Todo List Requests

From WarfishWiki

Please use Enhancement Suggestions for updates and future suggestions. I will be moving the content on this page as I can, but if you want to move your suggestion ahead of time, go for it. --FadeToOne 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just used wiki "watch tab" feature so that I'll get notified via email when changes to this page occur I'll try to respond with something at least so you know I read it. Also remember to use the 2 minus signs followed by 4 tildes to sign your messages so that the date/time is displayed also use the colon at the beginning of the line to indent your responses to make it easier to see the threading. Thanks! --Steven 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

1 Request for New Features

[edit] Request for New Features

[edit] Name of the Tournament

It would be really nice to see the name of the tournament for each game in the list of games. I tend to get confused by seeing only the game number. Ygh101 22:10, 20 January 2008

[edit] Creation of clubs

How about the creation of clubs (a sort of team of teams)? I would love to be able to team up again with some people I played with (and at that time, our team had been created at random.) To make it less confusing, we could call it "clubs" and it could be a group of 20 people (or 50?) that get along, and decide to "socialize" in that way. Then, we could have tournaments opposing clubs. Each club could have a captain who would team up his members. Once again, this idea comes from "gameknot" (a great chess website), where there are teams and captains. I think this would work great with warfish. Ygh101 23:14, 30 December 2007

[edit] Notice of action required in play list

I think it would be useful to include some notice of "action required" on games where some one is stalling the game, and others have voted to boot, or when someone has offered a surrender or requested the game to end. Too many people don't bother checking the game unless it is their turn and in these situations they obviously never come across their turn.

Maybe a red notice on play list, and a message on the game board, and maybe even an email notice if they want.--Death's Hand 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-game Notes to Self

being able to make notes for yourself for any given game would be nice. and, even nicer, it would be great to be able to see these notes on the "play" tab for each game. Ygh101 23:14, 16 December 2007

[edit] Vacation Days

the use of vacation days would be nice. I noticed people are really not patient. this feature could allow, for example, 6 weeks of vacation time for paying members, and 2 weeks for non-paying members. during this vacation time, players could not be booted, and a message would say "I am on vacation. thank you for you patience. I'll be back on... " Ygh101 23:21, 16 December 2007

[edit] Full map view in the New Game Table

Steven, it would be great to be able to view the full map, with the clickable countries, and especially, continents. Right now, you cannot see what a map really looks like, or what kind of bonuses are set up without starting a game.--Theep 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to that, if I may, it would be nice if the thumbnails in the Board Info page include the full map, as well, so you know what you're getting before you start a game.--Maelstrom 08:12, 24 November, 2007 (UTC)

Do either of you have any concerns that people will just copy your map instead of buying them? --Steven 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't. Mostly because you can get the full map if you start a map, so it doesn't offer any protection in that regard.--Theep 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I second what Theep said.--Maelstrom 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Games

There are times where I play and I am treated differently because people know how I play. Can we make an option that masks the profile id, name, etc until the game is done. Then, you could start games where no one knows who is who, allowing for a much more random game.--Theep 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting one, although do you think a lot of people have this need? It sounds not too difficult so I started looking around. Hmm.. seems like it would take a bit to make sure that it is hidden from all pages / APIs --Steven 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Display different colors also depending on who is looking at the screen as another level of anonymization (suggested by gxe20070411025617 --Steven 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best of 7 league

We talked a while ago about making some league games. A bunch of people, N, could join and then when it starts, you play N number of games, such that everyone gets to play everyone else. The winner is the one who wins the most number of games.--Theep 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but what would the math be on resolving ties? Could have points based on second place or third place, but games where people play for second or third place are a lot different than playing to win? Or maybe ties are ok? --Steven 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandon, don't retain possession and can't backtrack

Abandon is really great; however, the "keep possession" must be turned on. If not, then you can attack one way, moving all your troops (and the empty country goes neutral), then attack back. This gives you too many moves.

