Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Other Topics => World of Elements => Forum Archive => WoE Archive => Topic started by: Scaredgirl on July 06, 2010, 07:56:51 pm
-
Diplomacy:
Diplomatic relations
Here are all the possible diplomatic relations between different elements listed from the most negative to most positive.
I'll write more stuff later.
1. War
War happens when one element declares it on another. If you are in alliance, when one member of that alliance declares war, everyone in that alliance go to war. More details later..
2. Suspicious (default)
This is the default. More details later..
3. Open Borders Agreement
This agreement allows players to move through each others territory without reprisal. However, if you enter a hexagon with Attack stance, a duel will happen.
4. Trade Agreement
This agreement enables trading between elements.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
5. Peace
More details later..
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
- Trade Agreement
6. Alliance
An alliance between 2-3 elements. Members of an alliance can move freely in each others territory and cities.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement (with all alliance members)
- Trade Agreement (with all alliance members)
- Peace (with all alliance members)
-
4. Trade Agreement
This agreement enables trading between elements.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
5. Peace
This agreement enables trading between elements.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
- Trade Agreement
umm.....whats the difference.
-
So would Other be following the same system?
-
4. Trade Agreement
This agreement enables trading between elements.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
5. Peace
This agreement enables trading between elements.
Includes:
- Open Borders Agreement
- Trade Agreement
umm.....what the difference.
Yeah, I think it's a typo.
-
So would Other be following the same system?
Nope.
-
A trade agreement might include open borders, but it could be anything. Peace probably means you are in an alliance with that Element.
-
Nope.
Well to expand, what will Other be following?
-
Nope.
Well to expand, what will Other be following?
Most likely nothing. They are outlaws.
-
I do not believe that when one member of an alliance declares war on another, it should be incumbent upon the other alliance members to participate as belligerents as well.
However, if a member of an alliance is attacked, then the issue becomes completely different.
-
I think that there should be a limitation to how much diplomacy you can do, because the end result of WoE should be decided primarily by dueling. Perhaps each element can only perform a maximum of 3 diplomatic actions per week?
Also, I propose that when elements enter a trade agreement (or anything including it), a portion of their electrum be locked down, to be returned at its expiry. This would put a premium on fighting with decks which have as low as possible semblance (lower bound=regulations) to each team's base element, so the deckbuilding kind of progresses as the game goes on.
-
one idea i got is:
"we need to take down earth before they get some momentum going and thrash everyone again, lets team up against them and split the loot. you lead the weakest earth member into me and ill take him/her down and ill split the reward with you 4:2"
basically, its a way to split the loot from a win if you worked together for a kill.
-
Might I add one more relation?
Reliant:
As a result of having such a large trade agreement for so long, the elements may no longer end the agreement without serious repercussions.
If 11 opposing elements are reliant on one element, than it wins for conquering the world diplomatically.
-
Might I add one more relation?
Reliant:
As a result of having such a large trade agreement for so long, the elements may no longer end the agreement without serious repercussions.
If 11 opposing elements are reliant on one element, than it wins for conquering the world diplomatically.
This. But aside from being able to trade cards and provide resources to other elements, how exactly will ALL 11 elements be 'Reliant' on one element? They still have to ways to obtain their own electrum, cards, players, etc.
Otherwise, this is a great idea to help with the 'Diplomatic' Victory section/idea. :)
-
True... perhaps we need to decide on an official definition of reliance.
20% of your wealth gained from trading with one element?
-
one thing i thought of was something like a tax.
lets say team fire uses air cards in their deck 3 times in a row, and wins each of those matches.
team air can now start looting 3 cards from any deck that fire defeats while using air cards.
-
I do not believe that when one member of an alliance declares war on another, it should be incumbent upon the other alliance members to participate as belligerents as well.
That's how it works in real life. If you don't want to go to war, you can always leave the alliance.
I think that there should be a limitation to how much diplomacy you can do, because the end result of WoE should be decided primarily by dueling. Perhaps each element can only perform a maximum of 3 diplomatic actions per week?
I agree. It has to be limited somehow. We will probably have a system where you have to organize meetings between leaders, and it takes a while to set it up.
one idea i got is:
"we need to take down earth before they get some momentum going and thrash everyone again, lets team up against them and split the loot. you lead the weakest earth member into me and ill take him/her down and ill split the reward with you 4:2"
basically, its a way to split the loot from a win if you worked together for a kill.
I guess that makes sense but it would be a nightmare to organize so I doubt it will happen.
Might I add one more relation?
Reliant:
As a result of having such a large trade agreement for so long, the elements may no longer end the agreement without serious repercussions.
