Team Randomization Reworking

From WarfishWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

When you select to divide players into teams, the only option for regular games is to manually select what team each player is on, or to divide the players into a certain number of teams. The latter has a major problem due to the logic. I think I saw a similar issue listed somewhere, but I didn't find it.

[edit] Example

Say I create a game of 8 players and select to divide the players into 4 teams. This works perfectly fine if all 8 players join the game. However, if, say, 2 players decline, you now have 6 players being divided into 4 teams. The way Warfish currently works this out is by assigning players to teams in order A B C D A B. Thereby, both players that are teams C and D get screwed over. This is a bit worse than the problem of having one odd man out, since you could potentially have a team, but don't.

[edit] Possible Solutions

There are a number of possibilities for rectifying problems like this:

  • Rework the team selection process to say "divide players into teams of (1, 2, 3, etc)." instead of selecting how many total teams. This way, the Warfish code could wait until everyone has joined/declined and then divide the players evenly (as much as possible).
  • Rework the Warfish code to automatically detect situations like this and rectify. So, if you have two teams, A and B that have 2 players each, and two other teams, C and D, that only have one player each, merge teams C and D.
  • Allow players to create teams/alliances on the fly during the game. This could actually be created in addition to one of the above options. Players could choose to team up in cases such as this. I think alliances might be a good idea as a new feature in general, since I've noticed teams do this anyway. Players/teams could create an alliance with each other and gain the ability to do things like transfer troops (options permitting). You could even negotiate temporary or permanent alliances by setting the number of turns that an alliance is active. Of course, there should also be options for limiting the number of alliances per game, etc. In a team game with 4 teams and 3 of the teams have an alliance against the fourth, it could be a bit unfair. I could also see where it would be a good idea, if one team is overpowering the other 3, and the 3 want to work together to "re-balance" the board.

[edit] Discussion

Yes, there is merit in this idea. It would be good to have a way for players to choose a specific seat in a team game in the same way they are allowed to choose a color -- on a first-come, first-served basis. It would also be good to give the host a chance to find replacements for any players who decline prior to starting a game, especially in team games where a specific number of players is necessary.

--Red Baron 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another user just submitted a similar suggestion to support@warfish I just thought I'd include it here as well it looks like a good solution has already been proposed above

There's a major problem with team assignment. If teams are randomly selected, but then some people 
decline, the   teams end up unbalanced. For example, if you start a 2v2v2 game, and 2 people drop 
out, the chances are high that you end up with a 2v1v1 game instead of a 2v2 game. This seems to be because 
teams are randomized before the game starts, not after. Should be an easy thing to solve.  send in  by  

--Steven 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to Enhancement Suggestions

Personal tools