Capturing and controlling hexes

[Daxx]

In each element's section, there is a thread. When players submit their actions for the turn, any hex capture actions must also be submitted to that thread.

That way when the organiser comes to update the map, they only have to look at that thread rather than trawling through all the different sets of actions that were submitted.

Does that make sense?

[Scaredgirl]

In each element's section, there is a thread. When players submit their actions for the turn, any hex capture actions must also be submitted to that thread.

That way when the organiser comes to update the map, they only have to look at that thread rather than trawling through all the different sets of actions that were submitted.

Does that make sense?

So it's a separate thread from the Action thread?

Regardless if it's separate or not, it would require the organizer to read 12 different topics each round. The worst part would be to cross-referencing capturing actions from all the 12 threads. If is trying to capture hex #43, the organizer would have to check if some other players are trying to capture it as well.

What I suggest is that the organizer only looks at the map and updates it based on visual data (position and amount of players). This can be done in just a few seconds without needing to open any topics.

[Daxx]

Okay. In that case, to make it as simple as absolutely possible I propose the following: a hex only changes ownership when there are only members of a single team on it (this includes when two teams are fighting over a hex but neither team owns it, for simplicity). Allies will just have to deal with people stealing their territory accidentally.

My actual personal preference would be to appoint an organiser who deals with all territory-related issues. Hex capturing actions, tribute from hexes to Elements, alterations to hexes caused by skills/items/quests, and so forth.

[Scaredgirl]

Okay. In that case, to make it as simple as absolutely possible I propose the following: a hex only changes ownership when there are only members of a single team on it (this includes when two teams are fighting over a hex but neither team owns it, for simplicity). Allies will just have to deal with people stealing their territory accidentally.

This is exactly how the system is now.

If we wanted it to make more sense, we could have a system where players don't automatically take control of the territories of their allies, but they can do it manually by using a "Capture" action (0 AP). This would mean more work for organizers, but it would also let people do things like visit the capital city of their ally without taking control of each hex on their path.

My actual personal preference would be to appoint an organiser who deals with all territory-related issues. Hex capturing actions, tribute from hexes to Elements, alterations to hexes caused by skills/items/quests, and so forth.

Yep, we need one "Map Guy" that updates everything on the map based on the reports of the Movers.

[TimerClock14]

My actual personal preference would be to appoint an organiser who deals with all territory-related issues. Hex capturing actions, tribute from hexes to Elements, alterations to hexes caused by skills/items/quests, and so forth.

Yep, we need one "Map Guy" that updates everything on the map based on the reports of the Movers.

I'd be more than happy to volunteer.

Also: I would suggest something, but you all ninja'd me to it. It looks good though!
nvm, I don't understand why you instantly captured a hex if you are on it. It doesn't really make much sense to me. The "capture" (0 AP) sounds more logical and, imo, less confusing.

[Daxx]

If we have a Map Guy, then I suggest we go for the make capturing an action thing.

[Xinef]

I can think of one pretty simple solution. Revenue shared between allies:

Eg. Earth has 20 hexes and Time has 30 hexes. Earth and Time are in an alliance. There are 10 earth players and 8 time players total. Therefore:
Total area of the alliance: 50 hexes
Total number of players in the alliance: 18

Each player in the alliance gets a 1/18 of the revenue from 50 hexes.



So, as long as the elements are in alliance, it doesn't matter who owns which hex, and it is OK if people capture allied hexes, since neither of the armies suffer or gain anything.
The only difference is that if the alliance is broken, the hexes belong to the last army that occupied those. So, if you plan to attack an ally, you can try to capture some of their hexes beforehand, but you risk making it clear that you are about to break the alliance.

Of course this system means that it is less advantageous to ally with teams that have little area but many players, but it is simply another balancing factor against the most popular elements.

[TimerClock14]

I can think of one pretty simple solution. Revenue shared between allies:

Eg. Earth has 20 hexes and Time has 30 hexes. Earth and Time are in an alliance. There are 10 earth players and 8 time players total. Therefore:
Total area of the alliance: 50 hexes
Total number of players in the alliance: 18

Each player in the alliance gets a 1/18 of the revenue from 50 hexes.



So, as long as the elements are in alliance, it doesn't matter who owns which hex, and it is OK if people capture allied hexes, since neither of the armies suffer or gain anything.
The only difference is that if the alliance is broken, the hexes belong to the last army that occupied those. So, if you plan to attack an ally, you can try to capture some of their hexes beforehand, but you risk making it clear that you are about to break the alliance.

Of course this system means that it is less advantageous to ally with teams that have little area but many players, but it is simply another balancing factor against the most popular elements.

I really like this idea, but it would be too much for the organizers to remember and creates a large amount of room for human error. If you have a suggestion to fix this, by all means post.

[Xinef]

I really like this idea, but it would be too much for the organizers to remember and creates a large amount of room for human error. If you have a suggestion to fix this, by all means post.

Could you clarify where exactly is the large room for human error and much to be remembered?

