Alliances

[Azumi]

Even if they traded cards  can still "pair" up and trade cards between each other.

[midg3333]

how about if the rule was that allies could step in for each other in fights? for example, if life and fire were allies, and life was fighting aether, then fire could take their place and fight aether instead (giving some prior notice first, of course).

Or maybe it could work like this: If one team doesn't have enough cards to make 6 decks, if their ally had enough cards to make more than 6, the excess cards could be used to take the place of 1 of the allies' matches or something like that.

Or, it could also work if allies have the option of making a deck using their allied element's guidelines (so, they create a deck with 50%+ of their ally's element)

Just some ideas.

[bojengles77]

Would this interfere with the card trading system though? If two elements with great synergy, say / or / (now / and i suppose), were to pair up, they could create many effective duo decks and stop other elements from using their cards. I like the idea of diplomacy and alliances, but if they are to take place, I think they should be kept from the public and there should be some minimum requirement for trading between each element, to avoid card monopolies.

However, if two elements like and (random) want to trade cards, and has cards that wants but they don't want to give up their cards to , then they could trade some other cards they obtained from another element to fulfill their requirement. Atleast this way they are being strategic in card trading and can create monopolies on their cards only with some measurable difficulty.

I hope we can fit diplomacy and alliances into war, but if it becomes factions instead of alliances (two groups), it could become easy to single out elements and make war very complicated and dramatic. Maybe this is what we want, but if it gets to the point where an element is ganked first round just because, it would take the spirit of the event in a different direction. I don't want to see it go off into some power trip where elements single each other out - its meant to be a fun, enjoyable event.

Really tired, if something I said didn't make ANY sense, just tell me and i'll fix it=P

[Jangoo]

If and paired up they could coast to victory.
I think it's better if they just traded cards.

After all, what's going to stop one element from throwing a match so another element can salvage their cards in return for a win against a master?

There can only be one Victor ... generals would know that and inevitably have to plan for the  moment of betrayal. ;-)

I hope we can fit diplomacy and alliances into war, but if it becomes factions instead of alliances (two groups), it could become easy to single out elements and make war very complicated and dramatic. Maybe this is what we want, but if it gets to the point where an element is ganked first round just because, it would take the spirit of the event in a different direction. I don't want to see it go off into some power trip where elements single each other out - its meant to be a fun, enjoyable event.

Really tired, if something I said didn't make ANY sense, just tell me and i'll fix it=P

It all makes perfect sense.
I also see the great danger of the way old "let's team up and pick on the weakest sandbox-alliance".

Like Jumbalumba already said, some "fair" and "challenging" mechanism, where the most capable veterans voluntarily choose to fight each other instead of side by side, isn't even going to establish itself when the teams are formed. So why should it happen when those teams form alliances?
Even if there can only be one victor and eventually everyone would have to turn against the rest to win, the typical "sandbox-alliance" is still likely to happen simply because it is always a safe bet to grow stronger by picking on the easiest target together and loot it.

Like anything else (I guess) an alliance-system like this would have to be strongly limited to a number of turns, battles, cards ... E.g., how about introducing something like "Elemental pride" that will permit armies to form an alliance only once during the war for a maximum of 3 battles?:

"The high council of the Aetherian Empire has conducted a thorough investigation of the circumstances our Empire has fallen victim to and has come to the following conclusion:
In order to breach the onslaught of the despicable armies of light, general Icybreaker is ordered to form an alliance with the paltry and lowly army of fire. We shall make use of their, nevertheless inferior, strength to defend our frontgate when the armies of light launch their preposterous `final assault´. Once the forces of light are defeated, general Icybreaker is ordered to provide the forces of fire with decent means to aid them should a time of neediness come for them. Until then, and thereafter, the forces of fire are to be treated like they deserve - as an inferior enemy turning to dust under our warmaschines.
The scriptural collum is to keep no record of this incident, Aethers history will be written as pure and noble.
This war is ours! - Aether prevails!"

[ninjaclone09]

I think you should not be see another alliance's secret forums, instead enable them to BETRAY their allies, just don't let them see the secret forum, because that would make it be MUCH to easy to betray.


If and paired up they could coast to victory.
I think it's better if they just traded cards.


Yes, i agree somewhat. The best pairs should NOT be next to eachother in the map, because look at this map:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6893.msg81434#msg81434

Best pairs are right next to eeachother! For example; earth time and gravity are close with eachother, life and water are, and some more...

Maybe, if we mixed up the MAP a bit...
It wouldnt be so easy to team up snap like that!

