PvP event idea: Guild Wars

Discussion in 'Card Hunter General Chat' started by Scared Little Girl, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. Codde

    Codde Mushroom Warrior

    I don't mean to say this to pressure you so don't think that is what I am trying to do I only wish to communicate what my... erm labido? is like for these kinds of projects. I get really excited, and explode with activity, then walk away. Not to say I wouldn't be interested in helping run it I might really like that, though I always have a strong urge to get everything out really fast, and I'm not sure I am done yet. I can see you take your time to make very deliberate responses, and I appreciate this, though there may be more to come from the Codde storm before you have time to even process what I have already said. Know that I appreciate your thoroughness and won't demand you meet my pace, and eventually I will just flutter out, giving you time to catch up.

    Yes it would be better if I had input at every turn, yet I have yet to meet someone with my kind of labido so I have learned to appreciate other's and my own pace for creative brainstorming and processing.
  2. Codde

    Codde Mushroom Warrior

    Yes I agree it should be small at first, but small is a relative term. It really depends on how much help we get.

    Things like keeping track of monsters and how many each guild owns is one layer.
    The next layer of depth that one could add is where are they on the map.
    The next next layer would be making each player of a guild a general with units to control.

    One thing to consider when evaluating how much we can handle, is there is only a handful of guilds in existence at this time, which may never be true again. It may be good to challenge ourselves at this special opportunity.
  3. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    EVIL?? Those Kobolds, Goblins, and Trogs were just minding their own business when the horrible humans/elves/dwarves started killing them and taking their stuff! (I'm only half kidding here; the Campaign is full of unnecessary greed and violence.)

    I had an idea where each general gives a free unit of that race, maybe even one free unit per group (to encourage using many groups instead of one large one). But this makes more sense in games where groups are like 10-20 chars instead of 2-3.

    I was thinking "Automatic + 2" (ooh, another thing to add to my Wishlist). If all generals are worth 2 and all others worth 1, it wouldn't be too hard to recalculate when setting up the match.

    What if the guild gains a little bit of wealth for every match they play, even if they lose? Large guilds will have an advantage here, but it would also discourage guilds from dodging challenges. What if each participating guild member gets a general (chosen before the event starts and can't be changed) and the guild treasury is split among them? Large guilds will start at a disadvantage, but will likely make it up from per-battle income.

    Or we could just forget the guilds and have each player defending their private home.
  4. Codde

    Codde Mushroom Warrior

  5. Codde

    Codde Mushroom Warrior

    I prefer model B, as we lose the true panorama, we gain a more dynamic war, but is model B viable? Is it manageable?

    Lets run some numbers. And see what this might look like.
    Guild A has 20 members, Guild B has 3, Guild C has 10, and Guild D has 4. Well use four for a starting example, just imagine a "plus" instead of a web.

    When designing mechanics we want ones that:
    •involve as many members as possible in a guild that wish to participate.
    •still be possible for small guilds to compete, to what degree is debatable, though guild numbers should not determine final results 1:1.
    I think the first "battle" in a guild war IS to have a larger guild, and that should have some benefit. I think the second battle is having some skilled players on your guild, all this before guild wars starts.

    So how I might interpret that adage, is to give larger guilds more offensive power, in the form of making guildmates generals being able to to make attacks, so a larger guild is able to declare more attacks on maps within a period, but each attack is lead by a different player, thus the skill of those representing your guild will be reflected in each battle. To make this fair defensively, a map can only be attacked once.

    Idea: one option to decide who's attack will make it there first, is the player who is attacking with the least point total of units gets there first.

    Speaking of point totals and monsters and such, I think the defender should be the host, hosts going second, I think this reflects being surprised by an attack. It will be the attacker's job to report any problems with the units, but if they don't quit before the first VP is scored, they agree to the battle.

    So back to the example, Guild A, B, C, and D must have one person as the defender, then if they have extra players, they can send them to other guilds to attack. Guild A, C, and D have enough to attack every other guild, guild B can only attack two.

    You mentioned multiple fights, the alternative is of course, 1 fight. Both have their merits, multiple fights may seem more fair, single fights may seem more realistic(and easier to manage). For multiple fights perhaps 1 player can defend over and over(though others can switch in too), but attacks must be lead by different players.

    As far as monsters, there is two ideas I hear floating around, unit cap/treasury score and currency/gold. This may be the icing on the cake, and we can save it for when we have the basics figured out.

Share This Page