We had talked about making an option where you could work your way through a region, but you had to use transfers if you wanted to go back. I think we decided that you could make the person's turn "keep possession" until the end of his turn. Then again countries that are vacant at the end of his turn become neutral. --Theep

Yup I remember that discussion. I think that idea was sort of a simplified way of not allowing "backtracking" that would be easier for users to understand (and to implement). --Steven 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Related issue: Should a card be awarded for taking an empty space? It might make for better gameplay to require some actual fighting to get a card. This would be especially beneficial in blind-at-once games, where a strategic retreat might be used to deny an opponent cards at a critical time. We might even have it both ways and say that a card is awarded when empty spaces stay player-owned but not if they turn neutral. --Red Baron 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur * I agree with my esteemed colleague about not giving a card for taking an abandoned space. --Theep 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically... award a card if you killed someone this round *not* just if you captured a territory. --Steven 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] API number of rounds

- have a history option that will go back a set number of "rounds" (defined as when one player starts his turn). e.g. I'd like to show your last rounds, or two rounds ago, and what has changed. I'd use this to improve on the Combat Map plugin.--Theep

This has been done. My plugs-ins have been changed to use the API. I am very happy! Thanks Steven--Theep 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per-Country Fog

There were some discussions about adding this feature, but it hasn't happened. Since I have some interesting game ideas that would benefit by adding fog on a per-country basis, I'd like to put the idea forward again. --Red Baron 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ipengo sent in some feedback recently as well about creating fog as a more "stackable" attribute between territories:

  Map making feature request: variable fog settings.
  I really enjoy the fog of war setting, and I think it could be improved
  by making context specific overrides to the map constant.
  Specifically I was wondering if it would be possible to set up directional modifiers
  for fog between territories.  Like a mountain top that would reveal
  territories based on line of sight vectors drawn in the map editor, or
  maybe a canyon that would be foggy from everything that wasn't directly
  nearby, or holding a port would give you information about nearby
  oceans... This is exciting stuff...

We discussed it some more since I wasn't getting exactly what he meant initially... but I like the variation on this that he is proposing. I'd thought he was thinking along the lines of "per border" fog, but really his suggestion is to add another type of relationship between countries. So there would be two types of relationships.

which territories can I see from this territory or be seen from
which territories can I attack from this territory or be attacked from

Up until now #1 and #2 have always been the same, but I think ipengo's suggestion is that they don't have to be. --Steven 14:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Rate Me Page

So, I tried to rate all the games I play. However, sometimes I forget. It is even worse when you get taken out early because you can't review the board until the game is done. That might be a few weeks, upon which time you forget about it. Steven, can you make a page that will show all the boards that I have played that I have NOT written a review for. I think this would help get more people to review boards (since it seems that there is a drop off in reviews)--Theep 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. good idea. I could probably integrate it with the review flow also.. so after you write a review for a board it might say on the confirmation page "Thanks for sharing your opinion on this board.. btw, you have 5 other boards you've played but haven't reviewed" --Steven 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me offer an alternate solution to this problem. I think every user should have a special rating page (perhaps linked to the browse page) that keeps track of the game boards he/she has played. The page would list every game board the user has played, perhaps in a style similar to the current shared game browse page, and allow the user to move the boards back and forth at will between six categories: Excellent (5 star), Good (4 star), Satisfactory (3 star), Poor (2 star), Terrible (1 star), and Unrated. The user can come to this page periodically and resort the games to his/her liking, with the favorite games on top, most accessible. This categorization could replace the current non-textual review, and would encourage more people to do this type of simple review, which would result in more accurate board ratings. When the user has failed to write a textual review, this should be flagged in a way to encourage the user to write one in the future. This kind of page would also give the user an easy way to find and launch the games they have enjoyed in the past. --Red Baron 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The ratings categories is interesting. I'd thought that perhaps just defaulting the Reviews page to be sorted by rating might achieve a similar goal since your favorites would be at the top of the list. Although I see your point having them displayed in a category like the "shared games" in the directory and on the create game page is a little more convenient. Hmm... I could just a "My 5 star boards" section to the Directory (and maybe a My 4 stars link, and My 3 starts link). It doesn't have the nice property of being able to easily move boards between categories that your suggestion has though. I've been thinking about this problem on and off too because several people have requested a "Favorite boards" feature which seems to have some overlap with what we're talking about here. I've been trying to think of cases where "Favorites list" differs from basing what we like on our reviews. Seems like I might give a board a 5-stars.. but not want it in my "Favortes list" i guess. Not sure what do you think? On the other hand if there was a favorites list the is it as necessary to have these extra categoreies in the Directory for 5-stars, 4-stars, etc.

