[XML] Instant win objective

[degaston]

Concise description:

• Allow mapmakers to specify if a win condition activates as soon as it is taken, instead of the current situation where all win conditions must be held for one round.

Specifics/Details:

• Modify the <objective> tag to add an optional "instant" parameter.
  <objective instant="yes">
  If this parameter is included, then the game is won as soon as the objective conditions are met, instead of requiring that they be held until the start of the player's next turn.
• If the instant parameter is not included, then the objectives work as they do now.

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

• On some maps, the objective may be too difficult to achieve if several territories must be held. This change would give mapmakers another tool to improve the gameplay of their maps.

[JBlombier]

Yes, this seems like a logical and useful addition to the foundry. Good suggestion.

[spiesr]

I think that having some maps where you have to hold the victory condition and others where you just have to get it would fall under the heading of "too confusing."

[Metsfanmax]

I like it in principle, but I'm concerned with how it would work in Trench.

[degaston]

I think that having some maps where you have to hold the victory condition and others where you just have to get it would fall under the heading of "too confusing."

This should not be used for beginner's maps, and should be explained clearly in the legend. Right now, it apparently confuses many people that you have to hold the winning condition for one round, though I wasn't suggesting that instant wins become the default behavior.

Each time a new map comes out, people must learn how it is different from others, and I think any reasonably good player can understand this without difficulty. Although I think this is one more reason why unrated games should be allowed, so that everyone can learn how to play a map before they play it for ratings points..

[degaston]

I like it in principle, but I'm concerned with how it would work in Trench.

Actually, I've found that trench already simulates this suggestion to some degree. If you are able to take the winning objective and all of the bordering territories, then it's as though you have won instantly, because no matter how many troops your opponents have, they will not be able to stop you from winning. (assuming it's not nukes or zombie spoils.)

Or was that not your concern?

[spiesr]

This should not be used for beginner's maps

What exactly do you mean by "beginner's maps?" Right now the only division of maps is those blocked from new recruits.

Each time a new map comes out, people must learn how it is different from others, and I think any reasonably good player can understand this without difficulty.

Which sounds fine for players who have already played many of the existing maps, but what about new players? When they join they won't necessarily encounter the other style of objectives before this one. So, at least I think this would require going back to all the maps the use the other objective style and clarifying that those require holding for a round.

Although I think this is one more reason why unrated games should be allowed, so that everyone can learn how to play a map before they play it for ratings points..

While a good point I don't believe that would be sufficient. Random games exist so someone might play one of those for points before having played every map enough to completely know it. Also, depending on the settings used some maps might very rarely see the objective come into play.

[degaston]

This should not be used for beginner's maps

What exactly do you mean by "beginner's maps?" Right now the only division of maps is those blocked from new recruits.

See the Map Complexity thread. When I say beginner's maps, I'm talking about simple and standard difficulty. Though, kind of by definition, if a map uses advanced features, it's more likely to be perceived as being difficult or extreme. At some point, the site is going to have to provide a better way for people to choose maps to play. There are already too many maps for people to just browse through them, and even then, it's often difficult to tell how a map is going to play just by looking at it.

Each time a new map comes out, people must learn how it is different from others, and I think any reasonably good player can understand this without difficulty.

Which sounds fine for players who have already played many of the existing maps, but what about new players? When they join they won't necessarily encounter the other style of objectives before this one. So, at least I think this would require going back to all the maps the use the other objective style and clarifying that those require holding for a round.

What about new players now? Some of the existing maps specify that the objective must be held for one round, but not all. For those who have not played an objective map before, or have not read the General Gameplay Notes page, they may not even know what an objective is. The Gameplay Notes could be updated to say that objectives may work in two ways, but unless the legend specifies that an objective is instant, then it must be held for one round.

Although I think this is one more reason why unrated games should be allowed, so that everyone can learn how to play a map before they play it for ratings points..

While a good point I don't believe that would be sufficient. Random games exist so someone might play one of those for points before having played every map enough to completely know it. Also, depending on the settings used some maps might very rarely see the objective come into play.

Maybe random games exist so that people can test how quickly they can learn the complexities of a map they haven't tried before. If all maps work the same, then where is the challenge? Any time someone plays a map or setting for the first time, whether deliberately, or through random games, it should be assumed that they may be surprised by what happens. Careful reading of the legend, map discussion, and strategy guides (if available) may help, but some knowledge only comes through experience.

