PvP event idea: Guild Wars

Guild Wars
This is an event that combines custom map making and battles between different guilds. The goal of the event is to conquer the Guild Hall of the opposing guild. Here's how it works.

We have 5 maps that can be combined into one wide map, like a panorama image. Maps are from left to right:

1. Guild A Guild Hall - 2. Guild A Territory - 3. Neutral Territory - 4. Guild B Territory - 5. Guild B Guild Hall

Map 3 is symmetrical and designed by someone who is not participating in the event. It can be for example a map with a river and bridge on the centre. This river is what separates the territories of the two guilds.

Maps 1 and 2 are designed by guild A and maps 4 and 5 are designed by guild B. These 4 maps do not have to be symmetrical but they do have to be approved by the organizer and the opponent as "fair and balanced". In other words, guilds can make their own crazy maps but they cannot design them in a way that would give them a huge advantage.

All maps would be for example 13x13 and they would share 2 rows with adjacent maps on each side. This would help with the illusion that it's one big map.

Each guild would have an uneven number of players, for example 5, who would be randomly seeded against 5 enemies. First matches would be fought in map 3. After the 5 matches are over, whichever guilds won more battles, advances to the next map towards the Guild Hall of the enemy. And if they won more matches in the Guild Hall map of the enemy, then they destroy the opposing guild and win the event.

So basically teams try to push enemies away from their own Guild Hall and towards their enemies Guild Hall. This might take a while if the teams are even and keep stepping back and forth, but eventually one guild will be victorious.

HARDCORE MODE: Guilds agree that losing guild will be disbanded!

Any suggestions or comments?

 

My excitement is only tempered by the thick layer of equipment I don't have to compete seriously in card hunter nor the willingness to play the builds of the day. This same idea, and not that this is what you are going for, but this same idea but with preset units to pick from(such as monsters, default characters, common items only or something limiting and balancing of that nature) sounds intriguing. Sorry for dirting your topic with such hellacious suggestions.

 

Seems awesome. If something like guild existence is actually on the line, though, would rather see a more even playing field, e.g. deckbuilding restraints like Peasant or something in order to keep whichever guild has the most Vibrant Pains from just winning.

Also seems like a lot of map-building! But if the maps existed, I would gladly run into battle alongside my fellow Sorcererers!

 

Awesome idea. Using monster using could work. We could maybe have a catalogue of monsters with prices next to their names, and each guild would get cerain amount of "gold" they could use to buy defenders/attackers. For example I could maybe buy 3 goblins to defend Guild Hall gate, or maybe use the same amount of cash and buy a Wyvern to attack opponents Guild Hall. The best part of it would be that we could have these epic battles between 10+ troops, and not the same old boring 3vs3. This kind of thing would be really cool buy would require a lot of work and balancing. Thanks for a great idea.

If we wanted to make the catalogue, first we need to pick the units that are available, then we need to put a price on them. I'll try to cook something up later. Meanwhile if anyone has any ideas, let me know.

That hardcore mode is probably too hardcore, but it's still an option for those who like that kind of thing.

Maps 2, 3 and 4 would be very simple to make. All it needs really is some terrain tiles with a couple of bushes here and there, maybe a road leading to Guild Hall. I also think that each guild should have their own terrain. For example Sorcereres could have forest/grass, and Power of Fires could have lava.

Maps 1 and 5 would be where the most work is needed because Guild Hall has more details. What I would do is google some images of medieval castles and just copy from there. It shouldn't take more than 1-2 hours. And I think it would be a cool project for all guild members.

 

This is a great idea (especially since I'm horrible in MP and my other 4 guild mates don't exist yet).

If you want, I can start working on some map #3's for others to use. I already have ideas for two different river/bridge maps.

EDIT: First one: Wide Bridge


Do people prefer their rivers to be Difficult or Impassible?

 

Great. Please do.

What do you think the best map size would be? I mentioned 13x13 but after looking at the editor, I'm starting to think that something like 17x13 would be better because that guild hall needs more space. I also think that each map should borrow only one row of tiles from adjacent maps instead of the 2 rows I talked about earlier.

 

I can imagine a lot of back and forth if some maps are pro-melee and some maps pro-ranged combat... that's probably a good thing?

 

This idea bakes. That's a compliment. I'm guessing this suggestion won't be popular, but I'd suggest that guilds should NOT have an even amount of 'gold' to spend on mobs. Do it so that:

g = ((p/n)/r) + x

Where p is the number of points and n is the number of guild members and r is the guilds current ranking. X is just a constant 'bootlace' allowance so nobody starts with nothing.

