PDA

View Full Version : Massive multiplayer elimination?



Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:02 AM
Could this happen? With 8+ players, turns going clockwise etc, if you lose all your life you are eliminated, last man standing wins?

These were tons of fun at my hobby shop, everyone would jump in, no matter how bad they were.

Blare731
05-12-2013, 10:04 AM
I think it would be an interesting game mode, but it would have to be totally anonymous as to not have alliances.

Devaux
05-12-2013, 10:05 AM
Passing priority between 8 players would make me actively avoid playing a variant like this. Not even once.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:11 AM
People at my hobby shop made alliances on the fly, and usually with a random person rather than a close friend. It was more interesting that way.

And I see this being more of a draw for guilds.

The pass priority thing could be enforced to have lower reaction times - these games are designed to take whole afternoons anyway, unless someone combos and infinitely kills everyone.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 10:21 AM
Passing priority between 8 players would make me actively avoid playing a variant like this. Not even once.

Same

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:27 AM
You guys have never tried this IRL? Or is it because it is digital that it turns you off?

And this is going to be only a little larger than 6v6 - will you never play those either? I don't quite understand here.

houjix
05-12-2013, 10:30 AM
You guys have never tried this IRL? Or is it because it is digital that it turns you off?

And this is going to be only a little larger than 6v6 - will you never play those either? I don't quite understand here.

In a real life game, a player only needs to speak up to respond to something. In the digital real you would have to click no every time any action occurs. The game could get pretty tedious especially if players aren't paying attention.. Although settings for auto passes when you have no valid responses would alleviate some of that. It could be fun, but not for anything other than a casual format.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:36 AM
Oh, I intend for it to be casual only, and yeah, a 10-20 second autopass would be almost required.

mauvebutterfly
05-12-2013, 01:37 PM
Another option might be to only allow players within 2 seats of a player respond or be affected by a card.

Take a 6 player game, for example, the players opposite each other would never be able to target each other with spells or abilities, or cancel those abilities. Once a player is eliminated, people move in closer to fill the gap.

Could make it interesting if in an 8+ player game one player plays a card killing all creatures in play. It would actually only affect 5 players, allowing more distant players an opportunity to beat down the competition.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 01:43 PM
That would make for an interesting dynamic. It would be like a triple threat, but more insane.

I love it.

...Actually, it would be even more dynamic than a triple threat, because you would need the help of those next to you to help control those you can't affect - making for temporary alliances to try and stop someone running rampant.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 01:44 PM
Another option might be to only allow players within 2 seats of a player respond or be affected by a card.

Take a 6 player game, for example, the players opposite each other would never be able to target each other with spells or abilities, or cancel those abilities. Once a player is eliminated, people move in closer to fill the gap.

Could make it interesting if in an 8+ player game one player plays a card killing all creatures in play. It would actually only affect 5 players, allowing more distant players an opportunity to beat down the competition.

Since it is online you could also make it so you couldn't see the players that were too far away until they got close enough so you have no idea what to expect.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 01:48 PM
Mushroom, I think I have fallen for you. That is an amazing idea.

Player - 'I think I got this, my opponents next to me are within kill range'
Player on the left suddenly dies and is replaced by some guy with a huge army of troops - player thinks 'Oh s***'.

mauvebutterfly
05-12-2013, 02:47 PM
Since it is online you could also make it so you couldn't see the players that were too far away until they got close enough so you have no idea what to expect.

This would also speed up gameplay a lot, since you wouldn't be checking what everybody else is doing all the time. It would still be a lot of waiting, but not being able to see or react to another player's stack would avoid a lot of button pressing.

If this was implemented, it would probably be best to have stacks be located at the position of the player starting them, or the location of the creature being affected. Let's say that there are players A, B, C, and D, and A and D are too far away to see each other. If A does an action and B tries to cancel it, D doesn't get to see. If C casts a spell to kill one of A's creatures, D doesn't get to see. If A casts a spell killing one of C's creatures, it could go either way. It might be interesting for D to see and react in this case, but having the option would slow things down, so I'd be in favour of D only seeing the outcome of the stack (damage on C's creature, or its death.) In other words, A and D would never see any of the stacks started by the other player, or stacks choosing only cards controlled by the other player as targets.

Erebus
05-12-2013, 02:51 PM
mauvebutterfly, there'd probably have to be one other caveat. The stack itself has to have range (i.e. you can't add to the stack and effect that targets any player not in range of the stack origination).

I.e. if Player A targets Player C, Player C can't target Player D in response.

mauvebutterfly
05-12-2013, 03:09 PM
mauvebutterfly, there'd probably have to be one other caveat. The stack itself has to have range (i.e. you can't add to the stack and effect that targets any player not in range of the stack origination).

I.e. if Player A targets Player C, Player C can't target Player D in response.

Good call. That's an obvious oversight on my part that would have been caught during implementation (I would hope). Anchor the stack at the appropriate location. If you want to target another player, start a new stack.

Hmm… what about cards that target multiple creatures? Say B casts something targeting one creature each from A and from D. Resolve it as 2 separate stacks? A counterspell, for example, would only affect the one target?

Erebus
05-12-2013, 05:57 PM
Might be too complicated, but I think an anchor point is the best way to think about it.

All effects are in the stack at the anchor point. So anyone in range of the stack can add to it and affect any effects in that stack. So Player D could counter player A's response, if he wanted to.

d00dz
05-12-2013, 06:05 PM
I like Mushroom's suggestion but I have a concern with implementation. If you can only see the players to either side of you, you'll have to wait a long time for the remaining players to finish their turns and not see any progress on the table. This would be incredibly boring and more likely than not get people to AFK often.

mauvebutterfly
05-12-2013, 06:42 PM
You could spend that time trying to make alliances with people.

There could also be a graph of sorts available containing global information (Health, Energy, Number of Cards in Play…) so that you can see how things are changing in a rough sense.

I think that this format, while a lot of fun, would probably only work with friends/guildmates that you're comfortable trash-talking and conspiring with. You'd need people to keep the pace going pretty quickly.

Another consideration is that more than one player could be taking the turn simultaneously. This could get messy with regards to timing, but if you can only see one or two players in either direction, you could theoretically have more than one active player at a time.