Battle Mechanics

[Scaredgirl]

Use this topic to discuss about battle mechanics in WoE.

When two players from opposing elements enter a hexagon, they will fight.

We now need to decided all the other options like three players entering the same square. What happens then? Everyone fights everyone? Two fight, and the winner fights the 3rd player?

Discuss.

EDIT:

More than one army can occupy one hexagon. We pretty much have no other choice because otherwise it would get too messy when 10+ people fight for one square.

Basically everyone is listed in that one hexagon, and keep fighting until only one element is left. That element will then take control of that hexagon. Other option is that the element with most armies in the hexagon, controls it.

Big question now is: what happens when you lose a duel? Do you get sent back to your home city? Do you have to retreat to the previous hexagon? Something else?

One more important thing:
All the information regarding who moves where and who fights who has to come from that ONE post per person. This means that we cannot have a system where players first move, and then decide whether they want to fight or not because that would double the amount of communication and double the work of WoE Organizers.

[miniwally]

Miniwally is in square X when Puppychow enters and then Terroking enters so PuppyChow and Mini fight the winner from that game then duels Terroking.

[Weiyaoli]

But surely the actions happen at the same time. If at the end of a phase however long that will be, Terroking and Puppychow both move onto the same sqaure which is occupied by Miniwally, who fights who? If we use your method, how do we decide who "moves" first?

[BluePriest]

But surely the actions happen at the same time. If at the end of a phase however long that will be, Terroking and Puppychow both move onto the same sqaure which is occupied by Miniwally, who fights who? If we use your method, how do we decide who "moves" first?

whoever first chose to move into the square. very simple way to determine it.

[Scaredgirl]

But surely the actions happen at the same time. If at the end of a phase however long that will be, Terroking and Puppychow both move onto the same sqaure which is occupied by Miniwally, who fights who? If we use your method, how do we decide who "moves" first?

whoever first chose to move into the square. very simple way to determine it.

That might give organizers extra work. And besides having to fight first is a huge disadvantage and the system you suggest would guarantee everyone posted their actions with only 30 seconds left in the clock.

I think randomness is the way to go here. Or maybe something to do with the "level" of the player. I don't know..

[BluePriest]

But surely the actions happen at the same time. If at the end of a phase however long that will be, Terroking and Puppychow both move onto the same sqaure which is occupied by Miniwally, who fights who? If we use your method, how do we decide who "moves" first?

whoever first chose to move into the square. very simple way to determine it.

That might give organizers extra work. And besides having to fight first is a huge disadvantage and the system you suggest would guarantee everyone posted their actions with only 30 seconds left in the clock.

I think randomness is the way to go here. Or maybe something to do with the "level" of the player. I don't know..

it is my philosophy that if you do something, it should be done right.  There should definitly be a way to balance it so that consecutive fights are put at as much of a disadvantage, however, we already get screwed over from the RNG enough as it is since elements is a card game, it needs some order, otherwise it just doesnt make sense to go through with the project (which sounds brilliant).Randomness, id say definitly no, but level of the player does sound better so that there is order to it

[Glitch]

Actually, this seems pretty obvious.  Gl1tch, Gl2tch, and Gl3tch all enter the same hexagon.  They all fight each other.  If someone gets two wins, they get the square, and salvage from the person with no wins.  The person who got one win just "retreats" back to where they used to be.  If all three get one win, they all retreat.

Basically, a tiny round-robin tournament.

[the dictator]

Yes, that is the best idea I think, but the player that loses both, should also retreat, which would make the one win from the player with one win pretty useless, because he doesn't get any bonus.

Lets say: A, B and C enter the same hexagon at the same time:

A vs. B --> A wins
B vs. C --> C wins
A vs. C --> A wins

B and C retreat, but what bonus does player C get?


We could say, A salvages from B and C, and C salvages also from B.


Now:

A vs. B --> A wins
B vs. C --> B wins
A vs. C --> C wins

They al retreat, but they al salvage cards from someone (and someone from them).


This system could be stretched you to how much players you would have, because you can simply have a mini tournament.

[Malduk]

It is "easy" to do round robin with 3 players, but what if there are 4-5 players. Also, what happens in hot spot where say 2 players from one team, 2 players from second team and 1 player from 3rd team meet?
We should have a rule that works under all scenarios, not make decisions on spot.

[Kuroaitou]

Jesus this is crazy.  So many things to think about for a possible MMORPG for Elements...

