RFC - Guild Wars

Discussion in 'Guilds' started by neoncat, Apr 28, 2014.

  1. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline


    This is an attempt to create a "clan wars"-style meta-game with a world map. NO TECH EXISTS YET, so all sorts of ideas are welcome as long as BM isn't required to do anything to enable implementation. I will probably run a week-long trial iteration sometime in June, as soon as the tech is ready, with something larger later during the summer.

    A couple of principles that have influenced my decisions:
    - the ideal guild size is ~10 (larger than most existing guilds, something to aim for)
    - I won't directly penalize huge guilds, but there should be pressure to form guilds of approximately size 10
    - low membership guilds should be able to reap some benefit, but not nearly as much as larger guilds
    - guild wars should be a long-term event, centered around individual encounters, but encompassing larger strategies

    -- OVERVIEW --
    Guild Wars will take place on an NxN world map, initially seeded with random encounters (probably manually generated by me). Actions take place in cycles lasting 24 hours, via a custom-map interface similar to the existing guild ceremonies.

    Ranking would be determined based on control of the world map at the end of the conflict duration (probably 1 month). If BM approves awards for some future iteration of the game (not the week-long trial), those rewards will only be sufficient to distribute among ~10 guild members.

    To keep things simple, most global-scale actions will have to be taken by the guild master. It is probably useful for the guild master to delegate a "map master" in his place. However, many actions will be assumed as delegated to avatar owners (see below) and taken without the intervention of the guild master /map master.

    == MECHANICS ==
    -- RESOURCES --

    There are two resource systems in CH Guild Wars.

    The first system (#1) feeds off of in-game activity, which at present is limited to MP activity exposed via the API. It is hoped that single-player activity (farming, loot fairy hunting) will be exposed via the API at some point in the future. These resources would expire after ~3 days, and would tail off per guild after ~10 players' worth of activity. (e.g., 11 active players will accrue only slightly more than 10 active players, and 12 will accrue even less... etc.)

    Resources #1 are spent on upkeep for avatars (see below) and construction (see below).

    The second system (#2) feeds off of meta-game activity, such as claiming resources on the world map. Resources #2 are spent on upgrades to avatars, upkeep for buildings, and victory points.

    ** Need fancy names for resources. **

    -- WORLD MAP --
    The world map consists of an NxN grid. Movement is possible only in cardinal directions, not along diagonals.

    Each location is of a certain kind of terrain. Some will generate various quantities of resources (#2). Some will generate victory points by which a clan increases ranking in the final tally. Some are just terrain to be crossed while moving to more interesting locations.

    Guilds may claim certain terrain locations by successfully moving into a location and then spending resources (#1). The resources associated with that terrain will then accrue to that guild each day.

    If BM likes the implementation of Guild Wars, I would suggest a special class of terrain which generates 1 magnificent chest each cycle, so that guilds earn resources (to be distributed among members) from owning space on the map.

    -- AVATARS --
    Each guild takes actions at the location of an avatar on the world map.

    At the start of guild wars, each guild is given an avatar at a landing location (probably distinct and equally-spaced for each participating guild). Additional avatars may be spawned from the headquarters (see CONSTRUCTION below) for a certain quantity of resources (#1). No player may control more than one avatar.

    An avatar is under the direct control of a specific guild member, specified during the spawning ceremony. That player must complete all actions for the avatar. Transfer is possible, but the avatar is unavailable for one cycle after the transfer.

    An avatar can move into any adjacent location on the world map by winning the scenario (random or terraformed) associated with that location. It can then spend an additional cycle claiming or terraforming that location via a special ceremony.

    If the avatar fails to win the scenario (random or terraformed) for the desired movement, the avatar is killed off. A new avatar may be respawned at the guild's headquarters for N resources (#1).

    Before attempting movement, resources (#2) may be spent as insurance for the revival of the avatar at its previous location if it fails to move, but the avatar is locked for one cycle to regenerate.

    All encounters will take place with an MP party.