Yes, I'm joking about the formula. This idea is awesome, tho.

 

Cool. That's almost exactly like I envisioned it. I have a couple of comments.

Those plates look weird though but I guess what could be subjective. If a person didn't know they were plates, it might look more realistic. But for other map designers it probably looks a bit weird

I notice you chose 13x13 as map size. I think that it could be better if the road continued 2 rows to each side, making it 17x13. That would make it seem less cramped because you would need to move a bit before you reach the bridge.


The bridge needs VP squares imo. Theme-wise it would of course mean that if you control the bridge, you can move your troops across.

And finally, if we use monsters instead of MP party, we need more spawn points, maybe something like 3 spawn points per number (3 x 5)? And maybe is a battle formation of sorts?

Ah, I thought you were serious. I want back my two minutes of explaining why it would be a bad idea.

 

Ok, lets say we want to use monsters instead of MP party. Both players can take 5 different types of monsters (custom game restriction). Amount of each type is not restricted, but I think we should restrict it to something like 3. I also think that monster slot #1 should be reserved for the General of the army. Generals would be elite monsters that cost a lot more and which you can only have one. This would give us a maximum of 13 monsters per side (1+4 x 3).

Lets say we give each guild a fixed amount of cash like:

500

They would then use that cash to buy troops that they position on each map. Alternatively we could have them buy troops before each battle, and when they run out of money, they are basically screwed.

Here's a really quick example of a catalogue page. Creatures and prices are totally random.

Generals

Strench the Pungent​

30

Zaius​

40

Bluk, Goblin Chieftain​

60

Troops

Goblin Grunts​

5

Goblin Shaman​

10

Goblin Berserker​

25

Just some quick ideas. Post yours if you have any.

 

I will be willing to assist in any playtests in balancing those numbers.

While I may not be for an advantage to begin with, as it is against the spirit of a balanced tourney, I could imagine obtaining a little extra gold for destroying or raiding a guild, also it may be interesting if there was a way to make units surrender to your side. Perhaps a VP victory? Maybe there's only V squares at a guild. Or you can surrender one unit to spare your others.

By the look of those units, it should almost be called Goblin Wars.

 

There could also be RTS elements like gold for every day you control a landmark? Maybe there could be landmarks at "2".

Also perhaps the goal isn't necessarily to be the last guild standing(though it can work out that way), but to be the wealthiest by the end of the week. Thus the highest score. It's just that greater risks offer greater rewards.

If a tourney does last 7 days as an example, then defenders could have 24 hours to respond to challenges before an automatic loss. There could also be rewards and penalties for responding quick or slow, for example if you respond within the first 12 hours you get a bonus or if the opponent has only 1 unit left you get it, and vice versa the back 12 hours, as one possible example though I'm sure the details could be different.

 

Here's an idea for a model. I actually do away with neutral map in favor of landmarks.

All Guilds get X gold. Goblin Wars will star on X day and end 7 days later. Everyone has until day X to proclaim unit purchases thus officially entering the guild tournament.

The Goal
Be The Wealthiest Guild: on the 7th day
Defend Your Guild: It can be looted or destroyed

Loot a guild: search for their gold stash and take half of their money before they reassemble.
Destroy a guild: take out a guild, but gain no money.

Map

Landmark: Each one gives a different sum each day controlled, with some harder to attack or defend.
Shop: this won't be on the map, in the thread you can purchase units. You can pay double to PM the game host to buy them privately. ??? purchase will still show up. There are also units with special meta abilities, such as very expensive "assassin" units, which can appear right at a guild. There are "traps" you can buy for your own land that decrease the unit cap of the attacker, and units that can disable them.

[your guild] [guild's land]

If your guild is still intact, and you own your land, once per day you may claim an unowned Landmark. If there are no unowned landmarks, you may attack an owned one.

Unit Cap
GUILD
Defender: 1000 gold max
Invader: 500 gold max

GUILD'S LAND
Defender: 750 gold max
Invader: 500 gold max
Every day your guild land is owned by someone else, you can't receive resources from or reinforce your landmarks. You may fire cannons from your guild and the occupying guild loses 100 gold worth of occupying units.

Once reclaimed, you'll get gold from your landmarks for all the days you missed if they stayed defended.

LANDMARK
Have unique unit caps. They are not created equal, such as some may be easier to defend and give a lot of gold, and some hard but give little.

