Battle Mechanics

[Scaredgirl]

One more thing.. all the information we use to determine who fights who has to come from that ONE post. This means that we cannot have players first moving, and then asking them do they want to fight or not. That extra "do you fight or not?" question would DOUBLE the communication needed.

We could give players 3 options.

Move + attack: the player attacks other players in that hexagon. First other attackers, then defenders, then retreaters.

Move + defense: the player only fights if someone in that hexagon is attacking.

Move + retreat: if someone in that hexagon is attacking, the player moves back to the square he came from.


With a system like that, players only need post once, after which WoE Organizers can take care of the rest.

Also we should come up with a system that limits the number of duels to 1 per person per round. There's no time to do a "mini-tournament" during those 3 days.

[the dictator]

One more thing.. all the information we use to determine who fights who has to come from that ONE post. This means that we cannot have players first moving, and then asking them do they want to fight or not. That extra "do you fight or not?" question would DOUBLE the communication needed.

We could give players 3 options.

Move + attack: the player attacks other players in that hexagon. First other attackers, then defenders, then retreaters.

Move + defense: the player only fights if someone in that hexagon is attacking.

Move + retreat: if someone in that hexagon is attacking, the player moves back to the square he came from.


With a system like that, players only need post once, after which WoE Organizers can take care of the rest.

Also we should come up with a system that limits the number of duels to 1 per person per round. There's no time to do a "mini-tournament" during those 3 days.

I like the idea, let's see:

We could do so, to limit the number of fights:

1 player --> stays

2 players --> both stay, or they fight, or one retreats (only one batle).

3 players -->
            If 3 attackers the first to come fight each other, the last one retreats (because he doesn't stand a change against someone who has established his fortifications).
            If 2 attackers, they fight, the other one retreats
            If 1 attacker and 2 defenders, he attacks the one he choses, winner of that fight stays, with the other defender, but de winner can challenge the other player to fight, but if the fight doesn't happen, they both stay (unless one person is avoiding the other)
           If 1 attacker and 1 defender, they fight, the other retreats

4 players --> if 4 attackers, they fight a small knockout battle: first round in a smaller version than a normal battle, for example a best of one instead of best of 3
            If 3 attackers they fight as 3 players - 3 attackers, the other one retreats
            If 2 attackers, they fight, others retreat
            If 1 attacker, he fight the one he wants to challenge from the defenders, if there are no defenders, he stays.

5 players --> if 5 attackers, last one retreats, other fight a knockout battle
           If 4 attackers --> knockout battle, other retreats
           If 3 attackers first 2 fight, others retreat
           If 2 attackers, they fight, others retreat
           If 1 attacker, he fight the defender he wishes, if no defender, he stays, other retreat.

6 players --> if 6 attackers, last 2 retreat, others fight a knockout battle
          If 5 attackers, 1 retreats, others fight a knock out battle.
          If 4 attackers, knock out battle, others retreat
          If 3 attackers, the first 2 fight, others retreat.
          If 2 attackers, they fight, others retreat
          If 1 attackers, he fights the defender he wishes, of all others retreat.


This way, attacking has advantage, so you won't get a game where everybody is defending.

Short:
6 attackers : last 2 retreat, others fight
5 attackers: last 1 retreats, others fight, other defenders/retreaters retreat
4 attackers: they fight, others retreat
3 attackers: first 2 fight, others retreat
2 attackers: they fight, others retreat
1 attacker: he fights the defender of his choice, others retreat
no attackers: everybody stays, no fights

This way, there will be 2 fights for each player at a maximum. When even that is to much, you could do (for 4 attackers or more: they fight in pairs, all winners stay (and with 5 players, one gets a bye)).

[midg3333]

what happens if a player moves from square X to attack square Y. Square Y is occupied so a duel occurs. The attacking player loses, being sent back to square X, which is now occupied by somebody else who moved. What happens there? does he fight again? if he loses does he move to a random nearby square?

As for the multiple players going to 1 square, how about:
If a player is defending the square, and multiple players attack, either the two attackers fight, then the winner fights the defender, or the two attackers are both repelled. I'd say definitely give some kind of advantage to the defender, either what I mentioned above, or some form of reduced card limitation (such as allowed to use some amount of upped cards, or maybe "all of the defender's <insert card name here> are upgraded when defending this square").

As for the allies idea, maybe you could just be allies with certain elements. This would of course be decided by each elemental master and could change throughout the game. I think that it would be cool if there was a sort of 'vault' for each element (kind of like in the war) except the actions of that element's players are 'taxed' (so if they win coins, maybe 10% goes to the vault. If they win a card, there's a 10% chance that the card will go to the vault instead/as well. Not sure about numbers, but it's just an idea). Then there could be something like if a player runs out of cards, they can buy some more from the vault at a reduced cost (possibly card 'loaning') or borrow money temporarily.

[Krzysiek K.]

Move + attack: the player attacks other players in that hexagon. First other attackers, then defenders, then retreaters.

Move + defense: the player only fights if someone in that hexagon is attacking.

Move + retreat: if someone in that hexagon is attacking, the player moves back to the square he came from.

Nice idea, but this way we could get several players from different teams on the same square, and deciding who controls the land could start being a problem (idea of allowing only one player to stand on a square at any given moment could add some strategy to the game).

My proposition, the simplified version of the above could be:
- move/attack - move to another square and attack anything on destination square,
- stealth move - move to another square only if it's empty

One can not move to another square, unless it's empty. Moves happen in order of player initiative (determined by player level, ties resolved randomly), but attack moves all happen before stealthy moves. When player loses, winning player gains a level (which for example will allow him using one more upgraded card), losing player is dematerialized and should rematerialize in nearby safe zone (and rematerializing can cost his team some energy). I'm rather against idea of salvaging, as it has quite an entropic effect - weak get weaker quite fast.