    Once a guild has claimed terrain, it can build one of a small number of buildings. Any claimed terrain becomes terraformed, replacing the random encounter previously at that location with the map used to complete the construction ceremony. (NOTE - each guild designs the scenario which exists at the location of a construction; BUT the guild has to successfully win the map in order to complete construction, so it can't be utterly impossible)

    Headquarters - guild may spawn one additional avatar every 24 hours at the headquarters; resources accrue only from locations connected via claimed land to the headquarters

    Fortress - opposing avatars cannot move through this location without defeating the scenario

    Mine - doubles the resources accrued from this location (special case: guild does not determine scenario associated with a mine location, a standard easy-to-win scenario will be placed at a mine location)

    Claim - the random encounter at this location remains, but the terrain is considered claimed by the guild; does not cost any resources (#2) to claim, just takes an action cycle to complete

    == FEEDBACK ==
    This system is loosely based off of the World of Tanks clan warfare map, except with asynchronous interaction between clans. (Synchronous interaction is WAY too hard to shedule.)

    Areas for further work:
    - there needs to be some sort of interaction between avatars at the same location on the map, so that a guild can attempt to evict an intruder approaching its HQ; is there any way to do this asynchronously? time trial on the random/terraformed map pushes the intruder back to its previous location?
    - will eventually need to balance out resource generation and costs
    - suggestions for how to measure MP activity are welcome
    - is this something your guild would want to participate in?
    - throw your pipe dreams out; we can always ask for more :D

    == PONIES ==
    I want:
    - integration with single player farming / loot fairy hunting (needs single-player battles API support)
    - special challenges for terraformed terrain (needs equipment / characters API support)
    - spend resources (#2) on characters in terraformed map (needs characters API support)
    Farbs, Sazanami, Billyonaire and 2 others like this.
  2. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline

    And I do realize that there are tons of shinies in the pipeline at the moment. I just want to get some feedback b/c this will take a little while to implement. Hopefully it will be ready by the time all of those other shinies are exhausted. :D
  3. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    1. Fame
    2. Wealth
    My guild probably won't be participating, but I'd be willing to help design the world map and default encounters.
    neoncat likes this.
  4. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

  5. Sazanami

    Sazanami Orc Soldier

    I like the general idea, but I think it is a bit difficult to read because of all the abstract concepts.
    For explaining the rules of a game, you'd first need a simple, general idea of how the game is supposed to play like.
    While reading, I implicitly envisioned a game I 'designed' as a teenager to play with one of my brothers as reference. I'll try to explain the basics:

    The game was based on Warhammer 40k. For those unfamiliar with it, Warhammer is a tabletop game where you build an army out of models (Tanks, infantry, transports, etc.) that each cost a certain number of points. Each player can spend points up to a predefined limit. Let's say each player has 2000 points, a tank is 200 points and infantry squads are 50 points. A player could buy 5 tanks and 20 infantry (5*200+20*50=2000) or he could buy 2 tanks and 32 infantry squads (2*200+32*50=2000) or whatever he feels like.
    Normally a single game is played, where each player has the same amount of points. For the game I designed though, each player would get tons of points and he could distribute it over any number of armies. For example, he could have armies of 500 points, but also of 3000 points if the player liked.
    Each of those armies were placed on a board, representing a galaxy with planets. Armies could inhabit a planet or be placed in a starship.
    Whenever two armies would meet on a planet, they would fight and the winner took control of the planet. Any losses incurred on armies were permanent, so even if you were facing a vastly superior enemy, it would pay off in the end to whittle down their numbers using guerrilla tactics, for example.

    Starships basically transported troops, but were also capable of combat. You would want to defend your transport-starships with your armies using fighter-type starships, but at the same time, you didn't want to reveal the size and location of your armies, because that information could be used to defend key planets effectively.
    I don't quite remember how I handled fog of war,I think by having players reveal ships as soon as they entered a neutral zone and players reported whatever those ships saw in their own controlled territory, but if we do this digitally, it should be much easier.

