Jump to content

Mechanic for multiple player games on Warlord HQ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That is correct at this time there is no mechanic for multiple players in a single game. It has been discussed but at this time we have not put it in.

 

The only simple solution for this would be for everyone at the table to agree that the winning players will submit single reports for a game played against the opponent directly across the table from them. That would be the quickest and easiest solution.

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Administrators

Maybe team v team, but not soon. For mixed matches, there are a lot of variables to be worked out, anticipated, system rules to be developed or changed, and a database to overhaul.

 

Not a terribly easy suggestion to implement, even if it had been fully developed from the beginning.

 

kit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct at this time there is no mechanic for multiple players in a single game. It has been discussed but at this time we have not put it in.

 

The only simple solution for this would be for everyone at the table to agree that the winning players will submit single reports for a game played against the opponent directly across the table from them. That would be the quickest and easiest solution.

 

Mad Pat

What do you do for an odd number of players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe for a 3 player game you could report in

 

Winner defeats 2nd place

Winner defeats 3rd place

2nd place defeats 3rd place

 

Essentially playing three games in the one.

 

I don't know how drastically this would skew the results though. Probably quite a bit if people regularly play multi (3+) player games.

 

You could continue the trend in four player games, but it starts to get insane.

 

Winner defeats 2nd place

Winner defeats 3rd place

Winner defeats 4th place

2nd place defeats 3rd place

2nd place defeats 4th place

3rd place defeats 4th place

 

I know I'm kind of talking crazy talk, but this is the only way I can think of off hand to represent all the different factions deating each other during the course of the battle without them having to change the scoring for games...

 

EDIT: Added in parentheses to clarify

An example for a change in the scoring could be perhaps:

(Total players - 1) points goes to the victor.

(Total players - 2) points for 2nd place

(Total players - 3) points for 3rd place

etc etc

 

Add bonus points for Con and Club events like they are now. +2, +1 to victor's faction respectively.

<shrug>

 

This is just a thought, but I don't know how crazy of a change that would induce.

For a 2 player game it essentially gives the same scoring as current. This would just allow for multi-player games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Administrators

Interesting solution, Qwyk. That would result in a net loss for third place faction and a net gain for first with the second place remaining static. For more players, first place gets a win, last place gets a loss, and no net change for anyone in between.

 

It will take some consideration and time before we can get a 3+ player system defined and engineered. This much is certain.

 

kit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kit. That was pretty much what I was trying to come up with.

 

I imagine my first two examples of solutions would make the reports get pretty crazy and rather large if people were playing multiple multi-player games over the course of a day or weekend such as at a Con. But yeah, my thought was exactly the fact that Winner would clearly win. Loser would clearly lose. Middle players would get a very minimal boost (+/-) depending on the # of players and where they placed or break even.

 

My final example, as a way to score the multiple player games in the future, I think, would not be too horribly difficult to implement. Given time, which I know is precious. Granted I am also saying this from a very horribly weak background in coding. But scoring sheet could look like

 

Number of players: INT

 

Then in columns

Players involved: Ranked in order of victory

Faction involved: Ranked in order of victory

Province association: Ranked in order of victory

 

With the formula I mentioned earlier, I would presume that a mapping array would make some quick work of these. Check to make sure INT = number of values within array. Check to make sure all strings are valid. The winner of a large battle would presumably earn more points, which makes sense, they have to defeat more enemies. Maybe even add in a small multiplier based on army size.

But I know that is just more crazy talk :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now simply mark each player as playing a single game. The winner gets a win for each player he beat and the others get the loss. This is a bit extreme and boosts the winning player by a lot, but the AO indicating these game were valid would be able to use his/her judgement as to how it would be scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhpas if the person in province wins it is treated as a win in that province

if the person in province looses it is treated as a loss in that province.

 

For the "raiding" player only pride is on the line.

 

It keeps things simple but doesn't make a whole lot of "in game' sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*BUMP*

 

Any idea when this will be addressed? I noticed when I did my battle reports for the Forgewalk Marches Invitational there was still only the option of 1 vs 1.

 

In the absence of this, I am not aware of any sort of pre-set protocol for scoring multiple player games. This discussion looks to have stalled months ago.

 

Anyone?

 

- Qwyk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...