I keep saying it, but yeah, if SRC does well it'll encourage recruiting. (And why do you want me to lose members? There are more than enough players to go around!)
Um... kinda tired of reading so much text... >_< Hitting what I skimmed as some of the remaining major points: - multi-scale maps Great idea. I'm only implementing a world map in which each grid unit corresponds to a single CardHunter scenario. More grandiose encounters sound awesome for future iterations. - hex map It's harder to cordon off section / create a defensible border on a hex map. It's something to look at though. - other map considerations For the test, there will only be 4 guilds. (Which I'll probably hand-pick from volunteers, aiming for a variety of kinds of guilds...) For more extensive play, it might be good to abandon a grid and just draw up an arbitrary-connectedness territory map, like a Risk world map. Landing zones also don't necessarily need to be in the corners. - restrictions Just to reiterate about the restrictions and assumptions under which I'm operating: 1) The only available data about a match is the winner, the time in which it was completed, the title, and a hash identifying the scenario. 2) Guilds are not large / active enough for any kind of synchronous-input interaction. 3) The desirable guild size (at the moment) is ~10. The game should optimize for upward and downward pressures towards that number. 4) No direct penalties for single-player or huge guilds. 5) More unregulated mechanics are great! Economies and alliances and such create a richer experience with minimal effort on my part.
Multi-scale maps: My point was that the world map corresponds to the whole Universe, while for a Guild War event, it would take place on a smaller hand-tailored map with only the active guilds in that particular War involved. 1) OK. It's easy to work with a clear win/loss system, but it's possible to get more even without the API 2) Can we have a survey or some kind of conclusive data to show this? Would help to figure out how the input/gameplay will work. It could become a weekly thing 3) IMO, there *should* be a limit on the number of active players in a Guild War. The other members should have minimal impact on that Guild's power. 4) Single Players should be hirable as mercenaries. 5) Yes yes and more yes.
Well, I don't want you to lose members, so much as I want a more even distribution of (active) members. There's a self-perpetuating situation which I've described to you before in that The Sorcererers are the in-crowd social club, to which all the new members flock. Nobody else can approach the sheer visibility of the Sorcererers, and nobody else can hope to start another general-interest social club. In short, there's just no reason at the moment for players to turn anywhere other than The Sorcererers, excepting niche interests. And even that often isn't enough, as I lost several potential recruits to The Sorcerers back when I still bothered to actively recruit. (Kinda straying off-topic, but it's important enough to deal with here, I think.)
Welcome back Neoncat Likely, you're going to want to have players verify each other's work anyway. For example, if you were to allow multiplayer parties to complete a map, what's to stop someone from creating maps that only have 3 spawn points for each player and blocked terrain everywhere else? It would be like waterways on steroids. Perfectly beatable for a single player, but only if you happen to play firestorm. Even if you have a predetermined setup, it is easy to make a map that is really, really difficult to win the first time around, or the win chance in general is very low. You'll only have to win the map once out of ten times if the only system in place to verify it is that the player has beat his own map. Perhaps if all participants of the defending guild were to be allowed to play the battle (owning player has priority, of course, if he is available), it would become easier. We could even allow mercenaries to play battles for other people instead. Their incentive to win is that they will get paid. The problem with the current guild system is that it has no impact on anything. It is a leaderboard where the scores of individuals are grouped together. There is no cooperation between guildmembers yet, either. In essence, guilds have no ways to set themselves apart other than by their numbers or the combined score of individuals. There are no 'Hardcore' guilds, no guilds with taxes to build up guild property etc. I'm hoping that with Guildwars we create more of an identity for participating guilds. I proposed titles earlier, but even without those, if guilds have different strategies for playing the game, people might join guilds that they can work together with using their own play style. For now though, if guild wars proves to be a success, and players want to join in on the fun, I think a higher chance to play will be enough incentive to join smaller guilds instead. If only ten (twenty?) players can join, reasonably speaking, then joining SRC may not be as attractive anymore. Also, Flaxative, it is not about people leaving SRC, it is about people joining other guilds as well
Progress is coming along. I just checked guild activity numbers, and this is what I found. # of active players (played in last week) in guilds with >1 active player: Sorcerers - 34 NinetyNineKnaves - 9 Power of Fires - 7 PizzaAndCoffee - 4 Order of the Ivory Flame - 3 Double Rainbow - 3 (2, excluding me) So, um... yeah. It's a bit depressing, but I'll keep on plugging away. If we get to the test, I'll put Sazanami in charge of Double Rainbow's efforts (if he wants it), since I'll be making sure the whole machine runs. I'm guessing Sorcerers would be interested. Maybe Power of Fires? The others don't turn up much on the forums. We'll need a couple of 1-person guilds, too. So... maybe Designer's Den and um, Jade can found a guild?