    The whole game was turn-based, of course, where players sequentially moved starships and deployed troops to planets


    How would this translate to CH?

    You could have players design multiple parties, put those parties in vehicles (instead of spaceships) and place them on a map. Each player could then make a move every 24 hours. Whenever they encounter another party, they can choose to fight.
    Since battles are asynchronous, I suggest parties consist of both a custom map and a regular party as used for single- or multiplayer. The regular party is used for attacking, the custom map is used for defending. That is: If you attack another party, you use your regular party to beat their custom map.

    The point system can be used to build characters as well. Assign points to item rarity, where legendaries are five points and commons are one point. This would encourage using more common items instead of sticking a vibrant pain on every warrior. (It would probably be unreasonable to say that different parties must use entirely different items, even if multiple duplicates are owned)
    You could have an epic party that consists of nothing but good items, but at the cost of having a weaker parties as well, that use nothing but commons.
    I'm sure a similar system could be used for creating custom maps, but I have admittedly very little experience with creating those maps.
    Players could make parties that are very good at defending, very good at attacking, both (acting as a general at the front lines or whatever :p) or neither (Scouts/decoys)

    Random thoughts:
    I'm not sure if losses can be made permanent. For example, could you join a game meant for 3 characters if you have only 2 characters? Is it possible for custom maps to generate a different amount of enemies, based on how many have died the last attempt?
    It could also be ruled that a party consists of 9 characters, but you can only bring 3 to any battle.
    With a different point system for defense and offense, I don't think it is even necessary to implement permanent losses though.
    neoncat likes this.
  6. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline

    Hopefully the rules v0.2 (coming soon!) will have pictures to go with text. :)

    OOOOH. I like that. I will have to see if I can make it work. (More below.)

    Unfortunately, the only working API at the moment is the battles API. We can't see either the characters or the equipment taken into battle on the live server. :(
  7. Jade303

    Jade303 Thaumaturge

    How do monsters fit into this thing? I can see it happening as sort of an extended PVP but I think it would be more interesting if you could make a monster army and use that to supplement your forces. Either each player could use both monsters and their 3 chars, OR they could control one monster unit and one character unit. The monsters can die and be replaced; however if all 3 of the player's characters die they are lost (unless the rules of the war allow respawns).

    If possible, this player could spend a set amount of resources to enlist monsters to help with their fights. The price of monsters would change as we figure out their proper values. Whether they be mob, singular or both is yet to be determined.

    I want to propose that two guilds decide to go to war. Having multiple guilds going at it is .... more complex.

    So let's say you make a randomly generated NxN map with a grid. Say, 7X7. Then, you create a set of terrain types (think Advanced Wars sort of) where each type is a custom map. Each custom map has a different number of spawn points and has advantages/disadvantages for the attacker or defender (some maps would also give advantage to a specific guild). Map examples would be river bridge, rocky field, dense forest, cliffside, wide road, etc, etc.
    So then the map is generated :


    Where X and Z are the guild halls, and the letters A-F represent the terrain types. So each square is a different map to battle on.
    EG, A is a stream map while E is dense forest, C are roads, D are bridges/bastions or keeps. There could also be squares which would provide resources for building a larger army.

    Starting on the first day, a new player can spawn at the guild hall (to a set maximum). This player is chosen by the guild master, of course. They are considered their very own unit, and each turn as mentioned they can move 1 square up/down/left/right. I would propose that each day**, before reset, players would submit their action to their Guild Master for the day, and after reset all moves made by players on both sides are revealed, and their new positions are determined. If two units enter the same square, a battle must commence. Battles must be spectated by at least one member of each guild, or a designated War Master (referee).

    Having two guilds fight for supremacy would be complicated enough. It requires:
    Two guild masters/ or a designated Commander-In-Chief, to receive actions taken by their allies and to co-ordinate player movements.
    10-20 players from each guild (5-10 from each) that are willing to participate actively for a period of several weeks.
    A map with several interesting features, as proposed.