I think that this feature would have to be used with caution to make sure that it's not too easy to just charge the objective, but that doesn't mean that there could not be a justification for using it on some map.

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, I've found that trench already simulates this suggestion to some degree. If you are able to take the winning objective and all of the bordering territories, then it's as though you have won instantly, because no matter how many troops your opponents have, they will not be able to stop you from winning. (assuming it's not nukes or zombie spoils.)

It is true that if you have all the surrounding territories for the objective, then you'll win either way. But in practice, an effective tactic for stopping someone from taking the objective is to set up on the other side of the objective from them. If you have a reasonable number of troops, they won't attempt to take the objective because attacker has the advantage and so they'll just get destroyed before they can hold it on their next turn. But with this change, you can just come in with one troop on each objective and that's enough to win.

[Rodion]

I like it in principle, but I'm concerned with how it would work in Trench.

You should be concerned with the casual freestyle abuse.

[degaston]

I like it in principle, but I'm concerned with how it would work in Trench.

You should be concerned with the casual freestyle abuse.

What is that?

[degaston]

Actually, I've found that trench already simulates this suggestion to some degree. If you are able to take the winning objective and all of the bordering territories, then it's as though you have won instantly, because no matter how many troops your opponents have, they will not be able to stop you from winning. (assuming it's not nukes or zombie spoils.)

It is true that if you have all the surrounding territories for the objective, then you'll win either way. But in practice, an effective tactic for stopping someone from taking the objective is to set up on the other side of the objective from them. If you have a reasonable number of troops, they won't attempt to take the objective because attacker has the advantage and so they'll just get destroyed before they can hold it on their next turn. But with this change, you can just come in with one troop on each objective and that's enough to win.

I think that this would probably not be a desirable feature to use with maps that have a single objective territory. (Though I could be wrong) Like some other suggestions I've made or supported, I do not have a map in mind that would use this. I just think that it should be something that is possible to do if a mapmaker thinks it would be appropriate for his map. Give mapmakers more tools, and you may be surprised by what they build with them.

[Kaskavel]

Any change of this kind would eventualy create problems of inexperienced players comprehension and confusion, as well as new farming possibilities. This should not necessarily mean that no efforts of improving and complicating the game should be avoided. In fact the suggestion is a very logical follow up to the current cc settings.
It is responsibility of the map makers to create maps that complicate farming purposes as well as creating a reasonable gameplay in the map. For example, something like peloponnesian war with this setting, would be interesting. In 2 players, it hardly makes any difference. In multiplayer, players should be careful not to offer someone access to all of the objective points. In escalating, people will stack in objective points (or block them). Seems like a good map for such a change.
On the other hand, a map like third crusade or oasis is completely out of discussion, because the objective is much easier to hold.
I vote for the suggestion, provided this is a feature of the map itslef, not a new setting in existing maps

[clangfield]

I agree with the suggestion. In terms of tactics I think it's just like any other objective, but one has to think one round earlier in order to prevent the objective being taken, rather than prevent it being held.
I would just be careful to avoid maps having where it's possible to take the objective as the first player - eg Europe 1914 two player could be perfectly possible with the right drop and dice, whereas all the castles on Feudal really isn't (NB not suggesting that it be applied to any existing map, just referring to the style).
In terms of information, surely it's possible for the legend to say 'take' rather than 'hold'; it's then up to the user to read the legends. Perhaps the map name could be tagged with "(IO)" or something similar to emphasise the instant objective nature.

[spiesr]

In terms of information, surely it's possible for the legend to say 'take' rather than 'hold'; it's then up to the user to read the legends. Perhaps the map name could be tagged with "(IO)" or something similar to emphasise the instant objective nature.

A problem with this is that some existing maps, like Unification Italy don't say hold for one round.

