Topic: Clan Revamping  (Read 7182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline J

  • Adept Squire
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 21, 2013, 05:11:08 AM »
Would you be willing to give it a shot at making something for us to see?  I think the reason tiles in FE were being considered was simply to make creating maps easier.  It doesn't have to be tiles if you could find an easier way.

Below is a section of the Dark Dawn Weyard map divided into squares.  The X represents the HQ of each team.  Terrain can include the entire battle field or areas that can be traversed on foot.  (Example:  Mountains can't be crossed and getting over rivers require the use of a bridge such as the one shown.)

The goal of goal of each team is to take out the enemy HQ.  In a basic match a limited set of players would take the field and each person would get to move on one square per turn.  (up, down, left, or right)  If the player chooses a square with an opponent a battle will ensue.  (RP battle, tic-tac-toe, chess, etc.)  The winning player will take the square while the losing player will be returned to their HQ, unable to act for a few turns.

-In a battle with more than one person on each team attacking the HQ will freeze it preventing any players from spawning after their time is up.  If the HQ is "attacked" a certain number of times it will be destroyed and the assailant's team will win.  (During an attack the player will remain in the same square next to the HQ, but choosing the HQ square during a turn will damage it.)  The other members of the HQ under assault must defeat the opposing player attacking it or risk losing the game.  If a player defeats the person attacking their HQ it can be selected during the next turn to unfreeze it allowing the recovering players to respawn if their turn time-out is up.

-In a one on one battle there is one major difference.  A "final battle" occurs if the player is inside the HQ when the enemy attacks it.  If the HQ owner loses this special battle the entire HQ will fall no matter how much HP it has remaining.  To make it simple, your goal will most likely be pushing the opponent across the map and defeating them in their HQ.  Keep in mind that each HQ does have a certain amount of hits it can take in this mode, so attacking an empty enemy HQ will take longer and give the enemy a chance to reach the opposing player before their HQ is destroyed.


 :26:
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 05:16:29 AM by J »

Offline Rolina

  • Admiral Adept
  • ***
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 20
  • The Fulminous Witch
    • View Profile
    • The Witch's Wall
« Reply #91 on: August 21, 2013, 03:51:08 PM »
So you're thinking on a scale like Fire Emblem rather than Final Fantasy Tactics...  Where it's a large battlefield as opposed to an area small enough to allow AoE attacks.

I'm not saying that wouldn't work, but I'm a bit more used to the FFT/Disgaea/Tactics Ogre style.  How about this - when two players meet in combat, the winner is decided by a battle of the defender's choice.  This could be an RP battle in colosseo, an online game like Board Game Online or even something like a Chess Match, or heck, maybe even a poetry slam or something.

The trick here, though, is that it's the choice of the person who's defending, not the person who's making the attack.  By doing this, it makes it so that the battles are at least interesting, and that you don't have people sniping others with challenges they're not good at.

Offline J

  • Adept Squire
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 22, 2013, 02:16:44 AM »
Other rules can be added by the players or the person over the Clan War/Battle/etc. 

Allowing the defending player to choose the battle every time could backfire.  (Example: Player 1 reaches player 2's side of the field and decides not to attack 2.  This forces 2 to initiate the match and fight player 1 in a game of his/her choosing.)  I'd advise allowing the player inside the HQ (1vs1) to choose the game since it is their base and letting the field battles go through a cycle.

A few optional rules to consider:

-If a player is directly above, below, left, or right of you they must be attacked during the next turn.
-Limiting the type of games available in a match.  (Only RP battles/Chess and Tic Tac Toe/Only Chess/etc.)
-Allow ice panel sliding on claimed squares.  If a player gets sent back to their HQ it will be possible to cross all claimed connected squares (The squares with a corresponding colored dot.) in one move until a change in direction is required.
-In a team match allow the recovering player to fight the person attacking the HQ if they are in it.  This will let the recovering player be more useful, but it will also risk the game since this loss would destroy the HQ.
-Allowing the defending player in an HQ to pick the game a set number of times before it becomes a cycle game, or one of the other players choosing, to avoid immunity.  This will give the other player a chance to win even if they aren't good at the game(s) the defending player chooses.  (Note: You don't want a "game master" to remain undefeated just because the other player is bad at the chosen game.)
 :77:

Offline TakoshiWolfite

  • Mercury Clan
  • Admiral Adept
  • *
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 7
  • ~Clan Wars Judge~ Just Try and Mess with Me!
    • View Profile
    • Furaffinity-GothTk14
« Reply #93 on: August 22, 2013, 02:29:47 AM »
I prefer best 2 out of 3 kind of matches so it's fair for both sides, Defender gets first choice, Attacker gets Second Choice, and Neutral or Judge/Admin make the Third choice if the first two are a Tie so its fair.