    **I understand that playing the game every day might be too demanding for some players, so this action cycle could be made every 48 hours instead.

    Actually, you could have each guild take their action every 48 hours simultaneously, offset 24 hours from the other guild. That would allow for attacking VS defending setups.
    neoncat likes this.
  8. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline

    Unfortunately, I'm operating under the constraints that (1) I don't want to spend time manually verifying maps, (2) I haven't been able to reverse-engineer the .scn format, and (3) the characters API doesn't work on live. :(
  9. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    A few comments:
    • Players cannot control monsters and party members at the same time.
    • I think all this would be far easier if it's individual players competing, instead of guilds.
    • Is the custom map hash feature live yet? I've been meaning to test that.
  10. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline

    Yes. It looks like an MD5, but it doesn't hash the .scn file. It does uniquely identify the scenario, including title.
  11. Jade303

    Jade303 Thaumaturge

    What do you mean by manually verifying maps? and reverse-enginerring the .scn format? As far as API goes, it's not really necessary.

    Let's have an example of what I'm thinking. So, we create 4-7 custom maps using the map maker, then I draw out a grid (as above) with guilds starting at (4,7) and (4,1).

    The game map I made doesn't show which maps are which except for the guild halls. But each square has a different custom map type for it.
    So if a battle takes place on the (4,4) square, and that square type is Bridge, then the Bridge map is used.

    I make up two guilds: Mossters and KillerVoles. Each has 5 guild members: Moe, MX, Mobby, Mlorc, and Me, and Killer, Krazy1, Kelvin, Klaz, and Klik respectively. (not feeling too creative)

    The guild numbers their units, so the opposite guild won't know which unit contains which player (until a fight commences). They will only know which players have joined so far*.
    *This is not entirely necessary. What matters is that only 1 unit can join per day, until the maximum number of Units is reached.

    Each day the post if the "war thread" would look like this:

    So M starts in the south, in green. K is in the north, in red.
    Day 1:
    Moe (GM) Joins the war!
    Unit M1 moves from (4,7) to (4,6)

    (Day 1 Map omitted)

    Day 2:
    Killer (GM) Joins the war!
    Unit K1 stays at the KV Guild Hall (4,1)
    Map day 2:
    Day 3:
    MX Joins the war!
    Unit M1 moves from (4,6) to (5,6)
    Unit M2 moves from (4,7) to (4,6)
    (Day 3 map omitted)
    Day 4:
    Krazy1 Joins the war!
    Unit K1 immediately moves from (4,1) to (5,1).
    Unit K2 moves from (4,1) to (4,2). (notice that you don't know which unit has who)
    (Day 4 map omitted)
    So five turns later....

    Day 9:
    Unit M1 (4,5) Attacks Unit K2 at (4,4)!
    Unit M2 Stays at (2,6)
    Unit M3 Moves North to (5,3)!
    Unit M4 Moves West to (2,5)!
    Unit M5 Moves East to support the attack at (4,4)!


    [[Battle Report!]] (This is a reply to the GM's actions post, made by the players after their battle)

    Unit M1 (Moe) slaughters Unit K1 (Killer)! and takes (4,4)!
    K1 is defeated!
    Unit M5 goes back to (3,4)!

    Day 10:
    Unit K2 supports the attack on M3 from the west!
    Unit K3 Moves South to (2,4)!
    Unit K4 stays to protect (1,5)!
    Unit K5 attacks M3 from the north!

    [[Battle Report!]]
    Unit K5 is repelled by M3! They survive and retreat back to (5,2)! (or, they are all killed and removed from play!)
    Unit K2 attacks next!

    [[Battle Report!]]
    Unit K2 slaughters unit M3! They take (5,3) for themselves!

    //End of example.