[edit] Team Play Rankings

We had talked once about keeping statistics for team games. One of the ideas that we came up was to track the sum of players in the game vs. sum of players in the game you win. e.g. you win a game with 4 players, you get 4 points in your win column and 4 points in your played column. You lose a game with 3 players, your win stays the same (4) but your played column goes to 7.--Eric 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as different ranking algorithms there is also this one that was developed for the Facebook App [[1]] --Steven 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the weighted win that you came up with for facebook. Does it work with team games?--Eric 17:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point i guess it wouldn't be perfect to mix team games into it. Hmm.. although it could be calculated in a similar way but based on total number of teams in the game... in that if there are 2 teams total in a game and you win... your expected win is still 50%... if there are 3 teams in the game 30%.. etc. Then maybe several weighted average values could be stored... for team size = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and overall. So there would still be a small number of values stored but they would capture weighted averages across team games as well as single player games. --Steven 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug & Feature for tournaments

First, if you turn off the "3 boot" filter and select "check all", none of the unfiltered players are selected.

Yeah this was an intentional slight of the booted players, not to make it too easy to invite them. Maybe this was overly aggressive. It actually took extra code to store who was "too booted" to be "check all"'d so I could not check them... maybe it was unnecessary --Steven 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Second, can the filter be changed to a percentage vs a boot number. I have seen some very good players who are no longer in the primary list because they have been booted 3 or more times. However, they have played a lot of games. I suggest if you have been booted 3% of the time, then you should be filtered.--Eric 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of percentage expiring the boots after some amount of time? This way it is annoying to when you get booted but the pain goes away after 30 days. The percentage scheme would work also, but seems like if you were a heavy user and then got a boot it wouldn't really affect you at all (and it seems like it should) --Steven 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The sounds good to me (expire after 30 days) --Eric 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Booting is such a severe penalty that a lot of people hesitate to do it, even when a tournament player is absent for an unacceptably long time. Have you considered introducing a penalty that is less severe, Steven? You could, for example, introduce a special bot that takes the turn of a player who is absent too long.

I imagine it working something like this: Say a player goes on vacation for two weeks and is away from the internet all that time. The tournament "vote out" time is two days. After the player has failed to move in two days, the bot steps in and takes his turn. The other players take their turns, and it comes around to the absent player again. This time the player is marked as a known absentee, and his allowed response time is cut in half to one day, after which the bot takes his turn. The next time around the allowed delay is cut to 12 hours, then 6 hours, then 3, and so on until it reaches a floor of perhaps 1 hour. The player finally comes back from vacation and resumes taking his own turns. His only penalty is that the moves made were probably not as good as those a human player would have made.

A system such as this would nicely handle those absentee players and reduce the bog-down that afflicts many tournaments because of these players. Booting would be less of an issue and it would probably not be used much.

--Red Baron 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If there was a "user status" feature that allowed you to set it to "On Vacation until Jan 1, 2008" would that help? It seems like most people are ok with waiting if they have indication that the slow player is on vacation, etc. Some players just post into the game message boards "I'm out until X". I guess these we're talking about 2 different methods of handling the same issue.. that are both useful for different cases and probably should both be implemented. I sorta prefer not going to "default bot" but I guess it should be left up to the players... with "default bot" it seems that you're no longer really playing with that person anyhow.. so that may affect the rest of the game.. for example if you're counting on someone to "do the smart thing" as part of your strategy as well and he happens to go on vacation and his bot starts doing something silly, in cases like that I'd rather just wait for him to get back. I making these various methods of keeping the game going user configurable would be the most flexible. --Steven 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Games 33 and 41 in this tournament. There is a player who hasn't played in about two months who is essentially delaying the whole tournament. Nobody seems inclined to boot him (though I think the host finally booted him from Game 33). The suggestion I made came from thinking about how you might build a solution to this problem into the system. --Red Baron 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Two months though... I'm wondering if that falls under the "vacation case"? It would be nice to differentiate between that guy actually losing out of the tournament and his robot playing his vacation moves and then losing out. Still seems like with or without the robot he is affecting the quality of play of the tournament... seems like booting would be appropriate though here.... Some folks have requested an auto-boot option as well as another solution to this, what do you think? I'm going to start a list here of all the options.. not necessarily an either or since a lot of these can be implemented as options and left up to the hosts or the users to set themselves --Steven 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An "Auto-boot after xxx days inactivity" tournament option would certainly be another solution to this problem, though you would then want some way to allow a player to request vacation time. --Red Baron 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I could create a vacation bot. My first cut on this would be one that puts down its armies and doesn't attack anyone (kind of like a neutral). However, Steven would have to build some infrastructure to turn let people turn it on. I think a bot that did only that when someone was gone would be fair. Option! Have it run only if it has be 2/4/7 days. Sometimes you can get to a computer during vacation and sometimes not. This would give you 2 days to make your turn, then run the bot. An alternative is to have this be the default action for all tournaments - you don't make your move, the vacation bot does it for you. --Eric 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... would it make sense to always make the behavior of the bot straightforward and predictable... so that when the vacation bot takes a turn for a player it would just keep the game moving but not overly affect the outcome. Also then other players will know what to expect when the vacation bot takes a players turn. --Steven 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Boot Handling Options