Offline Rolina

  • Admiral Adept
  • ***
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 20
  • The Fulminous Witch
    • View Profile
    • The Witch's Wall
« Reply #94 on: August 23, 2013, 11:39:24 AM »
How can it backfire?  Just being next to a person doesn't mean you're fighting them.  You have to declare the attack.  If you chose to end the turn next to them, they do not have to attack you.  Seriously, what tactical games have you played?

Limiting matches is a bad idea.  I can understand not allowing certain extremes, and making sure both parties have what's necessary to partake in the match (ex:  I can't do matches via Street Fighter because I don't have the game), but if you limit it to things like that, you take away the whole point of Defender's Choice - your pretty much force the same type of battle, which then means it's only for people who like that.  So if I don't like or want to play board games, then I simply won't play.  However, if there was no restriction, I'd be much more likely to play, and would even play a boardgame if the defender chose that.

Option 3 is a no.  For this type of map (and game for that matter), AoEs of any kind will not work.  Furthermore, "claimed squares"?  There's nothing about that in your initial proposal.  I think a Fire Emblem approach of just using units, and having the loser being "wiped out" works better.

Option 4 I don't get... each game... does damage?  No.  Fights will drag on forever, and nobody wants that.  Keep it simple for starters - set amount of spaces each unit can move (4 is good), defender's choice, two win conditions - take the keep, or defeat all foes.  Taking the keep is as easy as just moving your unit onto the enemy keep. 

Option 5 - NO.  Just... NO.  That defeats the whole point of Defender's Choice.  The thing is, that's the whole point - to allow the Defender the chance to challenge them at something they may not be as good at.  The key here is to know the defender, and to know their strengths and weaknesses.  Target defenders who play to your strengths.  Sure, in the beginning it'll be a slugfest of sorts, but the more games happen, the more we learn about each other and what we're good at and trend towards, and the more strategic this game can be.

@Takoshi:  I also disagree with this.  Again, this makes games drag on much too long, and again undermines the point of defender's choice.  The point is to add an element of strategy.  If you have it best 2 of 3, then it always goes to the third match because they'll always play to weaknesses.  If you do that, they don't play to each other - they play to the judge.  What does the judge trend towards?  If you think you're better at those than the defender, go in for the kill.  If not, have someone else go at them, while you target another person.  Yes, there's strategy, but it's the wrong type.  You need to judge your actions based on your opponent, not some neutral arbitrator's whims.


Have either of you guys played Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity?  People who are good at them don't win because they're crazy funny or really good, but because they play to the Judge's/Card Czar's personal tastes.  If you make a stupid humor joke with your combo, while the other person makes a "meh", I'll give "meh" the point because I don't like stupid humor.  That's the point here - reading each other.  Learning how each other works and thinks, getting to know them better in glorious competition, and exploiting that to the best of your advantage.

Early on, I see this being a killfest.  Everyone going for the attrition win.  Later on, I see them playing it the way it should be - trying to out maneuver one another to the other's base, and sniping a defender you can beat to make an opening.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 11:48:14 AM by Rolina »

Offline J

  • Adept Squire
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 23, 2013, 05:58:05 PM »
@TakoshiWolfite: You could make that a rule.

@Rolina:  Allowing an opponent to pass you up when they are closer to your HQ than you are to theirs would lead to your defeat unless an attack is eventually made by you or a teammate.
 :57:

Adding rules, or "limiting" a match, can sometimes make the game more strategic and fun.  Rules can also shorten or lengthen a game.  The optional rule list is just a bunch of rule suggestions.

The third one listed can speed up a match.  It's more useful in a match that happens in a large arena.  Instead of starting from your HQ and having to get all the way back to your opponent or their HQ one square at a time you could "slide" along vertical/horizontal rows of claimed squares.  The thing I didn't bother mentioning was that other players can claim your square if they move on it thus allowing your row of claimed squares to be shortened or cut.