    This is a terrible example that needs a lot of refinements. Let's go over some points:
    -The units have miraculously moved more squares than possible in just 5 turns. I don't care!
    -The grid squares aren't labelled, and their terrain types (except guild halls) are not known.
    -We assume that squares like (1,5) , (4,4) , and (5,3) contain some resource to fight over, or possibly the terrain is ideal for attacking/defending
    -The drawing shown don't have before-after positions or lots of fancy arrows. Again, this is just a rough thing. In the future, the map will be posted every day to reflect the movements of one guild, and a new map of the resulting positions after battles have taken place (if any).

    -Unit K5 attacks M3 from the north!///Unit K5 moves South to Attack M3!
    I know that I am inconsistant, but once a system is in place there will be no discrepancies.

    So we could actually replace the co-ordinates, and simply say:
    M1 moves North and attacks K3!
    M2 moves East!
    M3 moves North!
    etc, and then show it on the war map.

    Don't use Paint for this. Just don't.

    OK, so I know that monsters can't be played alongside player characters, BUT you could at least choose to use your monsters instead of your characters. Essentially, you could decide to send out a unit (M4, for example) and your opponent would have to fight that unit if they met in the field.

    Alternatively, you could treat the player's characters and their army as one unit; when they encounter an enemy unit, that player would choose whether to send their expendable monsters to attack or whether to join the fray with their generals (MP characters). If all 3 characters are killed (and thus they lost the battle) then they are removed from play, until respawned later (for example, a minimum of five days later they can come back...

    You could set the rules any which way you like, as long as they are decided on.
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
  12. neoncat

    neoncat Feline Outline

    Erm, I was talking about the bit where players spend resources to recruit monsters. I have no way to automatically determine which monsters were involved in a battle, which would be necessary for any kind of accounting related to recruitment.
  13. Jade303

    Jade303 Thaumaturge

    OK so you can't automatically determine monsters and stuff yet with the API; however as long as the players who sign up remain engaged and do their battles /spectate for their allies, it should be pretty easy to report unit losses. Like I suggested, as long as there is a Game Master/spectators from both guilds to watch the battles, it is feasible.

    Unspent resources available to both guilds would be public knowledge, posted in the wars thread; however only the participating guild members would know what the spent resources were used on, and which monsters were where.
  14. Sazanami

    Sazanami Orc Soldier

    Ideas seem to be plentiful, but it would appear that we're limited by the API and level editor in what we can accomplish.

    Jade303 is right in that we'll have to rely on spectators and/or opponents to report the outcome of battles. Perhaps I am too trusting, but I think the CH players are honest enough not to cheat if we set up a guild wars system for their entertainment.

    A couple of things of note about the editor:
    1) A player can either join with 1 to 3 multiplayer characters OR with 1 to 5 group types of preconstructed monsters. (Group types can have any amount, within reason, of the same monster, f.e. 15 Fire imps)2) There is no customization of preconstructed monsters whatsoever. Not even the VP worth can be adjusted. A bestiary with details about the ~200 monsters that are available can be found here all the way on the bottom of the page (Humans, dwarves, constructs etc.):
    3) VP targets can be any amount. The count is not necessarily such that total annihilation is required to win. A player could bring 15 fire imps, but if the VP count is always set to 6, the player loses as soon as he has lost 6 Fire imps
    4) VP locations are generally marked by the yellow enclosures, but they don't have to be. You could mark the entire board as VP spots and the players wouldn't know until the turn ends that someone could get a VP point for owning more characters. There's more that you can do with this, of course. You could have people 'dig for treasure' as a random encounter or when they are ransacking the treasure room of a castle. (Mauve manticore idea? :p Also note that the AI will try to move to VP spots and move away from them when you put down some lava: Wait for the AI to move to the VP, put down lava to make him run away, stand on the lava yourself to win xD)
    5) Dead characters can go anywhere you like, not just beside the board, but also ON the board. You could design a prison for them and pretend that they got captured instead of died. Maps could be designed such that there's a jailor you could try to beat as a 'get out of jail free-card' for the losses of a combat.