I'm on vacation from June 24th until the end of June (give or take a few days), but otherwise I'm up for it. d(^^ Also note that player activity is dependent on what is happening at the moment. For example, I haven't played a single multiplayer game since the leagues have been scheduled with a 10 hour interval. Especially since there are only two maps in rotation, I've grown a bit bored with them, and last time I was in the multiplayer lobby, people seemed to be sharing my sudden lack of enthusiasm for the leagues. By the time we're ready to launch a test, we should probably also put some effort in promoting the game, because chances are that people either don't read the forum, or they don't read this particular section (I think it took about one month before I even noticed the thread, and I'm a member of DR at that :$) Finally, I put some thought in the traitor mechanics. Switching sides happens, but when it does, it should not be motivated by in-game benefits. Furthermore, when someone is thinking about switching sides, it should not be demotivated by in-game disadvantages either. It is tricky to design the mechanics in such a way that neither guild is penalized or rewarded when the switch happens, especially because by nature one guild gets what another was the owner of. To be honest, I don't have a clear view of what a Champion is composed of yet. Is he accompanied by additional forces? Does he consist only of a multiplayer party? Etc. Therefore some details will probably have to wait until the first test. In any case, I think we should use the 'Teleportation to the Guild Headquarters' option to have the Champion teleport to the Guild he is trying to defect to. Except that the guild that accepts the defector should have to pay for it and any other guild property gets left behind. For example, if a Champion is accompanied by additional forces, those forces do not defect along with the Champion (unless of course, the original guild sells the troops to the new guild of the defecting Champion). Teleportation can be expensive from afar, which discourages defecting right after having been spawned by a guild. (Effectively granting a guild two champions in one turn and none for another guild) By Teleporting to the Headquarters, you also force a defector to switch sides as soon as possible. If they linger on the battlefield more than they have to before they defect, that time is simply lost to the player. The only other cheap tactic that I can think of at the moment is that a guild is assaulting another guild's headquarters, only to have an ally defect right before the battle starts and quickly join the fight as an enemy, while leaving their own forces scattered. I think this can be averted by having a few more rituals that need to be performed when turning traitor, as well as a chance to get caught. A few examples: 1) The defector needs to establish communications and negotiations 2) The defector needs to receive some kind of permission to use another guild's Teleportation platform Incorporating above examples, a defector would first have to clear a map that lets him open communications with a guild and successfully negotiate the terms of his desertion. At the risk of being spotted by an observer in the lobby of course The next turn, the guild he wishes to Teleport to has to complete a custom map granting the deserter access to the Teleporter. Finally, during the third turn, the deserter has to complete the Teleportation custom map to finalize the whole ordeal. For deserters that have been spotted, it could be ruled that they can be arrested for treason by their original guild if they have a nearby Champion. Since it takes a few turns for a deserter to complete the rituals, he cannot safely desert while an assault is ongoing, unless he manages to get outside of the sphere of influence of the original guild first. If anyone can think of more cheap tactics that can be performed with above system that skew the power balance, please let me know d(^^
Some thoughts on traitors/desertion: -First the Traitor must complete an aptly named custom map (Talks With the Enemy?) (should be at least 20 squares wide) wherein they meet up with the guild of their defection to discuss terms. If the receiving guild allows the player to cross the map and hold a VP for a turn or two, they have accepted that members proposal to defect to them. This is the first step. However, if the player loses this map, their talks with the guild have failed and they will be :Killed (betrayed by the guild they were defecting to) OR possibly they will escape with their lives. If they are lucky, no one in their guild or any spies will report their attempted desertion. It is possible for a guild to find out that a member was planning to desert, and they could inform/ bribe the other guilds to deal with that player as they see fit -The next step, after a minimum 24 hours is for the player to complete another scenario: Desertion! In this map, the player must escape from their guild's angry forces (some Ogres would be lovely!) and get across to the other side of the map and safety. If the deserter wins the scenario they have successfully changed sides, and can now be attacked by their previous guild-mates. Again, failure to win this scenario will result in the traitor being caught and hanged for treason. I believe that teleporting sounds too easy, and it definitely shouldn't be! If there is a teleporting scenario, they should have to hold the circle for a few turns while it builds up enough energy to spirit them away. I do not have or need a Guild, for I am the Master of Cardhuntria's first League of Mercenaries: The GuildLess. We fight for the highest bidder. We need nothing but the names of the doomed.
My thoughts on defecting: No teleportation. The defector has to walk to the other guild's HQ, and once there they can choose to play the Defect map instead of the normal Raid map. If the other guild lets them win the Defect map, they can defect (using the normal ceremonies) to that guild and can start helping them on their next turn. So the Sorcererers have more active members than all the other guilds combined. Yeah, that's not going to work. First of all, you shouldn't give any resources for activity outside the guild wars. Then, divide all guild resources evenly among all guild members (including inactive ones), rounded down. Yes, I'm picking on Sorcererers for being big, but I can't think of anything else that would make it possible for other guilds to compete. Also, my idea here requires that all members have Champions, so a larger guild may be limited to tiny armies, but they'll still have an advantage in occupying territory.
I was thinking that a traitor/defector can defect at any time, on any square. Bonus points for doing it right before they are supposed to Raid though.