Boot expiring (to reduce the pain of a boot)
Vacation-bot to cover for a user during vacation.
Vacation status indicator
Auto-boot timer

[edit] "Join Rematch Game" Bug?

Steven, I don't think the http notifier is sending out "join rematch game" requests. Bot2 is getting a strong workout with lots of people testing their boards (well over 20 games a day). However, when people request a rematch, it doesn't do anything. However, if I run the bot by hand, it does join. Thus, I assume it is not getting http requests; however, I do get email requests to join.

I've just reworked to "game invite" notification system (to handle rematch and tournament game invites consistantly) so this should be fixed now. Can you verify that your bot is now joining rematch games? --Steven 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resend http notify

I think it would be worthwhile to have https request notifications be sent out again after 12 hours (or some length of time). I don't know how much extra coding this would be (could be a lot depending on how you have written stuff). It would be useful for two reasons, first if there is some problem with the machine that is hosting a bot, it would miss the request and never have a chance to fix it until a human saw what was going on (An alternative to deal with this is to have some type of script check to see the bots active turns and run them once a day, but I don't know of an API for that since they are all based on gid)

It would also be useful for those using AIM notifier. If they missed the first one, they'd get a reminder.--Eric 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bot games don't count for stats

It might be good to make a flag on accounts when they are denoted as bots. Then when a person wins a game against a bot, their statistics don't go up. This would do two things, first, it would keep people from boosting their stats (e.g. play against a bot and beat them a lot and win). Second, if you did give bot testers plus accounts, this would dissuade people from sharing the account since they would get no "points" for wining, etc.--Eric 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A similar feature that might prove useful would be allowing games to be declared "test games." A test game wouldn't count in the stats, and could be deleted once it's finished. A game developer could launch a test game to develop a new board, and if a flaw is found, the game could then be unlocked and fixed rather than creating a new, slightly different version. I also agree with Eric that people should not be able to boost statistics using bots. If the test game feature were implemented, you could force all bot games to be test games. --Red Baron 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messaging for Bots

Can bots post messages. I can't figure out the API for that. I would like a bot to post in the message board notification that it is a bot (so people don't get surprised when they find out they are playing a bot - which happened to me once). Also, I could post which bot version they are playing against, as well as links for additional info or forum discusions.--Eric 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major vs Minor Board Changes

It'd be cool to have a flag when you make a change to one of your boards. If you claim it is a minor change, then everyone who bought the old board can use the new one. If you claim it is a major change, then people must re-buy it. I'd consider letting the game stay in "Open Game" mode if it was reached for minor changes, e.g. if you tweak the rules or the board in a minor way, you don't have to get 3 textual reviews before people can start open games.--Eric 06:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this feature already exists. If you want people to pay again, create a completely new game. If you want the new game attached to the old game, create it as a mod for that game. Am I missing something?

--Red Baron 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you RedBaron.. that is what the mods are for.. to indicate a Minor change that is given for free to current board owners. --Steven 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blind-At-Once Initialization Bug

I've observed a bug in game initialization when the following conditions exist: 1) Neutral armies have been placed on some of the countries in a start scenario. 2) Blind-at-Once initialization is used for the game. 3) The "start with neutral territories" rule is off.

Under these conditions, positions initialized with neutral armies are shown to be selectable on the Blind-at-Once initialization map, though they are not actually selectable. The player can still select countries but does not have visual indication of which countries may be selected and which may not.

Here is a link to a game that has demonstrated this problem.

