Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'multiplayer'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Playdek
    • News and Announcements
    • Member Introductions
  • Game Discussion
    • Labyrinth: The War on Terror
    • Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
    • Fort Sumter: The Secession Crisis
    • Twilight Struggle
    • Agricola
    • Lords of Waterdeep
    • Summoner Wars
    • Fluxx
  • Miscellaneous
    • General Discussion


  • AnotherChaos' Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Found 3 results

  1. Is there any way to make the online multiplayer implementation of this game use the AI for players who have forfeited due to time? To my knowledge, just playing nothing, which is what a forfeited opponent will do after dropping, isn't a legal move. It kinda screws up the balance of the game. Someone who's in the right place at the right time when someone drops can take advantage of a board that provides either too many resources or too many other options. My specs would be this: If you're the only Human player left when all others have forfeited, you still win automatically. If you forfeit (voluntarily or by time), your rank score will still reflect having lost to the remaining human players. If you forfeit, an AI takes over your game. I'm thinking the "amateur" AI would be sufficient, though that could even be randomly picked. Humans that lose to an AI receive no change to their rank score (for that player). Humans that win to an AI still receive rank score based on the original human player's rank (like it is today). In a game that ends with multiple humans and AI players, at the end, the highest Human score will still get a "win" in their win/loss record, regardless of other changes. Basically, I don't want the introduction of AI opponents in online multiplayer to screw up rankings and statistics, but it would be nice to have valid moves being played on the forfeited player's behalf. A two-player game on a 5-player board introduces some real problems.
  2. Hi! I just bought LoW and totally love it! My son also loves the game and we spent this weekend playing together. My questions/suggestions with regard to multiplayer: 1) Is it possible to play over wifi/LAN/our own network, without having to connect with Playdek network? 2) is there any way to include AI to our multiplayer session (me, my son and 3 AIs?) 3) the hotseat game needs better UI to inform Player 2 the previous players' moves since the device was held by Player 1. To make myself clear: for Player 2, everything happened then the device goes to Player 1, and then Player 2 has to make his move after Player 1's turn. This put Player 2 to some disadvantage, he has to memorize all players' movement. Maybe it would be better if right after Player 2's end turn, the device goes to Player 1 (playing all players' movement then waiting for Player 1's response) and then goes to Player 2 (playing all players' movement then waiting for Player 2's response)? 4) Could you put Player 1 or Player 2 avatar and name when informing their turn, instead of a Masked Lord card and its faction? Thank you and I hope LoW will get future expansion!
  3. In Multiplayer iOS Agricola, it's hard to find the happy medium between playing all the time and playing asynchronously over a long period. One of the most aggravating things I've found over the past few days is that I keep having to eat the hours when I'm asleep. Maybe I just go to bed before other people, but I feel like I'm being set up to forfeit. In one game, I started with 24 hours, and because I ended up being the first to sleep for two nights in a row, I'm down to 4. My opponents have 18 and 9. Hypothetically, one opponent could just wait until the middle of the night, do their turn, then pass play to me for the rest of the night. And ouila, I've automatically lost without any opportunity to make a change. My suggestion: Let us designate a period (either 6 or possibly 8 hours) each day that would be personal "free" hours. During a person's "free" hours, the chess clock doesn't run down for them. This would be an individual setting that would be locked-in per game (so that you couldn't change it mid-game). That way, it won't feel so risky just to go to sleep. Accordingly, the actual "chess" clock time could be reduced to something like a 16-hour game. And no, setting the game timer to 7 days or more does /not/ already solve this issue. If I'm consistently the first one to sleep, then I'm still consistently the one taking the hit on the timer when bedtime rolls around.
  • Create New...