Those are good suggestions.  To simplify what I meant in the fourth "-": Standing next to and selecting an enemy HQ will damage it.  Attacking an HQ uses one turn.;  Doing this until the set number is reached will destroy the enemy HQ.;  With this particular optional rule in play a team player will be able to defend their HQ just like the a person would in a one player match if they are recovering.

The fifth explains itself.  Here's another example anyway.:  What if you had to play against a professional Chess player who was defending his/her HQ?  If you were a rookie Chess player in this scenario victory would seem impossible.  That's why a limit to prevent an infinite player's choice cycle is useful for HQ defenders.
 :99:

Offline TakoshiWolfite

  • Mercury Clan
  • Admiral Adept
  • *
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 7
  • ~Clan Wars Judge~ Just Try and Mess with Me!
    • View Profile
    • Furaffinity-GothTk14
« Reply #96 on: August 23, 2013, 06:20:38 PM »
@J eh i don't have enough authority I just enforce the rules of the clan wars for the most part, (is Distracted by Anime) oh & good luck trying to appease Rolina.

Offline Rolina

  • Admiral Adept
  • ***
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 20
  • The Fulminous Witch
    • View Profile
    • The Witch's Wall
« Reply #97 on: August 23, 2013, 07:12:12 PM »
Pass you up? Sure.  But you could also wall in or attack the guy with someone else.  You wanna go after the person who you think you can beat at their own game.  You wanna block the person you don't.  And sometimes, you just have to attack to hope you save the day.

Again, AoEs do not work for something like that.  They're too powerful. 

I think the better idea would be to simply have it be capture based.  This would mean more maneuvers and tactics than just run up and charge, and the stakes for defending would be higher.

Rule Five:  If you have to do that, you lose.  That's the whole point.  Play to your strengths and against the opponent.  Also, really?  A strawman example?  Be more realistic with your examples, please.

Offline J

  • Adept Squire
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 24, 2013, 04:12:24 AM »
Also, really?  A strawman example?  Be more realistic with your examples, please.
Folly!
 :15: :63:


If anyone else has a question don't hesitate to ask.

 :matthew2: :karis2: :tyrell2: :himi2:

Offline Rolina

  • Admiral Adept
  • ***
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 20
  • The Fulminous Witch
    • View Profile
    • The Witch's Wall
« Reply #99 on: August 26, 2013, 06:24:21 PM »
We don't have a pro-ANYTHING on these forums.  I don't wanna hear it.

Offline TakoshiWolfite

  • Mercury Clan
  • Admiral Adept
  • *
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 7
  • ~Clan Wars Judge~ Just Try and Mess with Me!
    • View Profile
    • Furaffinity-GothTk14
« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2013, 02:09:53 PM »
I don't know if i should be amused by this or try to calm this situation down(if i don't end up making it worse first)

Offline J

  • Adept Squire
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2013, 03:02:36 PM »
We don't have a pro-ANYTHING on these forums.  I don't wanna hear it.
:52:  I don't get it.
I don't know if i should be amused by this or try to calm this situation down(if i don't end up making it worse first)


Maybe a few items can be created to spice up the game.  An HQ wall, double damage, and double points could fit in along with halved damage, turn skip, and HQ damage to add tension.  The squares with items could have a question mark that represents a preselected item hidden from the players.

Offline TakoshiWolfite

  • Mercury Clan
  • Admiral Adept
  • *
  • Posts: 718
  • Karma: 7
  • ~Clan Wars Judge~ Just Try and Mess with Me!
    • View Profile
    • Furaffinity-GothTk14
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2013, 05:57:36 PM »
I prefer setting traps

Offline Tetsu

  • Sol Clan
  • Legendary Golden Sun Adept
  • *
  • Posts: 5067
  • Karma: 16
  • The Lost Shadow
    • MSN Messenger - zachmcv001@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
« Reply #103 on: August 28, 2013, 03:54:06 AM »
I'm with Takoshi, this needs to be more calm and "professional" instead of so heated. We're here to discuss the future of the Clan Wars and how to improve it, or what to do about it in general.

Offline Merc

  • Lighthouse Guardian
  • ******
  • Posts: 2286
  • Karma: 17
  • Last name change. I've been moving for a while.
    • View Profile
    • Email
« Reply #104 on: August 29, 2013, 02:03:13 AM »
Maybe we should also make another topic for improving Clan Wars? This topic is supposed to be more about a new /clan/ system, not a new Clan Wars. We should figure out what the clans are going to be before creating competition type stuff.