--Red Baron 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. It is caused because neutral territories are placed after the blind selection phase so they are not physically on the board yet at the point players are making their selections. It seems like moving the neutral territories placement to before this would work.. also even when random neutral territories are on it seems like it would make sense to have them placed prior to bao territory selection. --Steven 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foes Filter / Ignore Flag for Mass Invites

As much as I love playing most people on Warfish, I have found a couple of players to be rather annoying and offensive, and I'd be much happier not playing with them. I've had to memorize their usernames, since they don't have enough boots to be filtered. SO, when I join a tournament that allows direct invites to invite others, I have to check all, then look for the two people I don't like, and manually uncheck them. It'd be much easier if there were a way to simply remove certain players from that list, like the boot filter does.

-- Maelstrom 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Edit - maybe tie the list of checkboxes to the quickpick list. That way there is already an interface for managing the list.

-- Maelstrom 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. That is a great idea. I added a new "check quickpick" link to the create tournament page that only checks the names that are in your quickpick list. Please give this a try and tell us how it goes. --Steven 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works great! Can you set it to work that way for starting single games and for the screen where direct invitees can invite others? This won't prevent direct invitees from inviting the people you don't like, but I guess you could always just NOT check that box... Thanks for this, Steven!

-- Maelstrom 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per game Custodian option

sometimes there just isn't a connection available. I have seen some games where they allow you to assign a custodian for a game in your absence. They play your turn for you. In particular it is crucial in team games. suggested by timo20080110223421 --Steven 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Sales

Some way to sort the games by which ones are more popular or sell more. This idea came about from a discussion with fade20070828144150 --Steven 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've often thought it would be helpful to know popularity statistics for the games; how many have sold, how many games launched, how many tournaments launched, etc. It would provide an extra way of judging popularity aside from the rating system. --Red Baron 15:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We figured out hat there are 2 separate "feature sets"... something that we need for designers to see their sales and then also something for gamers to see "Top Sellers". For designers, fade was curious which of his boards was selling the most and didn't like having to add them all up... so for his immediate needs I added a link called "Sales by board" which is on Settings > Account > Sales History . just next to the "Sales History" header. It seems like the issues are a little different for a "Top Sellers" category.. since seems like if one just displayed the raw sales figures on the board for all it might have other side effects.. including things like focusing more sales on the top sellers and making it harder for new boards with no sales to get started... stuff like that. That is kinda where I thought looking at Amazon's model of "Top sellers" lists might be one way to go in stead of displaying the specific number of each book they have sold. What do you think? --Steven 16:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that "Number of Games Played" and "Number of Games Sold" may be better (or at least alternate) ways of judging the popularity of a board. The ratings system reflects the judgment of a small subset of the most vocal and opinionated Warfishers, but this may not be the opinion of players in general. For example, consider my games "Antastic!" and "Mutiny on the Bounty." The first is vastly more popular in terms of games played, and also sells better, yet "Mutiny" has always rated higher. But how could I know this if I wasn't the designer?

Perhaps you could give out this information in the form of a "Top 25 Games" list similar to your "Top 25 Players" list. If you're uncomfortable putting up the raw numbers, you might instead put up "Average Games Launched per Month" or "Average Games Sold per Month." This might, in fact, be better, since it would let newer games compete more easily with the old. --Red Baron 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Make name mods editable post locking

Would it be possible, though, to make the (player /game) names mod changeable when the mods are locked, similar to the way the About text is handled? This would simplify adding the feature to older games, since you could simply edit rather than copy and edit. --Red Baron 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player defined game table labels

Allow people to customize the label that is displayed for each game in their games list so that they can distinguish them easier suggested by Rdar20071017034421 --Steven 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Display num fortifies in a prominent place

Not 100% sure how this should be implemented whether or not it should be user configurable which fields get displayed nor am I clear where this should be displayed, but the feedback was basically that it is a pain to have to dive into the Details Tab > Rules to find this on every game. Ideas? suggested by Rdar20071017034421 --Steven 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just have a number after the game listing's name in parens. Like "Flatland Rally Game 3 (*/3)" where * means infinite attacks, and 3 is the number of fortifies.--Maelstrom 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allow users to post "Private Comments" to a Profile

Create something like the in-game private messages for the profile space. For example, if I wanted to let someone know that there was a glitch in one of their game boards, or if I wanted to talk to someone without everyone seeing my message, then I would post a private comment to their profile. You could obviously limit this to Plus members, so regular users couldn't abuse this feature to simulate the in-game private messages. Just a thought. --Atilla 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View Shared Mod List

Currently there is a "View Shared Game" list on the browse page of each game, accessible to the designer of the game. This permits the designer to examine some of the boards being played in order to find and fix bugs in the game.