The hex capturing part is exactly the same as Scaredgirl suggested (one organizer looks at the map after players have been moved, and changes ownership of those hexes where there are only players of one element), while the second part is very similar to the current revenue system (if I understand it correctly) that the revenue from the controlled hexes is divided evenly between players. The only difference is that for alliances you add up the controlled area and the number of players of the whole alliance.


Now that I think of it, the system still has a flaw. If an alliance tries to capture enemy territory, they cannot do so as long as there are players from different elements (even from the same alliance) on the same enemy hex. So, alliances have to coordinate attacks, so that eg. Earth attacks hex 137, while Time attacks hex 138, rather than sending a few Earth and a few Time players on each of those hexes.

[TimerClock14]

I really like this idea, but it would be too much for the organizers to remember and creates a large amount of room for human error. If you have a suggestion to fix this, by all means post.

Could you clarify where exactly is the large room for human error and much to be remembered?

The hex capturing part is exactly the same as Scaredgirl suggested (one organizer looks at the map after players have been moved, and changes ownership of those hexes where there are only players of one element), while the second part is very similar to the current revenue system (if I understand it correctly) that the revenue from the controlled hexes is divided evenly between players. The only difference is that for alliances you add up the controlled area and the number of players of the whole alliance.

Let's first keep in mind what SG said here:

What I suggest is that the organizer only looks at the map and updates it based on visual data (position and amount of players). This can be done in just a few seconds without needing to open any topics.

If we follow what you are suggesting, then the organizer would be required to have open a topic or in a worst case, have to search through threads for posts about what elements are allied with what and what elements broke their alliance.

If, by chance, the organizer were to accidentally overlook a post which stated such matters, then not only would drama ensue, but that particular organizer would be under scrutiny (depending on the magnitude of the drama) it would be easily fixed, but the drama is not something we want to deal with.

This can be easily fixed by having a separate sticky topic with the most recent updates for alliances and whatnot, or even a google docs spreadsheet.

In regards to the yellow text:
I'm going to assume that you are under the belief that there will be something to indicate who's allied with who on the map itself? Unfortunately, I cannot confirm or deny this.

[Xinef]

I'll try to explain it because it seems there is some misunderstanding. It seems as though you didn't notice when I'm talking about elements, and when about alliances.

Step1:
Players are moved. The organizers responsible for player movement do not need to know about alliances.

Step2:
The hex-ownership organizer looks at the map and changes the ownership of those hexes where there are only people from one element. Those hexes are now controlled by that element. It has nothing to do with alliances up to this point. All he has to do is look at the map and see how many players and from which element are on each hex.

Step3:
One organizer counts how many hexes each element controls (it would be nice to automate this job though). All he needs is to see the map, and which element controls each hex. Once again, no need to know about alliances.

Step4:
This is the only part when it is needed to keep track of alliances. For each alliance, the numbers of hexes controlled by allied elements are added. The numbers of players are also added. This step can be done by a single organizer who is up to date with alliances (I think at least one organizer should be ) Then, this organizer informs Character Managers of each element how much revenue they get per player.

Step5:
Each Character Manager's job is to make sure that every player of their element knows how much revenue he gets for that round.




 

This can be easily fixed by having a separate sticky topic with the most recent updates for alliances and whatnot, or even a google docs spreadsheet.

It is quite obvious that at least some of the organizers need to be up to date with alliances, so a sticky topic might be necessary. At the very least the organizer responsible for deciding who is attacked by whom needs to know about alliances, because the rules state that an attacking player will fight a random defending player that is not from his alliance.

[TimerClock14]

I'll try to explain it because it seems there is some misunderstanding. It seems as though you didn't notice when I'm talking about elements, and when about alliances.

Step1:
Players are moved. The organizers responsible for player movement do not need to know about alliances.

Step2:
The hex-ownership organizer looks at the map and changes the ownership of those hexes where there are only people from one element. Those hexes are now controlled by that element. It has nothing to do with alliances up to this point. All he has to do is look at the map and see how many players and from which element are on each hex.

Step3:
One organizer counts how many hexes each element controls (it would be nice to automate this job though). All he needs is to see the map, and which element controls each hex. Once again, no need to know about alliances.

Step4:
This is the only part when it is needed to keep track of alliances. For each alliance, the numbers of hexes controlled by allied elements are added. The numbers of players are also added. This step can be done by a single organizer who is up to date with alliances (I think at least one organizer should be ) Then, this organizer informs Character Managers of each element how much revenue they get per player.

Step5:
Each Character Manager's job is to make sure that every player of their element knows how much revenue he gets for that round.

wow, This is incredibly well thought out and looks like it will work flawlessly. The only problem is, we won't have that many organizers with specific jobs like "hex ownership organizer" and "alliance organizer". IIRC, there are only 3 categories of organizers with jobs that specific: lore, movers, and map coder. Unfortunately, the character managers will be in charge of every job listed up there, excluding the moving part.

This can be easily fixed by having a separate sticky topic with the most recent updates for alliances and whatnot, or even a google docs spreadsheet.

It is quite obvious that at least some of the organizers need to be up to date with alliances, so a sticky topic might be necessary. At the very least the organizer responsible for deciding who is attacked by whom needs to know about alliances, because the rules state that an attacking player will fight a random defending player that is not from his alliance.

This would also help most players as well.