[degaston]

Any change of this kind would eventualy create problems of inexperienced players comprehension and confusion, as well as new farming possibilities. This should not necessarily mean that no efforts of improving and complicating the game should be avoided. In fact the suggestion is a very logical follow up to the current cc settings.
It is responsibility of the map makers to create maps that complicate farming purposes as well as creating a reasonable gameplay in the map. For example, something like peloponnesian war with this setting, would be interesting. In 2 players, it hardly makes any difference. In multiplayer, players should be careful not to offer someone access to all of the objective points. In escalating, people will stack in objective points (or block them). Seems like a good map for such a change.
On the other hand, a map like third crusade or oasis is completely out of discussion, because the objective is much easier to hold.
I vote for the suggestion, provided this is a feature of the map itslef, not a new setting in existing maps

This is not a suggestion to change the way any existing map is played. Simply a new coding option that could be used in the XML files of future maps. The foundry would have to make sure that it was used appropriately, was described clearly in the legend, and did not lead to a game that was too easy to win.

I guess what this and my other recent suggestion are leading to, is an overall suggestion that conditional Borders and Bombardments, Objectives, and Losing conditions should all be able to be coded as either "instantly active", or "must be held at the start of your turn".

[Metsfanmax]

From a philosophical point of view, since there exist instant losing conditions, I have no problem with there being instant winning conditions.

[DoomYoshi]

I dislike it, in principle.

It doesn't add anything to the site.

[Kaskavel]

We also need to define who will win if the last action of the game is a player capturing the last region of the objective, while at the same time eliminating another player in an assasination game (who is not his target of course)
I must be a very sick person..how can I imagine such stuff...

[Metsfanmax]

I would say that map features should never be able to overrule game rules.

[Rodion]

Maps with killer neutrals were not compatible with Trench, so they decided to make Trench work a little different in those cases.

Perhaps the precedent would be to make assassin work a little different in those cases as well?

[degaston]

I've always thought that in assassin mode, if player A kills player C (who is player B's target), then player B should get player C's target as his own, and the game should continue. This would be more consistent, because that is what happens if player C deadbeats.

Since they probably won't change the behavior of assassin, and there is no defined order of precedence for assassination vs win condition, then I think that in the instant win scenario described, the player who took the win condition should win, because that is at least consistent with what happens when someone deadbeats.

[Donelladan]

I've always thought that in assassin mode, if player A kills player C (who is player B's target), then player B should get player C's target as his own, and the game should continue. This would be more consistent, because that is what happens if player C deadbeats.

very weird idea, I won't comment because off topic but still weird idea.

At the beginning I read the suggestion I was 100% against it because I was thinking of what we have. It make no sense for me that a condition could be taken and then you win, make the game too easy.
But you expressly mentionned that it should be for a new map designed in this purpose. Therefore I'd say why not giving the option to the mapmaker? Anyway we will still have the opportunity to test the map when it is beta and if it doesn't work the map will be changed.
Nice idea, I support it. New gameplay is always good for "old" players.

[Metsfanmax]

I've always thought that in assassin mode, if player A kills player C (who is player B's target), then player B should get player C's target as his own, and the game should continue. This would be more consistent, because that is what happens if player C deadbeats.

We can have this discussion somewhere else if you want -- but while I agree with you in principle, I think the current system leads to some very interesting gameplay because it forces you to be strategic and leave an enemy alive even when you could kill them.

Maps with killer neutrals were not compatible with Trench, so they decided to make Trench work a little different in those cases.

Perhaps the precedent would be to make assassin work a little different in those cases as well?

Fair point.

[degaston]

I've always thought that in assassin mode, if player A kills player C (who is player B's target), then player B should get player C's target as his own, and the game should continue. This would be more consistent, because that is what happens if player C deadbeats.

We can have this discussion somewhere else if you want -- but while I agree with you in principle, I think the current system leads to some very interesting gameplay because it forces you to be strategic and leave an enemy alive even when you could kill them.

I see that this has been suggested several times in the past. Apparently it never went anywhere, so I don't see the need to try again.

Maps with killer neutrals were not compatible with Trench, so they decided to make Trench work a little different in those cases.

Perhaps the precedent would be to make assassin work a little different in those cases as well?

Fair point.

I hadn't thought of it before, but assassin mode is just an instant win objective where the objective is to kill a specific opponent.

I doubt that anything has to be changed in the code to deal with assassin. It will either check the win condition first, or the player elimination first to determine who wins. If it doesn't do what they want, then they can just swap the order in which they're checked.