For completeness, there ought to also be a "View Shared Mod" list associated with each game mod. This new feature would accomplish two things:

1) It would allow a mod designer who is not the designer of the game being modded to examine games played on that mod.
2) It would make it possible for a game designer interested in debugging a particular mod to list just the games for that mod.

--Red Baron 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upload Country and Borders for Map Design

Many times I have spent lots of hours clicking, waiting for refresh, clicking again, etc. just to map a cool map, or make changes to one. It'd be great if there was a way to do this offline and/or in batch. It could be done by a stand alone program (if someone like me wrote it), the altering of a text file, or at least removing the actionkey that keeps us from just changing the html request by hand. For small maps, hand clicking isn't a big deal. However, for more complex maps (the kind many like to play, well at least I like to play), require a lot of work to make changes. As such, I avoid making many useful changes since it is very painful

There are a few things to consider:

1) Country. It would be great to edit a text file when we need to make big changes to the country info. When using boarder modifiers, it is easy to get a stagnated game. However, if you put in max number of armies, much of this gets fixed. However, for it to make sense, each country needs to have a different limit. That can mean a lot of changes. If we could download a text file with the list of countries, positions, names and max units, then we could alter the file, keeping the fields the same, minimizing errors. Then if we could upload that file, tons of time would be saved. Not only could I batch change large groups of countries limits, but I could move countries around and change names without doing lots of clicking (these last two are less important).

2) Border modifiers. It is great that you have the tool to let you download a list of the border modifiers. What would be awesome if we could make changes to that file, then upload it. You can not even begin to guess how much time that would save.

3) Initial scenario. Good begining scenario's are awesome. However, they can be hard to make when you have to click "Neutral" on almost every single square. This is another place where a download/upload would be a huge time saver. You could download a file that had the cid, name, owner and # units for it. Then you could change the values in a text editor and upload it. Poof, something that takes (and I am not kidding, 2 hours of work) has been done in about 10 minutes.

--Eric 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who frequently designs and maintains large and complex games, I agree with this suggestion. It would be great if the visual information in the editor could have an alternate text representation, something like a computer source code file or XML file. It should then be possible to download this file, use a text editor to do search and replace operations, upload it back to the Warfish server, and convert it to visual form again after an error check. This would certainly speed up the drudge work of assigning a lot of similar values to sets of border modifiers and countries. --Red Baron 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trading Cards

If you must trade cards, and only 1 set is possible to turn in, the game should just automatically trade them in. Suggested by paul20071106195840 --Steven 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminated Emails

They should include a link to the move where you were eliminated from the game. Suggested by the_20070616182535 --Steven 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View game option

Also another suggestion for a feature, when you are invited to a game and instead of just having Accept/Decline options you can choose "View" and just watch the game. suggested by chuc20050816101714 --Steven 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminated players to see no fog

Along those lines if you are eliminated from a game that has fog you can see the whole game and watch w/o Fog. suggested by chuc20050816101714

I'm not sure this is good idea across the board since I feel like that secret info shouldn't be divulged until the end of the game.. it opens up the opportunity that the eliminated player might tell players who are still playing information they shouldn't know. However, I guess there is no reason this couldn't be an option that the game host could turn on.. that way for people who don't mind the fact that fog could be compromised by eliminated players they could enable it --Steven 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easier to surrender

Make it easier to terminate or surrender in game. Large Games that turn out bad you need everyones vote.

How bout if you want to surrender you can. Or a lower amount of votes than max players. Stuck in a game "Warfishopoly" map that is total crap and everyone wants to quit but like 2 people don't know how to end the game, either that or make a pop-up, or a notification to all the players much like "you have too many cards" that a vote is in place to end the game.

Make it more user-friendly to end bad games. suggested by [2] --Steven 07:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a "SurrenderBot" that you can assign to make moves for you when you've lost interest in playing a game. Dumber than a human player, but smart enough to put up a bit of a fight. And if it actually starts winning, you can take over again.... --Red Baron 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add ability to ignore a ranked game so you can see what is next in the queue

suggested by kdob20080109194228 --Steven 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.warfish.net/wiki/Todo_List_Requests"