    Anyway, to continue Jade303's example. The spawned units could be combinations of preconstructed monsters, of which the control is assigned to a player of a guild. If all players start out with the same amount of resources to buy units, the guild size doesn't directly influence the power of said guild. Large guilds will have more players controlling less groups, while small guilds will have less players controlling more groups. The first has the advantage of more balanced guild activity. The second has the advantage of more coordinated group strategies.

    Since groups of preconstructed monsters can apparently be any size, dealing with permanent losses is also easier. Let's say a player has an army with 5 skeletons, 3 trogs and a beach tree, he could continue to play until he last all units except for a single skeleton - and then he would still be able to join a battle.
    We could even make some rules for retreating. For example, starting at turn three, a player may declare his retreat before playing any card. At the end of the turn, the battle ends in opponent's favor, but with no further casualties.
    It would probably be fun if groups controlled by the same player can split up or join, but the accounting involved could become a nightmare. Perhaps only joining up should be allowed.

    Another thought I was having is that rather than a timeframe, moves should probably have a cooldown. That is, if a unit has moved, it cannot move again for a set amount of hours (20? 44?). This should give incentive to play, rather than wait until the other players have moved for the day, as waiting for others to make a move first tends to be strategically advantageous. Last thing we'd want to see is a Mexican standoff. ;)

    In any case, at the very least we'll need to keep track of:
    1) The board lay-out (Possibly with dynamic resource locations and/or guild territorial borders)
    2) Army locations, owners and size
    3) Accumulated resources
    4) What moves/battles are occurring when. (because of the risk that someone wants to make an attacking move on something which has to fight another battle first)
  15. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    I think the current API handles this okay, but we may need players to report the battle ID.

    Up to 100 per group, actually. Though your browser may crash trying to put a couple hundred figures on the board.

    Can't be 0, though. (I tried.)


    Another example. Also, one of my first maps was the prison idea, but I never finished it.

    Enforcing this would be difficult.

    I don't think this would be too hard.

    I like this idea, but I'm worried that it will be another advantage to large guilds. Also it would require the referees to be online at all hours to accept and process moves.
  16. Jade303

    Jade303 Thaumaturge

    I don't know what you are saying about the whole timeframe /cooldown/referee online at all hours thing, but here is what I am thinking:

    -Participating guild members submit their actions to their GUILD MASTER (Or the designated Guild Commander) via PM. They have until the end of each day (reset) to make their decision and to communicate with team members.
    -At the end of each day, the Guild Commander posts the actions of ALL of the guild members and their resulting effects/movements on the board.
    -At this point, any and all battles must take place. There will be a limited window (24 hours or less) in which the battles must happen. If you can't make it... you lose!
    -The battle results are posted, scores, casualties, resources are counted.
    -And the cycle repeats.

    It would be pretty simple to make things happen every 48 hours. Once more, we could either offset the guilds so they act one after the other (this could take longer if waiting for battle reports)...
    OR have both guilds act simultaneously. At the start of the game cycle, at reset, all actions are announced by both Guild commanders. Then, the players have 24 hours to react (EG Battle) and THEN they have another 24 hours to plan their next move.... and the next cycle/turn begins.
  17. Sazanami

    Sazanami Orc Soldier

    What I meant with a cooldown is this:
    At 29 May 02:00, the board is as follows:
    It's been a while since there was any activity, so all players can make a move whenever they want to.
    It is Green5 that makes the first move at 02:00 though:
    Now that Green5 has moved, he has to wait for 20 (Edit: The cooldown time might have to be 44 hours to give players time to battle and/or respond, etc.) hours to move again. In the meantime, other players can react to his move. For example, Red3 is viewing the board at 29 May 04:00 and decides that he doesn't want to fight. He makes his move as follows:
    Red2 isn't very active and doesn't check the board on 29 May.
    When Green5 comes back at 29 May 21:45, he notices that he still has to wait for 15 minutes to make a move. When the clock finally turns 22:00, he decides to attack Red2, because he didn't attempt to move away in time.

