when a player disconnects, online

[nikos_k]

One major issue with online playing of Warzone is that, at some point, some player(s) will disconnect, and the teams will, instantly, become unbalanced.

I gave it a little thought, and here are two suggestions :

A.... The "player" passes over to the computer.
That is... the units, base, etc are now being controlled by the host computer (artificial intelligence),
exactly the same way they would be controlled in an offline game.

B.... The "player" passes over to the computer, and an invitation is opened at the lobby.
That is... the computer, now, controls the "player", like in suggestion A,
but, at the same time, any real person, from the lobby, is invited to take the place of the human that just left.

Either of the two alternatives above, would be nicer, than the "player" just going... "poof"...

[NoQ]

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10664

[nikos_k]

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10664

I didn't understand why the computer that hosts the game can't take control of the units.
Ok, I read the above forum thread in a hurry...
Maybe, it would enable the host computer to have access to cheats?

Anyway, here are two more "solutions":

C.... When a human player disconnects, his units "freeze", and get protected (no harm can happen to them).
An invitation opens in the lobby for someone else to take his place.
For something like 5 to 10 minutes.
If no one answers to the invitation, the player's units either become free game for the enemy,
or they just go "pooffff".
As for the oil whales, they should be divided equally and get "donated" to the player's former fellow players.
There is no limit in how many oil whales can someone have.

D.... There is this "mysterious master computer"...
Ok..., just a server, somewhere in the internet.
This computer takes control of the units,
and the whole thing works like in suggestion A.... or suggestion B....
I think that a single server would have no problem handling many games at the same time.

[Berg]

I know players disconnecting is a pain but I have found players usualy disconnect when they are soundly beaten or see that they will not win.
The tactics of most team wars is to remove the weaker players where possible if they quit and you replace them with an AI this removes the winnings teams advantage hence making that tactic null.
Just a thought for you to dwell on.

[NoQ]

The point of the old thread was that you rather double the effect of this tactic.
Instead of grabbing the quitter's oil and making good use of it, you'd just have to watch it thrown away for nothing by the stupid AI.

[Berg]

One major issue with online playing of Warzone is that, at some point, some player(s) will disconnect, and the teams will, instantly, become unbalanced.

I dont see the need to add a AI or ask a player from the games lobby to join you killed the base owner they quit you take that oil if you got their base.
This is the question asked here not that other thread
I do understand how its frustrating to have a player quit for no forseen reason but replacing that player with an AI would cause more trouble then its worth if the base was destroyed you dont want a new player showing up.
It maybe bad for the team that lost an ally but there is no replacing a defeaded player.

[nikos_k]

To Berg:
As for why a player disconnects, there might be a thousand different reasons. These games take time.
As for the "replacement"... Of course, the base will not be recreated. The new player will be given what the old player had at that time.

To NoQ:
But there are limits to this game. Units, buildings, human factor etc.
Which, simply, means that a team with less players will always have a major disadvantage.
Even if they have all the oil and power of the world.
Plus there is no guarantee that the enemy will not grab, at least, some the oil wales.

[Hesterax]

The problem with suggestion B is that when a player connects and replaces the player that quits he probably would not have a base that he would have wanted or built if he was playing through the whole game and thus have an unfair game due to his tactical disadvantage. The base may not suit his strategy and would put him at a disadvantage if his allies and foes have much higher advanced bases. Of course that is suggesting that the player that quit wasn't a very good player, but in the end the replacement player would probably quit. And replacing a player with an AI is "terrible", the AI would easily be defeated grabbing as much oil is it can and using it for ineffective purposes, and there will still be a disadvantage for the losing team or the team with less players. And what AI do you propose to be the replacement?

[nikos_k]

To Hesterax:
... which makes the challenge even more interesting. The new player knows all that... plus... if he looses the game, he can always put the blame on the former player .
Changing a player mid-game is common practice in most team sports. Nobody asks the "replacement" if he has any objections to the current situation of the game.
And I completely reject the idea of "he was a bad player, that's why he quited". There is no point in sticking to a single scenario in a world of thousand possibilities.

There are improvements that can be made.
For example, in the lobby, the new candidate can have access to basic information for the game before choosing to join in.
Such as... who are going to be his team mates... ping... how long has the game be going on...other(?)

Replacing a player with a computer is terrible. But replacing a non- existent player with a computer is better than no player at all.
Unless some people are suggesting that they prefer it when one of their team players quits. It might give them more chances of winning the game(? )

And I don't have any other AI in mind than the default the Warzone2100 uses for off-line games. I don't really know how these things work.

-----------
I think that each of my suggestions is better than the current situation. If even better proposals exist I don't know of them.
But, if the online game doesn't improve, don't expect any increase of its popularity, soon.

[Hesterax]

I don't see any logical reason that this game will gain popularity because half of the players playing on multiplayer games are computers.

[nikos_k]

I don't see any logical reason that this game will gain popularity because half of the players playing on multiplayer games are computers.

Now I see...
It probably is not some game inconveniences, that prevent the game from becoming more popular,
but the quality of the people that form the community around the game.

Nothing new there. Other games got "destroyed" by that factor, before.

Sorry for wasting your time... and mine .

[Hesterax]

Yeah, new ideas usually have a hard time getting through... But I doubt that that was the reason that this game hasn't gained popularity, the reason it hasn't gained is because it hasn't come out as a huge success when it was released. Why do you think that other games like Starcraft gained huge amounts of popularity? I have seen forums with all out swearing, insults, etc and even terrible customer services and they are still huge successes.

And I doubt that ingame multiplayer inconveniences is what people complain about everyday as a large amount of players that play Warzone 2100 are only interested in the Campaign and skirmish, see the Unofficial Stats or whatever it was called in the other talk section. All these other propietory software games don't have bots replacing disconnected players during multiplayer, and they still are huge successes.

Anyway, it was an honor meeting you ...

[AWarZoner]

The point of the old thread was that you rather double the effect of this tactic.
Instead of grabbing the quitter's oil and making good use of it, you'd just have to watch it thrown away for nothing by the stupid AI.

Is NullBot3 A Stupid Al?

[NoQ]

Yes, Clearly.

[AWarZoner]

Yes, Clearly.

Why?