Official KaM Remake Ideas topic

[Krom]

@Ben: It may sound like it is, but it is not really big in fact. Only mapmakers will take advantage of it. However there are a few side features coming along - terrain flipping and handy copy-paste (they were disabled in 5503, right?).

[dicsoupcan]

okay my bad for posting then , i am not up to date with the devblogs yet due to lack of time.

[Bence791]

okay my bad for posting then , i am not up to date with the devblogs yet due to lack of time.

I don't read devblog that much either, just remember that Krom made a post for that article here

[K@T]

Can you sort out the team in place during the game, where shows players?

PLAYER TEAM PLAYER TEAM
xxx 1 aaa 2
ccc 1 sss 2
vvv 1 ddd 2
zzz 1 fff 2

or

PLAYER TEAM PLAYER TEAM
xxx 1 aaa 3
ccc 1 sss 3
vvv 2 ddd 4
zzz 2 fff 4

ps 1,2,3,4 should be the same color as the player.
It would be easier to read.

[Krom]

@K@T: You mean to group the players in game list by the teams they belong?

[K@T]

Yes.

[Krom]

This improvement is planned, we hope to have it implemented in next version

[K@T]

Is it possible to do change teams during the game? For example, there are 8 players, two drops of the same team, so we have 4 vs 2 - not very interesting game, but if one person can change the team then ...
I know that the problem is with the location of the player, but 3 vs 3 in any form is better than 4 vs 2.

[Krom]

We are hoping to address this issue in next version. Either by allowing teammates to control abandoned town or by letting another player join or changing teams.

[Ben]

Being able to change alliances would also be great for FFA games, as mentioned by many others many times. A major problem would be that someone could "ally" with somebody in order to withdraw his units from battle (I did this many times to my brother when we played TSK multiplayer).

One way to solve that would be to only allow alliance changes if there is currently no combat occurring between the respective players? Though it isn't perfect, because an alliance can still be made to help save units that haven't been caught yet.

Or alliances could be have to be accepted first? That seems reasonable. It would totally remove exploiting retreating soldiers. However, it could be annoying if someone spammed you with alliance requests.

Also, we'd need to figure out how exploration would be handled. Maybe it would be best to not have any sharing of exploration in games where teams aren't locked.

[K@T]

I hope last question: D
- What do you think about building a place in the tree (building removes tree), or any other easy way to grubbing up trees?
- What about the message "lumberjack, can not find the trees"
- What about the removal of road?
- What about closing of the building for an employee? (You build gold mines and coal mines. You have one miner. You close the gold mines during construction. Miner selects the second mine)
- What about the transfer of an employee, without demolishing the building? (sometimes a last resort, to play on)

[Nissarin]

We are hoping to address this issue in next version. Either by allowing teammates to control abandoned town or by letting another player join or changing teams.

In Battle for Wesnoth (turn based strategy) it's possible to replace one player with another or with spectator, the last option might be interesting from our perspective. Shared unit control (army) among allies would be nice too.

[WollongongWolf]

Being able to change alliances would also be great for FFA games, as mentioned by many others many times. A major problem would be that someone could "ally" with somebody in order to withdraw his units from battle (I did this many times to my brother when we played TSK multiplayer).

One way to solve that would be to only allow alliance changes if there is currently no combat occurring between the respective players? Though it isn't perfect, because an alliance can still be made to help save units that haven't been caught yet.

Or alliances could be have to be accepted first? That seems reasonable. It would totally remove exploiting retreating soldiers. However, it could be annoying if someone spammed you with alliance requests.

Also, we'd need to figure out how exploration would be handled. Maybe it would be best to not have any sharing of exploration in games where teams aren't locked.

That's indeed one of the things I miss .
About spamming requests: allow 1 request to be send per minute per person.
About exploration: you already said it .

[The Dark Lord]

I got an idea for the map editor,how about an undo last action button? because sometimes you make a mistake and need to fix it. This can be particulary annoying when you placed a few tiles by hand which always respond poor to brushes so you need to rebrush everything of that part and start all over again.

http://www.knightsandmerchants.net/file ... or_06e.rar

[Ben]

I hope last question: D
- What do you think about building a place in the tree (building removes tree), or any other easy way to grubbing up trees?

This has already been declined. Just use the vineyard trick

- What about the message "lumberjack, can not find the trees"

There is already a message for this? It won't appear if there are trees that are in the woodcutter's radius, but too young too cut. Maybe that's why you aren't getting the message?

- What about the removal of road?

Also declined. It's mostly pointless anyway. Why do you need it?

- What about closing of the building for an employee? (You build gold mines and coal mines. You have one miner. You close the gold mines during construction. Miner selects the second mine)
- What about the transfer of an employee, without demolishing the building? (sometimes a last resort, to play on)

Accepted, but programming it is tricky. It will be implemented some day.