Norseman wrote:

3) Assassin: each player has another player they're supposed to eliminate.  The first player to do so wins the game.

I think WG could really benefit from the ability of map designers to specify which rules beyond fog can be changed by the game creator.  I agree that for some maps, changing fortify rules or number of attacks per turn could be totally unbalancing, but many other maps could support a wider set of options and still be fairly balanced.  The standard Risk boards, for example, probably wouldn't be any less balanced if the card scale were capped at 10 units per turn-in or players were allowed 2 fortifies instead of 1. 

This was brought up in another thread and since I don't want that thread to go off topic I'm posting it here.  I like the idea of an assassination mode.  I think it would add some good spin and strategy to existing boards. 

You gotta be careful about attacking anyone that's not your target too much because essentially you are losing units and not one step closer to eliminating your player.  At the same time, attacking another player that's not your target may make them think that they are your target and pull suspecion away from another player (if you wanted to throw some confusion into their plan at the cost of attracting attention to yourself).  Attacking your hitman is important to keep them off you but if you only suspect a player is your hitman then you gotta weight the option of attacking and losing units on what could be a 'neutral' player.  Everytime you attack your hitman you are pulling resources that could've been spent chasing your target.  And the strategy and tactics go on and on.

I'm for it.

assassin or just plain missions would be interesting. i know board risk had an option of missions FTW

I think it's stupid.

Well, that's not really true. I can see how it might be interesting. Although I'm also very confident that in the hands of the masses it wouldn't actually be anything like you describe - it would be a bunch of players making beelines toward their targets and to hell with subtlety. And that wouldn't be all that fun.

But I'm also 100% sure it would be a huge pain to code, and I am certain as well that there are probably a thousand other things I'd rather see Tom do first. So, fun idea, file it away, and maybe the next time I'm playing with a group of friends I'll suggest it, but for WarGear, for right now? I say no thanks.

oh definately not something to deal with yet!

You could do something close with the tools we have right now...

You could set up a board with even number of players (only even number of players could play this board) for arguments sake it will look like a Chinese checkers board or star of David. players would get a capitol with a "game ending bonus" if you control the capitol on the opposite side of the board but would have a negative bonus if you control any other capitol.

OK so its not like the Assissins but its a idea. maby not a great idea but still a idea...

asm wrote: I think it's stupid.

Well, that's not really true. I can see how it might be interesting. Although I'm also very confident that in the hands of the masses it wouldn't actually be anything like you describe - it would be a bunch of players making beelines toward their targets and to hell with subtlety. And that wouldn't be all that fun.

But I'm also 100% sure it would be a huge pain to code, and I am certain as well that there are probably a thousand other things I'd rather see Tom do first. So, fun idea, file it away, and maybe the next time I'm playing with a group of friends I'll suggest it, but for WarGear, for right now? I say no thanks.

I played one of these on CC, it was a bit lame.  I think the main problem was that we were playing with 8 players though.  I think it could be fun in smaller groups.

It really wouldn't be all that tough to code though.  You basically just put together a mechanism that assigns each player a number that corresponds to the player seat numbers and then place a check when a player is eliminated that determines who the winner of the game is based on who was assigned to kill off that player.  Should be able to do it (I'd think) in 100 lines or so of Flash Script, more or less.

I definitely think it's worth adding in at some point... question is would it qualify as a ranked game win or not?

What about a separate ladder for Assassin games?

Toaster wrote:

I played one of these on CC, it was a bit lame.  I think the main problem was that we were playing with 8 players though.  I think it could be fun in smaller groups.

Only thing I can think of that might have made it bad for you is: did the game end once the first player assassinated their target?  That would suck.  That's how the mission cards worked irl Risk.  You're in the middle of a match and then next time you log in, out of no where, the match is over.  Some player you didn't know was close to killing their target did, and after all those turns, the game's over before you could even see it coming.