    The reasons I propose this system is because I want to take some work away from the Guild Masters. Especially if Guild Masters get other roles which are more fun, such as spending resources, it can become very demanding if they also have to discuss and collect the moves of individual players and subsequently process them at a set time each day.
    I also think it is for the benefit of the players. If they have to submit a move to their GM, I envision a lot of discussion between them, where either the player feels he isn't given enough freedom to make his own decisions or the guild master will will feel like he has an army of insubordinates that he is wasting his time for. You might even get agreements like "If player A and B do this, then I'd be willing to move to there, but otherwise I will move yonder.", which makes it all the more painful for the GM. Even playing Scotland Yard with 5 players these kind of discussions can make people go crazy, because there is always someone with the perfect plan and people that do not agree. Imagining players do that over the mail or a forum is painful, especially when it is likely that we'll never see player dissatisfaction coming until they start to becoming disinterested or even quit.
    I think that ideally we would have a web-based board where players can make their moves without the need of assistance of anyone else. This probably takes some effort to set up, but I think it is well worth it.

    Thank you for the clarifications, Kalin d(^^

    I'm not sure what you are thinking of when you say advantage. The way I see it, the smaller a guild, the more unified the movement of the troops will be. I think guilds consisting only of a Guild Master and two or three generals would do best.

    I'm not sure where the idea of having referees come from. I still like to think participants should be deemed trustworthy. My experience with trying to prevent cheating by setting up systems and rules is that the system itself becomes a game and actually promotes cheating. By trusting players instead, you tell them that you respect them for their sense of honor. In general, humans will try to protect their reputation if they think they have one.
    Besides, you'll never know who's watching a game in Card Hunter xD
  18. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    As an example, SRC3 moves towards a couple opponents, PoF1 engages them, then SRC7 and SRC13 flank PoF1. IOW, the size of your guild determines how many moves you can make per turn. If I was doing this, I'd drop the guilds altogether and just have individual players, or equal-sized teams of players.

    By referee, I meant whoever was updating the positions on the map and watching the cooldown timers. And my experience is that if you don't have clear rules, lots of people will cheat by accident. (I've been very impressed with the rules for player-run contests and tournaments here, more than BM's rules.)

    Oh, I just had an idea to make this more CH themed! We can have each guild member fight their own battles, but the whole guild has to move simultaneously (like minion groups). The movement would be controlled by the guild principle.

    BTW, what does "unit" mean? Single char? Single Group? Up to 5 groups controlled by a player?
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  19. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    Or we could *gasp* have a system that encourages principals to recruit and increase awareness of and participation in the guild metagame!
  20. Jade303

    Jade303 Thaumaturge

    Oh man. I guess I didn't do a very good job of explaining if this didn't come across to you. Yeah, this is pretty much what I was thinking...
    The question is, do we have the guild principle/commander decide ally movements, and allies just have to fight battles? Or, do we have each member move on their own, with potential for fun and chaos?

    A Unit is a single player-controlled group. It contains 3 level 18 MP characters (We like 3 chars right?) AND/OR up to 5 monster groups, depending on the rules.
    So in a guild war, there should be 5-10 Units per guild on the battlefield (as illustrated above).

    Our options as far as I can see:

    Chars OR monsters only. So each Player controls two units (which are again, unknown to the other guild): one for monsters (which can grow in size at any time by spending resources, or just at designated times;)
    OR have N unique but fixed monster groups, where N is the number of players per guild
    Aaand another unit, containing their 3 champions. If this unit is destroyed they could leave the game permanently/for several turns(days). (and their monster mob disappears!)

    Chars AND monsters. lots of rule options:
    -When attacking, a player must send their monsters to battle unless they have none.
    -When attacking, a player must send their characters into battle. Defending uses the monsters as a "first life"; losing the monsters allows a player to retreat alive if they are killed!
    -When attacking, both player's monsters must fight first. Same deal as before.
    -When attacking, both players may choose which to fight with (monsters or characters)

    I want to stop calling them "monsters" since you can use mercenaries, archers or even geomancers. But you get the drift. Maybe I will start calling them mobs.
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
    Sazanami likes this.

Share This Page