Skysaw wrote:

Good stuff! I very much enjoyed playing, and have subscribed now.

Some notes:
1. Getting a few "cannot modify null" errors here and there.
2. Would love to see a turn timer, to keep people moving along.
3. "Lock Game" verb has the description for "Lock Queue" on it.
4. The game can go forever if two good people face off. Not sure what to do about it, but it's something that came up for me twice against two separate opponents who were both pretty good. One might have gone forever if I hadn't eventually stopped paying attention.

I've found that the random element of the card draws can prevent this from happening. Even between good players, it's sometimes possible for one to be unable to properly divert another in one turn. This stage usually lasts quite a while but it doesn't, as a rule, go on forever.

Lummox JR

Leftley wrote:

Actually, I've noticed just the opposite. While it's true that one really annoying player can drag a one-on-one game on indefinitely if they play strict defense*, this usually doesn't seem to happen; mostly the game seems to stall the most when it gets down to three. Again, I'm still not sure what to do about this; there's no clear-cut way to determine who's "ahead", and no good arbitrary way suggests itself either.

I have doubts on the strict defense model. There do seem to be cases where a player would simply run out of opportunities.

I too have noticed more stalling at 3 players. Usually this is when 2 of the players are quite ponderously stupid, or else have made up their minds to ally no matter what and keep attempting to take down the third player. The stupidity part comes into play because the third player, if playing good defense, creates opportunities for his opponents to blast each other. The opponents, unwilling to take the opportunity or else too dim to see it, will merrily turn everything back on their intended victim, turning mirrors back, turning glass, etc. A good player can usually hold them off for a while until it becomes possible to nail one of them.

Lummox JR

Zilal wrote:

Does laser wars play a sound when it's your turn? That is a requirement for my subscription money!

Z

I don't think it has any sounds at all at the moment. It does highlight your marker, though... sort of a pulsing glowy effect :-)

Here's another request:

If I pay to subscribe, and set up hosting, that means I probably want to play awhile. Unfortunately, as soon as game one is over, I find that I'm at the end of a potentially long game queue.

I propose that the host have the option to remain playing from game to game, should they be as impatient as I am.

Skysaw wrote:

Here's another request:

If I pay to subscribe, and set up hosting, that means I probably want to play awhile. Unfortunately, as soon as game one is over, I find that I'm at the end of a potentially long game queue.

I propose that the host have the option to remain playing from game to game, should they be as impatient as I am.

I will add more advanced queue manipulation once I get past the next few exams, but in the meantime I suggest you look at the add, remove, and lock queue commands. In retrospect, I really should've had an insert command (or given that functionality to add)...

That was part of my question though, what makes it worth it?

Foomer wrote:

That was part of my question though, what makes it worth it?

Some games are just especially fun, or especially fun to host. In the case of Laser Wars, only subscribers can host, and I found that I liked the game enough that I'd want to host it in the future (which I have, in the past--talk about mixing your tenses!). Bombard is the same way: I'm going to want to host that once admin verbs and other commands become available. Star Traders was somewhat fun, though I think I would have enjoyed having a bigger ship to tool about in and access to other subscriber-only options--thus I subscribed to that too.

Also--and this is the kicker for me--I feel a game is worth the money if it shows a lot of cleverness and skill on the part of the author. Bombard is a delightful game with a really simple concept. Laser Wars, like the best strategy games, is dirt simple in concept but requires careful thought to play. And Star Traders, though I have some beefs with certain aspects of the game (most notably that it can't be saved), is a well-crafted space economics simulation. Tanks is just all-around fun, and a lot of work went into that, but what got me to subscribe was the advantage of advanced technology, and the fact that the price was right.

Lummox JR

Just give him a free subscription/refund and be happy about it.

Foomer wrote:

Now I'm curious, what kind of games ARE you willing to subscribe to?

The simple answer is, games where I feel I'll enjoy what I pay for often. Er, often enjoy what I pay for.

So enjoying a game isn't enough, it has to be one I'll play often too. Like MLAAS, which I play most weeks. RPGs are good for replay value, and so are many single-player puzzle-type games, for me. Most of the non-RPG multiplayer games don't have the same replayability for me. Well, most of the RPGs don't either, but that's because they suck.

Z

Foomer wrote:

Okay, what makes a game something you'd want to play often? :o)

If I could answer that, I would have. It has to be "fun."