Another suggestion from my side, seeing previous element combat results (both War and masters tournament), is the suggestion to change deck building requirements. With strict requirements (like 100% mono or 50% mono) it looks like earth element always has upper hand, being quite versatile. So, to mix things up a bit... why not let teams to use any deck, but only use their own mark? From what I understand, players are supposed to be elementals, which are beings and changing element requires complete methamorphosis. I'd imagine element teams (or clans, to give more RPG feeling) to be rather closed communities, so they most likely would only accept members of their own kind and throw out anyone who even thinks about undergoing metamorphosis to become one of their enemies. How could Life guild tolerate any death elemental in its ranks, or Darkness cope up with light elemental showing up and shining at their dark and secret clan meetings? It's just an idea for a twist, which could considerably turn things upside down.

[Kuroaitou]

One more thing.. all the information we use to determine who fights who has to come from that ONE post. This means that we cannot have players first moving, and then asking them do they want to fight or not. That extra "do you fight or not?" question would DOUBLE the communication needed.

We could give players 3 options.

Move + attack: the player attacks other players in that hexagon. First other attackers, then defenders, then retreaters.

Move + defense: the player only fights if someone in that hexagon is attacking.

Move + retreat: if someone in that hexagon is attacking, the player moves back to the square he came from.


With a system like that, players only need post once, after which WoE Organizers can take care of the rest.

Also we should come up with a system that limits the number of duels to 1 per person per round. There's no time to do a "mini-tournament" during those 3 days.

I can understand the 'one' post thing, but the 3 option system doesn't work in this case, because of two things.

If everyone does Move + defense, then no one is attacking; are you implying that all 3 (or more) can technically share that same spot then? Or is it based off of 'who went in first' to allow who gets to choose who to fight and or who stays (the other two just retreat then because they moved too late).

What's the point of Move + retreat if you're not given a warning as to who is there? It's basically the same thing (or most likely WORSE, since you're being attacked anyway) as doing nothing.

The idea I had was that there could be some programming system where if you occupy a space where someone is OR where someone is moving to, you get a pop-up notifying that you're engaging someone, and you have to make a decision there, or else-wise have cards lost from inaction (or perhaps some other consequences that I can't think of at the moment). Anyway, the point is, you need to have two posts in order for my system to work - if you want it contained in one post on their 'secret' forums, then why not have it so that you just 'modify' your previous action then?

Example 3-1: Player A decides to move into a square, typing that action in his post. He gets a quick notification about 2 others moving  in. He has 2 choices:
A) Modify his post to say "I attack Player B/C", etc.
B) Modify his post to say "I retreat back to my original position"

[Kael Hate]

As an added bit what about you could only use the mark of a capital you own as it adds more value to capitals and adds an extra aspect also means earth can't just shrieker rush and gives you a target not sure though as it can be obvious as to where you'll go and might require some elements to have more synergy, I just think capitals should have a good strategic point but not too OP.

Also I prefer SG's view of a map over Kael's as it makes things more interesting in my eyes, you could perhaps put disadvantaged people nearer to cards they have synergys with or stronger cards where as those with advantageous positions could be near pretty useless cards with which won't help in there decks.

Just throwing some ideas around.

I like the part where your mark is bound to your capital, you are a species of elemental bound to your faction by mark rather than the cards in your deck. This means that Divine Glory would be of the faction rather than the faction.

[miniwally]

As an added bit what about you could only use the mark of a capital you own as it adds more value to capitals and adds an extra aspect also means earth can't just shrieker rush and gives you a target not sure though as it can be obvious as to where you'll go and might require some elements to have more synergy, I just think capitals should have a good strategic point but not too OP.

Also I prefer SG's view of a map over Kael's as it makes things more interesting in my eyes, you could perhaps put disadvantaged people nearer to cards they have synergys with or stronger cards where as those with advantageous positions could be near pretty useless cards with which won't help in there decks.

Just throwing some ideas around.

I like the part where your mark is bound to your capital, you are a species of elemental bound to your faction by mark rather than the cards in your deck. This means that Divine Glory would be of the faction rather than the faction.

But it also needs to have light territories for that deck as it needs divine glories and possibly air areas for animate weapons so you'd have a hard time creating that deck.

[Kuroaitou]

On another note, since the amount of battles is generally determined by how many people are 'entering' a space (therefore, how many sides the corresponding space/shape has), this idea (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8583.36.html) would shorten the amount of battles to 3 people maximum to a space. Support triangles, not squares/hexagons.

But I digress - another battle mechanic example I had was that if a player is sitting on a space, and THEN 3 players engage into the same space or more, what would happen then?

Same as above. In the perspective of Player A (where Players B and C are also moving in, and Player X is the one sitting in the space being invaded by the other players):
a) Back out and Retreat to their original space
b) Choose to attack Player B, C, or X

...but yeah. I'm starting to think that if you need an organizer for this event, I'd be glad to assist.

[Scaredgirl]

Updated first post.

[miniwally]

I like the idea of you getting sent back to your capital city as if you're empire or whatever is big then it means it'll take you a while to get back to the action and take over more areas and if you don't have much left then you can easily get back meaning it won't be as big a punishment for those who are becoming weak.

[Avenger]

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:
....

Excellent idea. This can create short term alliances. Having alliances can solve some problems with isolated or way too accessible parts of the map because you don't HAVE TO fight to get to a point.

On the other hand, there must be some kind of setback if people stay friendly. Imagine all players declare friends

[Scaredgirl]

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.