These diplomatic relations are something you decide. I don't think anyone decides: "Hey, lets get reliant on our neighbor".
This would have been great with Diplomatic Victory but I removed it so that we can concentrate more on the actual fighting.
one thing i thought of was something like a tax.
lets say team fire uses air cards in their deck 3 times in a row, and wins each of those matches.
team air can now start looting 3 cards from any deck that fire defeats while using air cards.
Too complex.
Lets keep it simple people.
-
I do not believe that when one member of an alliance declares war on another, it should be incumbent upon the other alliance members to participate as belligerents as well.
That's how it works in real life. If you don't want to go to war, you can always leave the alliance.
It depends upon the type of alliance and the terms of the Treaty ratifying the alliance, both requiring further clarification.
However, real life history is replete with examples of alliances where while one member may have decided to go to war, without the others being obligated to follow suit.
1) NATO (and Warsaw Pact) - The Parties of NATO are only obligated to assist a particular member should that member be attacked, and even should that occur, it is definitely not incumbent upon them to launch their own direct counter-offensive against the aggressor.
2) The Triple Entente (World War I) - This military alliance between Britain, France and Russia did not oblige any of its members to participate in a war declared by another; in fact, the Great Powers all had their own underlying motives to initiate hostilities against their European enemies and were not necessarily obliged to become belligerents: Russia wished to protect Serbia and the Slavs, France used this as an opportunity to re-take Alsace and Lorraine whereas Britain's cause to go to war was because Germany invaded Belgium and thus violated Belgian neutrality.
3) The Triple Alliance (World War I) - When Germany and Austria-Hungary declared war against the Allies, Italy, while remaining a member of the alliance and pledging support to her partners, remained neutral in the war, stating that it was not obligated to participate in a conflict initiated by Germany and Austria-Hungary.
4) The Auld Alliance - Signed between Scotland and France, this Treaty stipulated that should one country ever be attacked by England, that the other country would invade the agressing nation. Once again, the obligation to go to war with one's allies is not present; if Scotland invaded England, it was not incumbent upon France to do the same.
5) MNNA (Major Non-Nato Ally) - It is a designation used by the United States Government to refer to countries whom, while not being members of NATO, possess very strong and significant ties with the US. Note, however, that these MNNAs were by no means obligated to support any American offensive, in Afghanistan or in Iraq, and note also that this, by no means, entails the stripping of their special status and the ending of the special relation.
I am certain that more examples exist, but I have listed above what my thoughts immediately turned to.
-
I have some experience in this kindof thing since I have been playing MMO empire-building war games for over a year
1. have the alliance stuff be more of a guideline (let them call the pacts whatever they want and run them however they want; don't integrate them into the game thou)
2. however, keep the ability to deny/allow access to certain things (like entrance into cities, use of fast travel, ect.)
3. don't have the game automatically update diplomatic stances; have it so only the king can do so
4. allow resources to be transport and given to other elements?
I only see one problem with this the needs clarification, rouges (people who ignore the laws of their guild/alliance; like attacking an ally or NAP'ed element)
can they be kicked, punished, or something like that?
-
these stances are pretty much the exact same as in civilization 4 (this isn't nessesarily a bad thing)
-
I have some experience in this kindof thing since I have been playing MMO empire-building war games for over a year
1. have the alliance stuff be more of a guideline (let them call the pacts whatever they want and run them however they want; don't integrate them into the game thou)
2. however, keep the ability to deny/allow access to certain things (like entrance into cities, use of fast travel, ect.)
3. don't have the game automatically update diplomatic stances; have it so only the king can do so
4. allow resources to be transport and given to other elements?
I only see one problem with this the needs clarification, rouges (people who ignore the laws of their guild/alliance; like attacking an ally or NAP'ed element)
can they be kicked, punished, or something like that?
What you said is pretty much what I had planned.
1. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this but I think I kind of disagree.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
What I'd like to do with diplomatic relations (and with other things as well), is to keep them as realistic as possible. For example, lets say in real life to nations are at peace. However that does not stop a citizen of one of these nations attacking the other nation. And if he does attack, that doesn't mean War is declared, but it should have some kind of consequences. One option would be if that player was kicked out of that team and would become an outlaw.
Maybe each player should have a "reputation" or something? A number from -100 to 100. This would tell others how respected the player is. If you did stuff like attack other players by random, you would lose reputation. If your reputation becomes negative, you become an outlaw.
these stances are pretty much the exact same as in civilization 4 (this isn't nessesarily a bad thing)
It's no secret that I have taken a lot of stuff from Civilization. It uses many great mechanics that are perfect for WoE. I've also used some stuff from Heroes of Might and Magic, as well as some regular board games.