I think assassin games should be about which player can kill the most targets.  In other words, after a player assassinates their target, they inherit their target's orginal target and must now go after them.  Each player gets a point for each target they assassinate and whoever has the most number of points at the end of the match wins.  The progression of the game is obvious because you can see how many players are left at any given time.  And with a running scoreboard, you can see if one player is taking a dominating kill lead and maybe start attacking that player to even out the field (exactly how players keep other players in check when one player gets a big bonus in standard modes).

The other thing is that the assassination targets should be assigned as a huge loop.  In other words if you have eight players then you have:

P1-->P2-->P3-->P4-->P5-->P6-->P7-->P8-->P1

Instead of targets being assigned 100% randomly since this can potentially create seperate closed loops:

P1-->P2-->P3-->P1

P4-->P5-->P6-->P7-->P8-->P4

Since that would actually create two seperate assassination games running on the same board.  With one giant loop, inheriting targets works perfectly into the system and because you are creating one giant snake that's eating its own tail, the game has a natural end point.

Norseman wrote: What about a separate ladder for Assassin games?

That sounds perfect.  The score on the ladder could even be exactly how many people you've assassinated.

This sounds kind of cool (as a far out addition IMO). But I don't like it when other players don't make the moves that I want them to make (I don't say anything to them, as sometimes they make the better move for themselves and sometimes I'm just wrong :P), this seems like it would almost expand on that and that games rely more on how everyone else plays rather than how you yourself plays.

That may not make any sense...

Interesting idea, of course the original board game has this. I'd sure play it sometimes for fun, just like I find team games a lot of unpressured fun. I'm guessing it would also be more fun as a lightning game so that everyone is there together wondering who is after who, and it should play out a bit quicker. I would say not to count it toward ranked games. A seperate table might be an idea, but I also wonder how many extra tables do we want?

Hmm, after saying all that, I now remember that when playing assassin games on the board, the winner usually gains control of the board anyway, just like the winner of a normal multi-player game usually wins by a string of eliminations, so the two are not really very different. As such, not really a high development priority, especially with things like tournament and simultaneous play on the wish list.

I think that the idea has merit. Would there be issues though, if a player got booted?

Edward Nygma wrote: I think that the idea has merit. Would there be issues though, if a player got booted?

Well with a single loop system it works itself out.  The assassin of the booted player inherits his target.  And the detective work continues.

Yertle wrote: This sounds kind of cool (as a far out addition IMO). But I don't like it when other players don't make the moves that I want them to make (I don't say anything to them, as sometimes they make the better move for themselves and sometimes I'm just wrong :P), this seems like it would almost expand on that and that games rely more on how everyone else plays rather than how you yourself plays.

That may not make any sense...

 Haha, yeah I know what that's like but that's expected of non team games.  Only once did I ever reach the point where I thought 'now why would he continuously do tha... WAIT they're working together!' (Novak and ObiWan but I already went off on that in another thread).  Comparing assassin mode to standard mode, since you have a specific target (and you know only one other player is targeting you) the fighting is more focused against those two players.  There just so happens to be some noise in the background as every other player is also fighting their assassin/target.  What I like about a continous loop method (as opposed to first to assassinate wins method) is that there is a system of checks and balances, as one player gets too big, other players can come together to bring them back down to size.

http://www.wargear.net/games/join/96989

I've made a version of this that might work.  The only difference is that if you take out the person who is targeting you, you will also win.  If you take out a player who is not your target, you inherit their target, and replace them as another player's target.

ed you need a little more pull around here you get things done so fast it is amazing!
+1 for ed.
not ass kissing just saying :)

sorry not ass sniffing.
i forgot i'm a dog.

That's fantastic Ed!  I assume you would need separate scenarios for each # of players?  Do you think you'll do a few more? 

I have board images for 4-12 players.  The issue is that I have to start the scenario as my own version of random... since the whole board is made up of capital cities.

sweet! you could do that on tons of boards too

Definitely.