other games. For example, capturing the "Capital" of the enemy (their 1st TC).

Controlling >90% of the TCs was discussed somewhere before.

Alternative gamemode? Don't know in other AO, but in AoWw there is Forest Blitz v1 and Forest Blitz v2 which are pretty much proof of concepts of the "capture point A, B, C" to win.

Unfortunately, design isn't fully complete, but it's possible just really time consuming to make for certain ideas.

Dev if you are reading this, whenever you are free, can you add the "Tower Offense" map in AoWw. It's another proof of concept of a multiplayer 4v1 with the 4 players having special "fun" units and special towns that give them bluffs e.g. armour, area damage, speed etc, fighting against that one player armed with mega buildings that can move.

very good approach you wrote to consider: to speeding up winnning somehow!

Please consider, giving the losing player a way out. As this game doesn't have logistics, the more towns you have basically means you will out produce your opponent.

This makes it hard for the losing player to have a comeback. If you give the losing players a way to "retreat" with some of their units alive e.g.
Player 1 successfully retreated with X amount of units. They get a "Minor defeat". It's not as taxing on the losing player otherwise.

And you can have achievement and stuff for the amount of troops "evaluated".

[Stratego (dev)]

dignity resign also good, that is the thing i asked about ideas how to make losers feel less bad, but have something
a) to fight for further
b) to resign with the something that is good for them
(we must be careful if we offer something tempting it will result in a swarm of games only for resigning from all to get many from them - so hard to find an incentive that should not be tempting at the same time - lol

[Lucifer]

I think the rematch idea would be a good way to do that. Even in single player games, when you're losing, people's first instinct is pressing restart and trying again. Not only in AO games, but across all games.

You could combine that with TntAttack's idea and say something like,
"You have 57 units left. You can retreat with your army and fight again another day. Offer a rematch?"
"Rematch" "Continue the battle"

If you choose to retreat, on the map list instead of "Your army was destroyed" or "You lost", you get a "You retreated" message, and a new match is automatically created (or the retreating player is given the option to create a rematch).

[b2198]

I highly disagree. The last thing a losing player needs is insurmountable odds. Why even persist if the victor is determined by number of unlocked gem units, spawn tc and early build? If the "final" battle is the literally the first engagement, I think many will feel frustrated.

I agree with TntAttack here.

-- Let them build a higher number of factories per TC. Like, 1.4x or something.

This specific one I really disagree with a lot more than the others. Games are already too "snowbally" due to small TC advantages here and there. Making this change would mean only the early game really matters, and would increase the necessity of rushing by A LOT.

About that prompt to losing players: I have no clue if it would significantly increase amount of resignations, but I guess it's worth a try (just make it a double confirm to actually resign, so that players are less likely to resign by accident when shown that).

About those "retreating" ideas: I honestly think that would be abused by means of people resigning very early until the dice is on their side, and producing units just for the next match, instead of using them in the current one, so I disagree with those. I think each match should keep being confined to itself.

b) to resign with the something that is good for them
(we must be careful if we offer something tempting it will result in a swarm of games only for resigning from all to get many from them - so hard to find an incentive that should not be tempting at the same time - lol

Yeah, that's a very real concern, so the rewards should still be lower than the ones the winner gets.

[TntAttack]

About those "retreating" ideas: I honestly think that would be abused by means of people resigning very early until the dice is on their side, and producing units just for the next match, instead of using them in the current one, so I disagree with those. I think each match should keep being confined to itself.

You misunderstand...

The idea is that we offer the losing player a way to "keep" some of their progress and the opportunity to try again. The winner is offered the opportunity to
1. Finish the losing player off for good.
2. Deal as much damage as possible to the retreating player.

Once the rematch is offered, obviously the winner will have the advantage. The retreating player, with all their retreated units will not have more units or better units than the winning player last match.

The losing player will still try to play because their efforts are rewarded proportionally.
- The better their retreat, the more units they keep. The more units they keep, the better their losing score.


Instead of having absolute defeats, we can soften it by differentiating the kind of defeat.

• Major Defeat

• Minor Defeat

Where the kind of defeats can be influenced by

• Difference in points <3000

• Difference in points >3000

Where the value of successful unit retreats contributes to the losing player's points.

Example: Player 1 had 6045 points. Player 2 had 2900 points. Player 2 resigns, it's a major defeat.
Else if player 2 successful retreats, and the value of his retreating units added up to 200 points, then the game ends with player 2 suffering a minor defeat.

[SirPat]

I like TntAttacks idea, here is my version to the retreating function


How about when you feel like you're about to lose like the enemy is pushing on all sides of the map through your many villages

U can either Bribe them (duration vary and cost ingame gem carts or gold) or ask for a Peace Treaty(may last long but less likely to work cause both sides must agree)


Bribe

In Bribing, the player will use all of his gem carts as payment for a warfare stall/pause.
Gem carts have different values, we can use these values as the amount for the stall timer. Lets say across the map u have gemcart value total of 16

If you declare a negotiated pause/bribe (idk what to call this) the game pulls out all of each players units and scatters the respective units around their own base like for instance if the enemy is raiding my bases. I can pay for a pause so that all of his forces goes back to his side and all of my units will go to my side. While this happens each player cannot get close to enemy bases, there will be a 12tile radius for each building where in enemy forces cannot enter. In this way. U can put a halt on warfare and focus on repair and replenish of forces but the enemies can also do the same. Its like a way to try to rebalance the battle field. Ofc itll be better to use whike u havent started plumiting to your doom. You can do it anytime in the game aslong as u have some gem carts (no minimum).


Next type is the agreed peace treaty. In this option u can both have time of any amount based on the agreed duration. This could help well for other players by playing a different type of game like "20 turns to build then we go to war" cause now the players can do that ingame with this peace treaty.


Lastly i have a different approach for these peace/bribe mechanics


Since now that you have more reason to make mines and this bribing is some kind of proto money how about lets make mines even more important.

The amount of units that will be kept when the peace/bribe happens is based on the adjacent space around houses and factories

We can now have houses that are built by

Giving a worker the construction buff from the material cart
(? The cart that gives mend boost)

You can only build houses if this worker have this buff
(or not depends on you guys)


Kinda doesnt make sense since we can build barracks without needing these materials but we cant build houses without it lol

So now we have to prioritize in expanding the houses cause if we were to have a peace/bribe. We wouldnt get to save much units if we wont build houses

This whole mechanic shows that the richer( moremines to expand more) the better you are at being ready for the next warfare




These mechanics are for helping losing side to have a chance to fight back without making the enemy have a disadvantage(sort of)