Diplomatic relations

[Scaredgirl]

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.

[Daxx]

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.

[Demut]

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.

[Daxx]

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?

[Demut]

To make everything go faster. Remember, this is  forum game so everything must be done manually. It makes things simpler.

[Scaredgirl]

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.

[TimerClock14]

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?

[Daxx]

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.

[Scaredgirl]

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.

[TimerClock14]

*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

[Daxx]

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.

[Dragoon1140]

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.