Ozyman wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Is this still active for feature requests?

I'm guessing no?  I think Tom must be busier with real life lately, because we haven't seen much in the way of substantial updates since the Native Player.  Still keeping up with all the major support requests though, so I'm not complaining.

When I heard from him a while back he had switched jobs which had started eating up some more time, but I think he still had/has some things in the works and progressing, so I think it is beneficial to continue discussing and identifying items for once things calm down and/or the next project after his current one.  

He has done an awesome of maintaining the site still, which is a huge relief and great to have!

Yertle wrote:

When I heard from him a while back he had switched jobs which had started eating up some more time, but I think he still had/has some things in the works and progressing, so I think it is beneficial to continue discussing and identifying items for once things calm down and/or the next project after his current one.  

He has done an awesome of maintaining the site still, which is a huge relief and great to have!

Good to know and glad to hear..

I notice that the googledoc at the top of this thread is not up to date.. Is there a more current one - or perhaps we should work on getting it updated?

Yertle wrote:

He has done an awesome of maintaining the site still, which is a huge relief and great to have!

Agreed.  

I think I still have some abandonment issues from ToS.

Just wanted to say I love this site.

Achievements sound great and "the end of last turn" for history.

Thanks Tom! 

TheIronRelic wrote:

This isn't in the list, but a way from just opening a game in either player to see if a player is online, without having to click their name or look at any messages. It could just be an icon or something, but it would be really helpful.

Thanks!

I've added this feature - you should see the second column in the player stats now has an online / offline indicator next to the player's name.

Ozyman wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Is this still active for feature requests?

I'm guessing no?  I think Tom must be busier with real life lately, because we haven't seen much in the way of substantial updates since the Native Player.  Still keeping up with all the major support requests though, so I'm not complaining.

Sorry it's been a very busy time recently - unfortunately my new job is all consuming! I've been working on implementing custom Win Conditions for the last few months, they are nearly ready to go. 

tom wrote:

Sorry it's been a very busy time recently - unfortunately my new job is all consuming! I've been working on implementing custom Win Conditions for the last few months, they are nearly ready to go. 

Wow!  Sounds great! I'd love to know what they are..

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

Sorry it's been a very busy time recently - unfortunately my new job is all consuming! I've been working on implementing custom Win Conditions for the last few months, they are nearly ready to go. 

Wow!  Sounds great! I'd love to know what they are..

As a matter of fact they're from that old post of yours!

• Eliminate Player
• Capture specific territory
• Territory Count
• Territory Percentage
• Unit Count
• Unit Percentage

Awesome..  Thanks Tom!

If I'm not mistaken, Territory/Unit - Count/Percentage basically looks to satisfy a Combination.

I'm just brainstorming how to maximize the feature.. (after the fact maybe).. but could this or similar code be applied to factories?  E.g., ₅C₈ = Pick 5(or more) of 8 for a given factory to activate?

So for instance if there was a single off-board territory that wins the game (as I believe you are creating now), and there was a continent consisting of all territories on the board pointing to the win territory as a factory, it would be the same as what you are creating right now, but with added functionality.

Regardless, having the feature for wins is huge and avoids all the aforementioned designer work.

tom wrote:

TheIronRelic wrote:

This isn't in the list, but a way from just opening a game in either player to see if a player is online, without having to click their name or look at any messages. It could just be an icon or something, but it would be really helpful.

Thanks!

I've added this feature - you should see the second column in the player stats now has an online / offline indicator next to the player's name.

Thanks!!

M57 wrote:

Awesome..  Thanks Tom!

If I'm not mistaken, Territory/Unit - Count/Percentage basically looks to satisfy a Combination.

I'm just brainstorming how to maximize the feature.. (after the fact maybe).. but could this or similar code be applied to factories?  E.g., ₅C₈ = Pick 5(or more) of 8 for a given factory to activate?

