[GO] Extra Foggy Games

[Mad777]

This could be very interesting setting...I'm a fan

[Metsfanmax]

See also other suggestions for more dense fog.

[demonfork]

See also other suggestions for more dense fog.

Yea stupid, how hard is it to check to see if this has already been suggested before you decide to clutter this forum with redundancy.

[Im stupid]

Demon fork- its not redundancy. My suggestion is different then the other one. You wouldn't see any information about your opponents on the log. The other suggestion would still show information about your opponents and even them taking and making deployments. Mine is different because the only information you would see on the log would be your own.

[Im stupid]

Unlike the other suggestion made over 6 years ago. it would be total blindness with no knowledge of if your opponent even deployed troops attacked or even reinforced. in addition you would have no idea if an opponent was elimated from the game. The other suggestion wouldn't do that. So its a different suggestion then the suggestion made 6 years ago with unique ideas and gameplay.

[Im stupid]

This is what was suggested about denser fog 6 years ago
"I propose we to see this:
Player X received total of ? troops for holding ?
Player X received ? troops for ? regions
Player X assaulted ? territories ? and conquered it from Player Y
Player X assaulted ? territories ? and conquered it from Player Z[/list]"


This is my suggestion.

Automated start message-The fog is strong, and your spies are dead. the strength or weakness of your enemies is not known. Begin your turn, and tread cautiously.
You received a total of x troops for holding x regions.
You received x troops for x regions.
You assaulted x territory and conquered it from x player.
You reinforced x territory
You ended your turn.
?
?
?
You began your turn.
one ? will be entered in the log for each player in the game that's not you. No other log entries on your opponents would be entered. Show me who came up with that and you call me redundant however, I have seen no one else come up with these details. Even though another person did come up with a similar idea, these details were not suggested and are original.

[Im stupid]

I don't see whats wrong with coming up with another variation of a fog of war idea. Everyone has different ideas for how things should be made or run. why should this be discounted just because its a competing idea?

[Im stupid]

btw the other mentioned thread has been dead for 3 years and nothing ever got implanted.
Would it really be bad to reintroduce the idea?

[Dukasaur]

Don't let one or two criticisms get you all wound up. People criticize, that is our nature. Sometimes the critics are important elements in finding flaws that need to be corrected. Other times they are just noise, but still nothing to get hot about.

So far you're getting more positive comments than negative, so just relax and don't have a cow.

[Im stupid]

yeah, good point. I shouldn't be freaking out. its not the end of the world.
I'll calm down now. ^^

[Metsfanmax]

Demon fork- its not redundancy. My suggestion is different then the other one.

That thread is actually a combination of a couple different ideas, the OP doesn't reflect all suggestions. There are some people in there advocating for total fog, IIRC. Take a read through to see what other people have suggested.

[demonfork]

Demon fork- its not redundancy. My suggestion is different then the other one. You wouldn't see any information about your opponents on the log. The other suggestion would still show information about your opponents and even them taking and making deployments. Mine is different because the only information you would see on the log would be your own.

Hey stupid, it is redundant. Thoroughly read the other suggestion thread and hopefully then you can realize that everything you are saying has already been suggested.

[Im stupid]

I did read through the whole forum and while some of my ideas were previously suggested not all of them were. No one came up with the automated message at the beginning of the game that I did that would introduce the start of an advanced fog of war game. In addition none of the players advocated not being aware of anyone being eliminated. Yes, a few advocated full log blindness however, no one mentioned not crossing out the names when a player was removed from the game. That is also original, as log blindness is not the same as blindness to elimination, as shown in the other thread. where those who wanted log blindness also stated they wanted to know who was eliminated. That makes my idea different from the other posters. Also, in order to make my idea feel abit more unique to you, I will also offer another option not suggested in the other thread. Unlike any of the other posters, I propose a special optional feature during fog of war games that would allow you to "spy" on your opponent. It works like this, if the option is on you will be allowed to see one fog territory, in exchange for one deployment soldier. For instance if you have a deployment of 3 soldiers, you can give one up in order to peek at your opponent or neutral territory(sometimes is hard to know the difference depending on the map.). Otherwise you would be as blind as whatever fog of war option, whenever it'd be regular or advanced makes you. I haven't seen anyone suggest that for fog of war in the thread. Will that count as a unique idea?



P.S. I also came up with that as a response to people who are concerned about playing completely blind and feeling like they are relying on luck. This will remedy that problem for people feel like the regular fog of war isn't foggy enough but at the same time don't want to feel completely blind either. It might even encourage a few more to try fog of war, if they don't like either extreme and want some middle ground.

[Im stupid]

The spy idea would work the best on big maps, and toward the middle or end of the game. When you can afford to sacrifice deployments to gain information, while also being able to find your opponents hiding spot without the game dragging on and on. Again its only another option. I feel like the more options of play available the more types of players that will be attracted to the gameplay.

[Im stupid]

The number of spies you get by sacrificing deployments could be limited(for instance no more then one spy a turn,) unlimited ( spy on as many territories as you can afford) or simply turned off and ignored during fog of war games. especially advanced ones. It all depends on what the players would like to do and how much information they do or don't want to know about there opponents.

[Im stupid]

actually forget that. I figured out how that search forum works so I checked the spy idea just to find it was already suggested.I give up. I am redundant.

[Im stupid]

I don't think its possible to make a suggestion that isn't redundant. Every suggestion in the forums even mine, was already discussed at some point many years ago. People only think the suggestions are original because they forgot about the old postings. So really, I don't think there is anything left to talk about that someone in the past has already brought up.

[Im stupid]

for instance that getting a medal for earning a certain number of medals, that's not original. A person suggested something similar 2 years ago, where you get a medal if you earn 50 medals, which was followed up by another person suggesting you automatically get a medal when you get 30 then 50 in increments which makes it pretty much the same thing as getting medals for earning a certain amount of medals. Its the same idea, but it has less details, then the past idea.

[Im stupid]

I guess the point is a lot of the other suggestions aren't really that much more original then mine, when you take a close at look at them. That doesn't mean they should automatically be dismissed. Many of the ideas from the past were good but people just forgot about them because they are really old. Which actually gave me another idea for a suggestion.

[demonfork]

JTFC, you really are stupid.

[Metsfanmax]

Alright folks, let's drop the argument. We try to aspire to a higher standard of discussion and debate in this forum, let's please try and live by it.

[Im stupid]

I agree, this isn't constructive. lets end this here.