Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => War => Events and Competitions => War Archive => Topic started by: Scaredgirl on June 21, 2010, 11:01:05 am
-
Alliances
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.
If you have any ideas on how to do an Alliance system, please post here. Thanks.
Related to this:
Here's a map system suggestion we could use at some point: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6893.msg81434#msg81434
Map system would have great synergy with Alliance system. However that would be such a big project that it will not be introduced in War #2, and maybe never. Also it might make things too complex which is never a good idea.
-
Alliances would be cool...here are some questions/ideas that you'd have to think about...
-Are alliances Public or Private or both?
-Can alliances change mid-war...how?
-Can allied elements get paired to fight each other
-Can allied elements see each other's secret forum...or get their own alliance forum...or neither?
-Can allies trade/share cards/vaults
-etc.
-
Alliances would be cool...here are some questions/ideas that you'd have to think about...
Excellent questions. Some of these I have thought about, others I haven't. Lets see..
-Are alliances Public or Private or both?
I like the idea of having both. This enables teams to have public alliance with someone, and a secret alliance with someone else where they stab their public ally in the back. How that actually works, I have no idea :)
-Can alliances change mid-war...how?
Yes, they pretty much have to at some point because in the end there an be only one. It's like a season of Survivor where players form alliances early on to get to the top-3 but in the end only one of them walks out with the money.
-Can allied elements get paired to fight each other
I don't know. Seeding is still a big question mark. This is something that probably deserves its own topic.
Related to this, Alliances have to be limited somehow. Otherwise in next War, 11 teams could all gang up on :earth and take it out first. Maybe we could have a limit of 3 teams per one public Alliance?
-Can allied elements see each other's secret forum...or get their own alliance forum...or neither?
Great idea. I like the shared Alliance forum thing a lot. It would be very easy to implement. Seeing others secret forums might be too much as alliances will change sooner or later.
-Can allies trade/share cards/vaults
Trading will most likely be possible. I was going to start a thread about that this morning but I forgot. Teams can trade cards with other teams (allies or not) using 1:1 system. I give you 3 cards, you give me 3 cards. This kind of system would help a lot when Vault is almost empty and you have useless cards you don't need.
Related to this, there will also be converting, which means that teams can change any card they have to a pillar of their element.
Like I said, good questions. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
-
Meh...this will surely increase time instead of making it shorter. But good idea, it might force teams to be more active.
-
This is probably the thing I missed most from the war.
I completely love the idea.
As far as ally fights go, why not just seed the fights as normal, and simply not fight any fights against allies. It would make backstabbings really fun...
-
So, I'm new to posting but I follow the forums regularly and I'm really interested in the dynamics of the War. Alliances is an awesome idea as long as there are pro's and con's. I don't think that there should be any trading advantages since trading will be 1:1 with all teams anyways. I just don't think it would help against a common foe that well.
So, I was thinking maybe if 2 teams formed an alliance they could actually give life points for the next battle. Say Team A is allied with Team B and they want to take down Team C. When Team A is matched against Team C, Team B can give them some life for the next battle so their max health is higher for Team A, while Team B's max health would decrease for their next battle. I don't know if the life giving ratio should be 1:1 or give less of an advantage like 2:1 so you would have to give 10 for another team to gain 5. Also, I don't know if the coding would be a huge pain for this, but it was just a thought.
This is just a way for teams to help each other defeat an opponent while also having some consequence.
-
I am not a big fan of this idea.
On first thought it feels like it will take even more time and effort from players/masters for no real reason. Well main reason for this would be fun, but I see it as drama and frustration generator more than fun.
I would like to hear a suggestion that would prove me wrong though.
-
I think alliances is a mostly bad idea but maybe some good can come out from it
but here are some thoughts if you do want to implement it
1. Alliances should be forced to fight (they can decide who loses and what decks to use) or both sides take a penalty of 15 cards (no other cards would be loss, no salvages)
2. Backstabbing would be a fun thing to do where you suddenly attack your opponent (it would have to happen when both players are online(or the master of the backstabbed alliance if the person is unable to be on that week), a master of the alliance doing the backstabbing and they announce that they are backstabbing the enemy and so they must fight our auto forfeit (as per normal)
more to come as I think of them
-
I don't like the idea of alliances, because the war event is meant as a fight between elements, not alliances,
But, maybe alliances could be a great idea in the other event that is designed on the forum, the worldmap war.
-
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?
-
1. Reinforcements:
An "allied" Elemental army sends a number of cards to reinforce another army thus providing that army with those cards for its next battle. An army that has sadly lost certain key cards can thus still perform (where those key cards might just be fillers for the providing army).
Defeated reinforcements will of course still "die" and thus get removed from the providing armys vault.
2. Special skills for Elemental armies that may only be used in an alliance system, e.g.:
- Death + Dark = Necromancy
-> a once removed number of cards from the supported army will rise from the dead and fight once again for its former owners cause. (for one battle, then the tissue dissolves)
- Air + Light = Aura of Righteousness
-> a certain number of cards of the supported army gains extra courage and strength ... play those cards as upped cards with no regards to the standard rules. (for one/the next battle)
- Fire + Water = Essential Impact
-> a certain number of cards of the opposing (!) army may be "burned" or "flooded" away. The opposing army may not use those cards. (for one/the next battle)
- Life + Earth = Grounded support
-> the supported army is well fed and in high spirits. A certain number of cards doubles. (for one/two? battles)
- Time + Aether = Relative strategy
-> insight in relativity of time and matter provides a strategic advantage to the supported army: A certain number of cards (from vault/ deck?) to be used for next battle by the opposing army may be viewed by the supported army before designing their deck (for one battle)
- Entropy + Gravity = Forces of (Dis)order
-> the deck of the opposing army gets pulled/dispersed. A certain number of cards gets randomly switched for other cards in the armies vault. (for one battle)
-
If :time :earth and :gravity 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?
-
Even if they traded cards :gravity :earth :time can still "pair" up and trade cards between each other.
-
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.
-
Would this interfere with the card trading system though? If two elements with great synergy, say :gravity / :earth or :fire / :air (now :aether / :death and :air 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 :time and :aether (random) want to trade cards, and :aether has :earth cards that :time wants but they don't want to give up their :aether cards to :time, 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
-
If :time :earth and :gravity 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!"
-
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 :time :earth and :gravity 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!
-
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% :earth and 40% :gravity/ :time. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Alliances will not be included in War #2. We will revisit this idea during the planning of War #3.
Locking topic.