Multiplayer mutators

[Kridge]

That is why it is suggested as a new gametype. Some people do like a long SP mission.

[Humbelum]

I love the idea of vessels (an enemy conquered is now your slave) in multiplayer, but I don't think that it would even work. When would the game end? When a player has managed to conquer everyone? How long would that take? He may even have to conquer everyone several times. It could take, literally, an entire day of playtime.

As I said before we played like this in 2003. And it worked very well. It allowed every player to continue playing after being defeated. We had a lot of fun but this was only possible because you could "ally"/ignore someone.

You just need a ignore/ally button. All other rules can specify by the players.
With a mutator for mutliplayer the remake would be a bit more like the original KaM.

@Kride
I enjoyed the long multiplayer games too

[Bence791]

That is why it is suggested as a new gametype. Some people do like a long SP mission.

Because SP missions can be speeded up... but we are talking about MP I think.

Haha I knew that something like this would come but: These messages you got were from your scout
Its not the enemy who warns you

So are you telling me we can't have spies on the battlefield?

Just to explain it more clearly:
Player A allys Player B
Units of A will stop fighting with B
Units of B will continue fighting with A
Player B have to set the ally too if he want that his units stop attacking A.
Thats how it worked in TSK. Maybe "Ally" is the wrong term to call it. "Ignore Player B" would be more what it means... Because a alliance should be a contract between two sides.

But I understand your point. Maybe its the "problem" that I always played with fair peoples... I know there are a lot of trolls out there.

To be able to ignore someone(during the game) would be enough for me to play with my friends like a few years ago.

I'd die on the battlefield for glory, instead of running and dying while I'm retreating Or just fight till I can to kill as many soldiers of my enemy as possible. But it's your choice. (On the other hand, I wouldn't let my enemy run, no matter if he can fight back, if I think I have the chance to win, I often try to smash his/her army totally.. Ofc there are situations when staying behind my towers is a better option). And I think I see what you want to mean (to have the ability to withdraw soldiers from combat), but I don't think anyone wouldn't let his/her own soldiers kill the enemy, if they actually can (and if the enemy retreats, I'm sure that he/she does it because he/she'll gonna lose). I'd be glad if you convinced me why is it a good idea. I know we are talking about mutators, but they need work as well.

[Humbelum]

Okay let me try it
When we played we never set a time for fighting, nobody scouted near the enemy. Nobody knew how many units someone had.

It depends on your decission if you start an attack or not. The defender has a huge advantage, his units are near his town and he has towers.
The attacker has to leave his town with a couple of troops while the rest is defending. It was nice to have the possibility to retreat because the attacker had a higher risk to lose everything(because your towndefense has not your full army strengh).

Better example how it often happened when we played:
Player A wants to attack B
A moves his troops to B, positioned his army and start attacking
C noticed that A was moving some troops from his town so he thinks attacking A is a good choice now.
C starts to move his troops to A. A sees that and think that his defense would need more backup.
A cancels fight with B and moves back to his town. B thinks he won and pursues A.
A backups his defence. B follows A and runs into the fight between A+B

The result is: ABCBACABCBA

Most of the time we were 5 players... so it caused a lot of funny trouble if someone started a fight

Well, if you lose a fight because of your bad tactic or less troops a retreat wouldnt help at all. But if you're able to protect your town because you backup the defense with your attack-team it changes a lot. However, you show your enemy with a retreat that your town is in danger
(or you lure him to another player )

[Bence791]

Hmm... Another problem:
You are A, the guy who you attack at is B, and the one who attacks at you when you are fighting is C... let's see now:

A moves to B, prepares for an attack. B sees it ofc, and prepares to repel you.
C looks at the minimap: "OMGOMG I have to attack A now, because he has no troops at his base!"
C moves to A's village.
A sees his village is in danger while he is fighting B.
A tries to retreat using this withdrawal method.
A reaches his base being burnt by C.
B follows A, and kills almost all of A's army.
So now A has 2 enemies attacking him, the situation is: there is one enemy, deep in his base, burning everything, who "A" COULD fight, if he had army. And there is B, who A can't fight against, but who is getting inside and destroying the city of A.

End: fucked yourself, you have a very little army, a decent one in your town, and another attacking just now (who you can't even defend against). Why is it good? Convince me

[Humbelum]

You never leave your town without troops. I said that A has send a team for attack, so he has still units for his defence. That means A can reach his base with his attackteam before the fight is over. The point is that A is able to do something. He can send his troops back or at least some of them to support his defence. This gives him at least a chance and maybe some more time.

Its also nice if A starts a attack on B, A retreats and lures B and C into his defence...