-
lol, I haven't played Civ before
took these idea's from Astro Empires (where pacts are entirely run by the players; the game does not actually "Support" them) and from myself
more clarification on 1.
having the teams have to chose from a set of pre-made pacts is what I am against; instead this is what happens
team #1 contacts team #2 saying they want to stop fighting
they set up a NAP (Non Aggression Pact); they agree to not attack eachother; they could also agree to open trading up or keep it closed
they could also make a pact in which they agree to defend eachother; team #1 gets attacked and team #2 does not help; the pact can still be kept alive or dropped; what exactly will happen will be up to the diplomats
is a defense pact is made between 3+ teams (which, strangely, is VERY rare in AE among the serious guilds), and one team refuses to help defend, the team can be ignored, still be helped in the future, or even be attacked (once again, up to the diplomats)
in the end, keep the door open to conditions to be added to pacts which you might never have thought of
-
I agree with Vin, in that I don't think there's any real need for a concrete diplomacy system. The game becomes much more rich and interesting if you allow players to develop their own alliances using the tools they have (denying access to fast-travel and/or cities or not, choosing to fight or not, actually negotiating and agreeing to cooperate on certain tasks or double-crossing and backstabbing).
Based on my experience with game design, if you just allow the players the tools to organically develop their own alliances they'll have much more fun with it than if there's a system they must adhere to. It also means fewer rules and less of a headache for the organisers. Think EVE Online rather than Civilization.
-
I agree with Vin, in that I don't think there's any real need for a concrete diplomacy system. The game becomes much more rich and interesting if you allow players to develop their own alliances using the tools they have (denying access to fast-travel and/or cities or not, choosing to fight or not, actually negotiating and agreeing to cooperate on certain tasks or double-crossing and backstabbing).
Based on my experience with game design, if you just allow the players the tools to organically develop their own alliances they'll have much more fun with it than if there's a system they must adhere to. It also means fewer rules and less of a headache for the organisers. Think EVE Online rather than Civilization.
The reason why we need these diplomatic relations is that it helps us get rid of one step in communication which is crucial in running of the event.
If player A and player B happen to move in the same hex, there has to be a system that decides whether or not they will fight each other, because we don't have time to ask them if they want to fight. If we did ask them, it would mean 24-48 hours more time for each round.
So the way it works is that:
1. Players move around and land on same hexes
2. Fight Organizers read the map and see how is fighting who based on their position and their diplomatic relations. If you move to a hex where your enemy is, the duel happens automatically.
It's totally different in MMO's like EVE where thing happen real time and you can make decisions on the spot.
-
Ah, I thought fighting was an elective thing, and one of the players had to initiate it. You mention in the Rules thread that one of the actions is "attack at random" and another is "attack X", so I assumed that fights would only happen if one of the people involved wanted to. I didn't realise that some fights happened automatically.
What happens if neither player wants to fight?
-
Ah, I thought fighting was an elective thing, and one of the players had to initiate it. You mention in the Rules thread that one of the actions is "attack at random" and another is "attack X", so I assumed that fights would only happen if one of the people involved wanted to. I didn't realise that some fights happened automatically.
What happens if neither player wants to fight?
Some of the stuff I said in my previous post is incorrect. I somehow managed to confuse myself.
What I tried to say was that fights happen based on your stance and diplomatic relations. If you enter to a hex occupied by your ally with an "attack" stance, nothing happens. But if in that hex, there is also a player who is at war with you, you will fight that player. By "automatic" I meant that in that latter situation, we don't ask the player who he wants to fight. That decision will be made based on diplomatic relations.
In other words, if I enter a hex with a stance "attack", and that hex has someone who is not my ally, I will fight that person.
After the battle has been decided and fight organizers have made it public, I guess the players could skip it if both so choose. They just post the results as 0-0 and it is dealt as if they both had "defend" stance during that round.
-
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I think this will work quite well.
My only concern is that there might be a good reason to fight your allies or even people within your own element. But I'm not sure how we want to treat that.
-
In that case I guess you declare an exception when you enter the tile. Its a forum game so there is a ton of room for exceptions and flexibility.
-
In that case I guess you declare an exception when you enter the tile. Its a forum game so there is a ton of room for exceptions and flexibility.
...but if people can opt out freely, why bother having the diplomacy settings?
-
To make everything go faster. Remember, this is forum game so everything must be done manually. It makes things simpler.
-
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I think this will work quite well.
My only concern is that there might be a good reason to fight your allies or even people within your own element. But I'm not sure how we want to treat that.
If you want to attack an ally, you can use the "Attack X" stance. So I will type in "Attack Daxx", and will fight you even though we are allies.