Anyway, here's my idea:

'Turn-based' Occupancy

Example 1-1: Player 1, 2, and 3 all enter the same area simultaneously. They are given an IMMEDIATE notification that TWO other elements are also on the spot. They have 2 choices-
a) Simply retreat back to their original space (sort of like an army suddenly seeing another army, then running back to avoid their line of sight and avoiding losses)
b) Stay on the original space

If everyone does option (a), then no duels happen. If only one person does option (b), they claim the spot (and any other bonuses it has), and also don't need to duel. If MORE than two people do option (b), they get another secret notification asking for their next choice.

Example 1-2: Player 1, 2, and 3 all stay on the space. In Player 1's perspective, they get another 2 choices-
a) Duel Player 2 only
b) Duel Player 3 only

If both Player 2 AND Player 3 attack him, Player 1 has to duel both. Otherwise, he can only duel 1, and whoever wins the most battles out of the matches 'wins' the space.

Advanced Example 2-1: Players 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 SOMEHOW occupy the same space (*shudders*). After the choice of immediately staying or retreating, they have a maximum of 5 choices [In this example, it's in Player 1's perspective]:
a) Duel Player 2
b) Duel Player 3
c) Duel Player 4
d) Duel Player 5
e) Duel Player 6

Note that each player salvages from their wins and discards their losses, which means that entering a zone with MULTIPLE occupants could be very dangerous, especially if the occupants can all coordinate their attacks against one person. On the other hand, there could be a scenario where two-three people are triumphant in equal amounts (Say players 1, 2, and 3 all get the same amount of wins on Player 4 when four people enter a space). They would be given the choice of staying or retreating, and if they stay, they get to choose another player to fight.

Since players can 'give out messages' to each other before battling, it becomes quite a strategy game on what type of backstabbing can occur, as well as 'team battling' where certain opponents may only elect to fight certain members.

This is probably the worst idea ever for battling mechanics, but it makes sense to me to have it like this. In short:
-Players are given a choice to do a 'quick retreat' and thus avoid battling altogether when more than 1 person enters a space
-Players are then given a choice of who to fight. They only get to select one person, which means if everyone wants to fight a certain person, that certain person best be prepared to fight off the armies of the other players
-Salvaging and Discarding remain normal even after 'retreating back to one's original space' in multiple battling sessions when no clear winner has been decided to obtain the space

EDIT: Had to clarify the first part of the post - glad you liked the idea Kami.

[Kamietsu]

I like Kuroaitou's idea best. That way, players aren't always forced to fight, but have the 'back out' option. And the option to not have to battle everyone on that space is good too. This way, is maximizes the ability to govern the interactions and minimizes the hassle. And in terms of larger numbers entering into one space, it lets people fight multiple times, depending on who they pick and how many pick them.

But then, what to do about people who end up going MIA for awhile and someone occupies the space they are in? Is it treated as if they just aren't there? Then people could abuse that. Maybe we could have a system where you have to let the organizers know a head of time you will be absent for a set number of turns/rounds, and thus you inquire no pentaly. But if a person doesn't let the organizer know ahead of time, and someone moves on their space, then they get a pentaly, like the one who moved onto their space gets to get a small reward of gaining three cards from them, or something like that.

Or we could give the participants more freedom than that. We could let them choose whether to battle or not, yet still move to the same space. Like this:

A, B, C move to space 1.
A, B, C decide not to duel anyone.

But then something like that could also happen:

A, B, C move to space 1.

A decides not to fight.
B decides not to fight.
C decides to fight B.
B is forced to fight or retreat a space.

That way, players who don't wish to fight each other, could occupy the space peacefully, while the players who want to fight can try to start up a duel between one of the players, and if that one retreats, then they get the space by themselves, or get to choose someone else to fight trying to occupy the same space.

[Demagog]

You could also use something called friend or foe. This could probably be used with the system Kami is talking about. Here's how it works:

A and B meet at the same location. They are given the choice to choose friend or foe in regards to the other person. You then have three possible scenarios:

Both choose friend: if both choose friend, no battle occurs.

Both choose foe: if both choose foe, a battle occurs.

One chooses foe and the other chooses friend: The person that chose foe automatically wins. Why? Because if your army is like "hey, let's be friends" and then the other army says "yaaa no," the unfriendly army will get the jump on the friendly army and slaughter them. Basically, this is how you would incorporate backstabbing.

This system would provide more incentive to battle due to fear of being backstabbed. People could still have alliances, but those allies could become foes without any warning.