Okay now tell me, what helps you being not able to retreat? A attacks B and can maybe kill him. C burnes down the city of A and now? You can do nothing to change something! fucked yourself even more...
Sometimes just a few units more can help defend your town. As I said several times before I often played KaM Tsk in multiplayer(no meeting battles) and this often saved my town or made me to cancel my attack on enemy when his troops came back. If you remember KaM tsk maps weren't that big so you always had the chance to be back in time.

[Bence791]

You never leave your town without troops. I said that A has send a team for attack, so he has still units for his defence. That means A can reach his base with his attackteam before the fight is over. The point is that A is able to do something. He can send his troops back or at least some of them to support his defence. This gives him at least a chance and maybe some more time.

Its also nice if A starts a attack on B, A retreats and lures B and C into his defence...

Okay now tell me, what helps you being not able to retreat? A attacks B and can maybe kill him. C burnes down the city of A and now? You can do nothing to change something! fucked yourself even more...
Sometimes just a few units more can help defend your town. As I said several times before I often played KaM Tsk in multiplayer(no meeting battles) and this often saved my town or made me to cancel my attack on enemy when his troops came back. If you remember KaM tsk maps weren't that big so you always had the chance to be back in time.

You mean FFA games. But nowadays there is only 1 map that can be played ffa... it's called TVoD2. Others aren't supposed to be played that way. Maybe it can occur when it's 2v2v2v2. But then mainly it's top left vs top right, and bottom left vs bottom right after pt. Another thing: you always have at least 1 teammate who helps you with attacking (if you have a good team). And others still can help with defending. Mainly your base can't be entered from it's back, because they are mostly on the edges of maps. So it's not that hard to defend either (except for when your teammate next to you is down). It's the Remake, TSK is "out of fashion". Since it doesn't have a working multiplayer mode (nor TPR has), and has many many serious bugs, deal with things in the Remake. Forget about the original KaM

Its also nice if A starts a attack on B, A retreats and lures B and C into his defence...

There is no chance to succeed on that, because B likely rushes on A's town, and we are players, not AI that we can be lured to another player's town.

[Humbelum]

no ffa anymore?

That's sad, so we never can be creative and invent some new rules to make it more interesting? However, this is a suggestion thread so I may have a little chance to get a old KaM feature back in Remake. Just a checkbox for each player to ignore him.

PS: the lure tactic did work once when we played without map scouting(only if you will attack for sure), so B didnt know where A came from and followed him to C. I was C and started attacking both. While that fight A moved with his main army from his base to B and attacked his town...
It was lucky for A that I did attack them both. B thought that he can kill A and pursued him, because B almost beat A's attack team. I thought that both attacking me and I was preparing a attack too so I was fine with starting a war.
I enjoyed this game, cause I first noticed what happened after B was defeated
However this tactic worked only once, and only because we had the no-scouting-rule. With no fog of war we had to make this rule to keep it more exciting

[Ben]

You CAN play FFA, it's just that most players won't. If there was a really large map that was suited for FFA, I'd play a game with you sometime

[Lewin]

I've played some really interesting FFA games on The Valley of Dangers 2, it's nice for a change from games with 2 teams. I think more variation like this is a good thing, which is why some mutators could be a good idea. Allowing retreat from battle could be one such mutator I guess, it's no more radical than removing hunger or some of the other suggestions here. Retreating should result in some casualties while the enemy keeps shooting you as you retreat. It wouldn't be the same game as people play currently, but it could be interesting to add some variety. At the end of the day people will play what they most enjoy. But we also don't want to fracture the community too much by adding lots of optional game rules that drastically affect gameplay. That's why I'm a bit hesitant about mutators, but at the same time some variety would be nice.

[ChrisEggII]

I like play FFA, but nobody want to play in this style. This is interesting game, because there will win this one, who is the most clever, not this one, who has better team. FFA has one more important advantage: leave of one player won't ruin game for rest players. KaM players don't like innovations. Everyone want to play 4vs4, 3vs3, sometimes 2vs2...

Anyway I have next idea: x3 or x4 materials (Woods, stones and gold). This idea came to me, when I tested new Paker's map. First time I built so big village and this game was fun.

[Bence791]

This is interesting game, because there will win this one, who is the most clever, not this one, who has better team.

No, that one wins who just camps and gathers till someone fights another and has some losses that he isn't powerful enough to defend. We used to play many games on TVoD2, FFA or sometimes team vs team. FFA is a good playstyle, just everyone prefers DoW, BitD, CR and GC...

[Ben]

Yeah, the problem with FFA in KaM is that camping is an exceptionally effective playstyle.

[Bo_]

Well not always, by attacking you decide who's under attack. (yeah) So when you keep camping you'll have a bigger chance to be under attack from different players at the same time.

[Ben]

Although your economy will be stronger, and your iron, coal, and gold will last much longer.