So for instance if there was a single off-board territory that wins the game (as I believe you are creating now), and there was a continent consisting of all territories on the board pointing to the win territory as a factory, it would be the same as what you are creating right now, but with added functionality.

Regardless, having the feature for wins is huge and avoids all the aforementioned designer work.

I think that you are mistaken.  With a win condition, get there on the end of your turn and you win.  With your factory approach, you still have to be there at the beginning of the next turn.

That said, the same kind of logic for factories would allow interesting stuff.

Yep - you're right.. But it brings a thought to mind..

Real-Time Factories

RTFs fill immediately when realized.  Right off the top of my head they would necessarily only fill once.

RTF would be huge.

weathertop wrote:

RTF would be huge.

What would this allow you to do?

tom wrote:

weathertop wrote:

RTF would be huge.

What would this allow you to do?

 If I was a 'programmer' type of designer I think I'd pee in my pants if RTF were available.  "Actions" that would normally require wait-time would be instantaneous..  For instance, select/attack one of the "directions" on the paddle - and the ball makes the associated move on the board immediately. 

But there are many much more simple uses..  An instantaneous Win switch, Kill switch - Open (or close) a Door or path -  make a counter work in RT.  Combined with Return to Fortify or Return to Placement - It enables mid-round or goal-oriented designs.  Really, I don't have to think too long or hard to come up with uses.  I'm actually kind of surprised no one (including myself) hasn't thought of or recommended it before.. 

tom wrote:

weathertop wrote:

RTF would be huge.

What would this allow you to do?

Unless there were very careful safeguards, create infinite loops in a poorly designed board.  (Capture continent A, factory A' conquers continent B, factory A'' uncaptures continent A.  And vice versa.  Now watch it go!)  Were I in your position, that fact alone would make me cautious about the feature.

Yes, you can create safeguards which hopefully never will be hit.  But you don't want to find out the hard way that they didn't work properly.

btilly wrote:

tom wrote:

weathertop wrote:

RTF would be huge.

What would this allow you to do?

Unless there were very careful safeguards, create infinite loops in a poorly designed board. 

Regarding the potential for loops, I don't see any difference between StandardFs and RTFs if they are one-time only per turn (as I originally suggested).

I've been thinking about the possibilities and I've come to the conclusion that on the one hand, you can't do anything with RTFs that you can't do with SFs; both allow you to change board conditions and set up movement/motion, etc. The difference is that RTFs allow you to change those board conditions in a much more variable and dynamic time frame.

On the other hand, manipulating the time frame when factories engage can completely change the dynamics of the game itself.  For instance if Go-Geared captures were all RTFs and filled instantly, it would be a completely different game. Your opponent wouldn't have 'time' to counter what would otherwise have only been a 'potential' capture. I'm not saying it would be any better - just different. It would certainly be a much more understandable game because you wouldn't have to imagine 'future' captures.

 Anyway, I don't see how RTFs could be any more 'dangerous' than SFs.

Tom announces he's been working on a huge implementation...

We read it and immediately ask for something new when we misunderstand what it means...

We seem like selfish children.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Tom announces he's been working on a huge implementation...

We read it and immediately ask for something new when we misunderstand what it means...

I don't understand.. I'm not demanding the feature.  I just thought of it and presented it for discussion. (assuming you're referring to RTFs).

And where is the misunderstanding? It is true that I don't know exactly what the "huge" implementation is, though I believe it is a concept that I came up with (assuming you're talking about the 'win condition' feature).   When I found out that Tom was working on it - I naturally thought of ways that the idea might be scaled.  Truth be told, I'd be happy if Tom put the work on hold in consideration of my suggestion. The long term future of the product is much more important in the big scheme of things.

And while I'm on the subject, the 'product' is Tom's. The better it is, the more viable it becomes. He has many constituencies and though designers are but one, they directly impact the quality of the site.  What they want is an implied suggestion of what players want to see on boards.  I don't know what's possible, or even how difficult some things are to code, but I do know that many of our ideas are actually implemented. So apparently it doesn't hurt to dream..