Landmarks would be things like a coal or diamond mine, resource gathering themed.

 

This is running almost into Tower Defense area. And we've had a previous poster/player talk about making a subset of CH that works like a roguelike. I think it's cool that this game can bring in other gaming aspects into custom scenarios and not feel like it's too far afield to work.

 

Made a new version of my bridge, posted in its own thread (to avoid filling this thread with screenshots):
http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/gw3-wide-bridge.5205/

I suggest having all scenario names start with "[GW#] " where # is the map position, to make it easier to find the results on the stats site. (And we'll need to bug Farbs about logging the individual results.)

Also, it would make sense (to me at least) if the defending guild has a positional advantage. Specifically, if the defenders spawn between the victory squares and the attackers, to force the attackers to go through them. We can balance this a little by raising the defender's VP goal by 2 or something.

Win/lose/profit idea: Each guild can hire units up to their Treasury score (what Codde calls "unit cap"); money spent on units does not lower your score. Each guild starts with a score of 300 and when you win a battle your score gets +10 and the loser gets -10. If you conquer a guild (beat them at their guild hall 3 times), your score is increased by half the loser's score. And then the loser picks a surviving guild to get the other half of their treasury.

 

What about 1 large unit per team?

Score is interesting, kind of like food limit from RTS. Landmarks, aka Resources could help increase this limit. I like the idea of moving units from one map to another which could be engaging/strategic.

The map defending the guild should be called the Outpost.

 

What is the penalty for not showing up? Does a guild lose a battle if they don't have members at overlapping times?

Making something like this accessible is of utmost importance.

Running a multiday tournament is going to be an interesting challenge.


Making the attacker or defender lose by default is troubling, as either can catch the players while away. We may need to have timezone brackets or exclude guilds that can't participate at a few optional times of day. Perhaps three 1 hour long segments at different times of day could be be dedicated to "Guild War Time" and a guild must sign up for two of them. It may be important to have more than just one person organizing this tournament if it is to be viable, even on a limited scale, though with more help more can be done.

Of course a solution that allows battle at any time of day, being self governed would be desirable, I don't yet know how it could be done.

 

wait, is this thread about raiding or warring ?

Raiding is under active consideration: https://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/start-a-guild.5118/page-2#post-51803
And deserves its own thread for discussion, imo.

If its warring, I see no real reason why guilds must start off with equal gold/resources. Would be a funny moment when a single member guild goes to war against a 50 member guild and wins. Larger guilds should have higher tithes and access to more/valuable monsters. Food for thought, maybe ?

 

It would kinda be like the one crazy wizard controlling an army. A guild with many members would be more like a military with different generals giving orders. The advantage of more players is more brain power, although it would be interesting if you got one general unit for every player participating or something along those lines.

Also, adding on to the idea of having "Guild Wars Time" at several points in the day, perhaps agreeing to more of them gives you a bigger keep, thus giving bigger guilds with members available at more times a benefit, the drawback is not showing up is an automatic loss, so a guild better be sure they can show up.

 

Ok, cool. Although I'm not sure how much playtesting is really needed. We could just assign prices mostly based on monster HP and how many cards they draw per round. Then have one test event after which we look at the prices again. We would learn while we play.

Like I said there, those were just examples. The full catalogue would have a lot more creatures.

The question is, which creatures should be listed? Do we include monsters like slime? And how about mixing "good" and "evil" monsters? Is that allowed, or should each guild choose between GOOD (humans, elves, etc.), NEUTRAL (monkeys, constructs, etc.) and EVIL (undead, kobods, etc.), and pick a monster catalogue based on that?


-------------------

As for you other suggestions, there's so many of them that I need more time to think about them and respond. But I will say this that I think it would be best if we started from something really simple and later add more stuff to it. Otherwise it's going to be way too complicated for both the organizer and the participants.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, defenders should definitely start at a better position so that attackers really need to attack to get that win. But the problem with fixed score requirements would be that using many cannon fodder troops would put you in a big disadvantage because enemy would just kill those goblins or whatever and win on points without even touching your stronger monsters. I think the score requirement should be automatic, as in calculated based on what monsters are on the map.

The problem with that would be that it could lead into a situation where we have a couple of zerg guilds that not only have most of the best players, but also most of the cash. They would easily crush any newcomers. I think we should put more emphasis on player skill instead of guild wealth, which is why I think both guilds should have equal amount of money to spend.