This will of course have consequences. Players will have reputation on their character sheet. If you do things like kill your allies, your reputation will take a big hit. When it goes below zero, you will become an outlaw and other players will be able to hunt you down.
-
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I think this will work quite well.
My only concern is that there might be a good reason to fight your allies or even people within your own element. But I'm not sure how we want to treat that.
If you want to attack an ally, you can use the "Attack X" stance. So I will type in "Attack Daxx", and will fight you even though we are allies.
This will of course have consequences. Players will have reputation on their character sheet. If you do things like kill your allies, your reputation will take a big hit. When it goes below zero, you will become an outlaw and other players will be able to hunt you down.
Perhaps this reputation could be something like a KDR?
-
This will of course have consequences. Players will have reputation on their character sheet. If you do things like kill your allies, your reputation will take a big hit. When it goes below zero, you will become an outlaw and other players will be able to hunt you down.
In my experience with running multiplayer games of various types, reputation stats (or something similar, like morality metrics) are generally ignored by the players, even between each other, and are usually only respected by the npcs. This can still have the desired effect, but it creates a disconnect between the playerbase's opinions of a person and the npcs' opinions of a person.
Basically for this to have an effect you need to give it a bite, such as denying certain quests to players with low reputation, or denying them the ability to trade with npcs, until their reputation increases sufficiently. The potential problem with that is that people will whine that they are not allowed to play the game in the way they want to.
-
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I think this will work quite well.
My only concern is that there might be a good reason to fight your allies or even people within your own element. But I'm not sure how we want to treat that.
If you want to attack an ally, you can use the "Attack X" stance. So I will type in "Attack Daxx", and will fight you even though we are allies.
This will of course have consequences. Players will have reputation on their character sheet. If you do things like kill your allies, your reputation will take a big hit. When it goes below zero, you will become an outlaw and other players will be able to hunt you down.
Perhaps this reputation could be something like a KDR?
It is possible. I don't know what KDR means, but it is possible.
This will of course have consequences. Players will have reputation on their character sheet. If you do things like kill your allies, your reputation will take a big hit. When it goes below zero, you will become an outlaw and other players will be able to hunt you down.
In my experience with running multiplayer games of various types, reputation stats (or something similar, like morality metrics) are generally ignored by the players, even between each other, and are usually only respected by the npcs. This can still have the desired effect, but it creates a disconnect between the playerbase's opinions of a person and the npcs' opinions of a person.
Basically for this to have an effect you need to give it a bite, such as denying certain quests to players with low reputation, or denying them the ability to trade with npcs, until their reputation increases sufficiently. The potential problem with that is that people will whine that they are not allowed to play the game in the way they want to.
Reputation is mainly for dealing with NPC's and quests.
Examples of how reputation might work in WoE:
- Some NPC's refuse to do business with you if you have a low reputation
- Some NPC's will attack a player with a low reputation
- High reputation gives you all kinds of perks
- Some quests might be only available if you have a certain level of reputation
- Some quests might be easier with higher reputation
- High negative reputation will cause fear in your opponent
etc.
What the playerbase thinks of the player is irrelevant imo. This is role-playing. Even if you are a nice guy in real life, if your character murders people in the event, that character is probably not very liked.
-
*snip*
It is possible. I don't know what KDR means, but it is possible.
*snip*
KDR= Kill-Death ratio
almost like Wins to Losses in Elements, which is why it'd work perfectly
-
KDR= Kill-Death ratio
almost like Wins to Losses in Elements, which is why it'd work perfectly
Interesting idea, but I'm guessing there'd be other things affecting your reputation than just your kills and deaths.
For example, it seems like SG intends the act of attacking itself to impact negatively on your rep. regardless of whether you win or lose. Also, attacking different sorts of people has different effects on your rep. Also I suspect there will be ways to earn back reputation by doing quests and the like, which won't revolve around dying more to bring your ratio back up.
-
If we have a reputation thing, there should be positives and negatives for both sides of the spectrum. Perhaps the low reputation players have access to a black market and can buy/use cards that high reputation players can't, and vise-versa? Even quests could be different for both sides.
-
If we have a reputation thing, there should be positives and negatives for both sides of the spectrum. Perhaps the low reputation players have access to a black market and can buy/use cards that high reputation players can't, and vise-versa? Even quests could be different for both sides.
Last night I thought about making the reputation thing even more complex.
Reputation could consist of 13 different numbers, one per element + "other". If I do a guest for :fire, I would gain :fire reputation (and possibly lose :water reputation). If I killed a :life player, I would lose :life reputation (and possibly gain :death reputation).
If I enter :earth area, the NPC's react based on what my :earth reputation is. etc.
This system is of course not my own brilliant idea. It have been used in many games.