[Eredale]

Why is everyone so pointing out the fact that synergizing elements can make an alliance to make duo decks? They still can make those Duo decks just by themselves, since the restriction on deck building says that only 50% of their cards must be of their army's element. Why can't they just make those Duo-decks from the beginning, by stashing, say, 60% and 40% / . No real need to make alliances with someone just to trade cards - IMO Alliances would be rather the countering type, when some element pairs up with the other to use it's countering power against some enemy.

[Korugar]

If alliances do get implemented I think they could have these effects...

Two elements who have an alliance cannot face each other in a fight. I mean, think about it. Imagine this were a book, or even real life. You can't force two armies to fight each other that don't want to.

An element can only be allied to X other elements. I know it's already been said, but I think it's important. I'd say no more than 2 or 3, but I'm not in charge.

Backstabbing: at any point in time an element may break off the alliance, but not tell anyone except those in charge. If this time is within a few minutes of when opponents for that round are 'rolled'(or whatever the new system will be), then the ex-ally may get an unpleasant surprise. Again, think about it. You might be ready for war, and you might just be waiting for your scouts to tell you who is attacking(waiting for whoever is in charge to tell you who you fight), but you won't actually know until they get there. I think this is especially important so that people aren't ready to just ally themselves right away.

[Daxx]

Politics and diplomacy is an important part of war. Smaller armies can take on a bigger common enemy by forming alliances. This is why it might be a good idea to have some kind of Alliance system in War.

Essentially the existence of alliances is predicated on the ability to choose who you fight. If you truly wanted to have alliances, you would suggest something simple like the following, and let the alliances grow organically from the choices of the Masters.

A Master may declare up to six (number variable of course) attacks on different elements. If they do not have the cards to put together six full decks, then they may declare fewer attacks. Once attacks have been declared, Masters then choose which of their team is to defend against which attack. Team members must defend evenly - that is, no team member may defend against two attacks until all team members are defending at least one, and so forth.

Personally I would not encourage alliances. However, if I wanted to do so, I would do it like that.

Also the ability to trade cards might contribute towards alliance-forming, though you may want to limit that somewhat.

[agentflare]

I think the Elemental Alliances is an interesting idea, but because of the cards is terribly unbalanced. Why? Because some elements are pretty much built to be mono(Aether), some to be parts of combos(Time). Have you ever faced a mono-time? Probably not! Have you faced mono-Aether? Probably (if you play PvP). Point is in an elemental war, some decks are just going down, and some are going to excel. I'll be willing to be that if you are forced to have mono-decks, the final two elements are going to be 2 from these: Aether, Dark, Death, Life and Gravity.

[High-Lord Vin]

I think the Elemental Alliances is an interesting idea, but because of the cards is terribly unbalanced. Why? Because some elements are pretty much built to be mono(Aether), some to be parts of combos(Time). Have you ever faced a mono-time? Probably not! Have you faced mono-Aether? Probably (if you play PvP). Point is in an elemental war, some decks are just going down, and some are going to excel. I'll be willing to be that if you are forced to have mono-decks, the final two elements are going to be 2 from these: Aether, Dark, Death, Life and Gravity.

you do not have to make mono decks; just 50% of your cards have to match your element

now for the alliances, I think before it is decided who will fight whom, the masters will tell the people in charge who they prefer to attack.  This will increase their chances of attacking that (those) elements, but will NOT guarantee that they will mainly fight that element.

As for alliances fighting:  Another setting for choosing who you fight would be who you do not want to fight.  If 2 elements have each-other on their "do not fight" lists, they will not be matched up against each-other; however, having someone on your "do not fight" list does nothing if the other element does not have you on their list.   The only way you can have someone on your "do not fight" list is to be allied with them.  You can remove someone from your "Do not hit" list at any time before who fight who is decided.

on a final note: if you are going with the auction (which sounds cool and might help prevent power blocks), you need to add this rule "No spying allowed"; that is, private/secret info about your element cannot be talked about outside of that elements secret forum.  How loyal do you expect someone who you buy?

edit: I have been playing mmo strategies games for over a year so I konw a thing about game politics

[Toimu13]

I'm not against this idea in principle (it's iffy, perhaps, but could work), but I do think that trying to implement this AND the Player Auction in the same War may be a bit much. Maybe use one of these ideas for War #2, and the other for War #3?

I like this idea the best.  Baby Steps.

[Scaredgirl]

Alliances will not be included in War #2. We will revisit this idea during the planning of War #3.

Locking topic.