Announcing a new variant or X-game: TRINITY

[Hryllantre]

Taking up TBerts point and nodding in agreement 4 V 2 is unfair. Two methods to stop this are firstly, Only 1 rep from each clan and secondly allow the players to trust each other. If someone approaches you with an informal trust offer then allow your own integrity to have the last say, Or report them boo hiss...

I'll offer my services to play as well as I enjoyed (V.much) testing the original Duel (thanks Han for letting me join in)...

[Duke]

I pressed the join button before I read the thread so if someone beat me to then it is all yours.

Just hungry for a new game since my last duel was more of a UFC bout then a game of strategy. I guess that is what you get when you put two hotheads up against eachother.

I disagree with my clanleader and whoever agreed with him about the 4vs2 being a problem. I say if two player gang up on me I should feel honoured since they obviously looked at me as the biggest threat. My general opinion would be "come and get me then" but I understand that it would be VERY hard to survive against them four.

However, what would be the fun in teaming up against the third guy? If you want a one on one then play a Duel game, or?

[korexus]

I'm not even sure how much clan mates would cause a 2 on 1. There are probably people outside the scholars that I work with better than some inside. In a normal game you work with your clan mate, but if Trinity is a fight to the death then I could see myself sometimes teaming up with the other player *against* my clan mate. (And as a result, sometimes ending up on the receiving end of a 2on 1.) Half the fun of duel is getting to fight those people you are normally working with after all...

On the flip side, I would make sure my clan mate knew I was gunning for him. (No point in fostering resentment, we saw *that* in the champs a couple of years back...)

Going back to what Egbert was saying, what would people say to an extra order, which declares a NAP between two players. Something like 00_1=[02][05] To declare a 5 turn (fixed) NAP with player 2. If both players entered matching NAP orders on one turn, then any attack, missile or spy operations on a province the other player owned at the start of the turn would be rejected for the relavent number of turns. This could be in Trinity, Duel, Standard WoK, whatever...



Chris.

[trewqh]

Automated NAPs: sounds good, but players would have to be aware that this doesn't take care of borders and could be exploited to breach the agreed borders. Just a thought.

[Hannibal]

Right, action before words. I'll go set it up and open the bidding, and THEN get back to the very interesting points being raised here.

I've already had 4 applications for the 2 places to playtest Trinity alongside Yondallus. I'm going with the more experienced 2, both to stress-test the rules, and for ability to comment and improve.

So, it's Yondallus vs Hryllantre vs Duke.

Sorry to Tinker and Dragonette, thanks for volunteering, you are in the second game if it happens.

I'll go set it up. The only tweak to the first-post rules is ... I'll write that after I've set it up. Don't put in bids till I have, OK?

Han

[Hannibal]

Right, it is now set up. See it in View Running Games, and you should also have your 2 TR's from Turn 0. Check the Pop File (top-right above the map) if you want to look at how the 3 start-positions compare in terms of sttarting pop.

Those are NOT yet your starting-positions. You can consider them, the spread and the T1 OOP, and then bid.

Next step is: each of the 3 of you e-mail me privately your two bids: Bid for your first choice, bid for your second choice, max bid being the pop in the lower-pop of the 2 provs you are bidding to start in, minimum bid being zero.

Once I crunch the 2 bids from each of 3 players, I'll change the player-colours, remove the bid Pop, and tell you you are off and running. Remember: you only "pay" the Pop on successful bids, not on bids you come second or third on.

I await your bids, and hope you have a great time playing it.

Han

[Hannibal]

Clarification on bidding, just in case it's needed; for any watchers if not for these experienced players:

To be clear: the contenders are not bidding for ANY two colours. The colour-pairs are fixed. Each humam is bidding for being Grey/Lt Blue, or Lt Green/Orange, or Violet/Yellow. Those are the only 3 options.

H

[Hannibal]

I said I'd explain one tweak from the rules in the above first-post. Not sure it affects your bidding much at all, but it affects your diplomacy and the mid-game and end-game. IMHO.

The reason I hummed and haaed before offering a 3 or 4 human-player version of Duel was precisely what TBert said above:

Silly thing to argue about people. Not worth the effort of your fingers typing it out.

But anyway, diplomacy complicates duels immensely. I would be very reluctant to sign up for a trinity duel unless I knew one of the people in there would agree to a NAP with me, since 4-on-2, even with some robos in the way, is not even close to fair. That's the best part of duels, the fact that no matter what, you're starting out on even ground, with set rules, and the best tactical mind wins.

With that said, I'd be interested to watch one unfold.

It's tricky to devise rules for 3 players that overcome the risk, even occasionally, of it being an EARLY 2-on-1. For the benefit of the 2 over the 1 ...

I think I've partly addressed that, above, by at least avoiding 2 clanmates versus 1 non-clanmate. But that's probably not enough; so I've thought of a further tweak to help it more; it doesn't solve it 100%, but maybe solves it 80%:

New Rule:
"When a human loses his SECOND colour, nobody gets the RIP."

Think about it. Crucially, it means that 2 humans cannot set up a pact to take out the the third human first; only ONE of them would earn a RIP; so they are less likely to do it for mutual benefit, since only one of them can benefit by their ripping the third player, the other losing ground by granting his ally a RIP... And there are no shared wins; ultimately they are against each other; so any deal against the third human can only benefit ONE of them ...

Knock-on effect: the third player, reduced to one colour, is still in with more of a chance, if he/she plays it right diplomatically and tactically. Because neither of the other humans gains a RIP by taking out your second colour; and one of the two gained a RIP by taking out your FIRST colour; so the other might well be amenable to a new deal to counter the the player who got that rip on you ...

Any comments?

Anyway, I'll now apply this as GM to this first Trinity. You 3 players can take that as added to the rules: The rip of the second-and-final colour of any human is assigned to "enemies", not to any player, no RIP gained.

I doubt it affects your bidding I've just asked for, but it should affect your play and diplomacy? In a good way for the variant?

GM Han

[Brykovian]

what would people say to an extra order, which declares a NAP between two players

I would say this: "I think it's a horrible idea."

Hope you find that helpful.

Cheers,
-Bryk

[Dragonette]

hey

i pressed the game button on about saturday/ sunday. I take it hannibal and duke pressed the button before me and you by passed the fact that i said id pressed it in past posts.

d

[Duke]

Dragonette is right and I did say so in my post that if someone beat me to it then I step down.

You need to fix this Han since she was before me. I dont care if you say it is a test game and I am more experienced. Right is right.

I wont play even if you start it off. I'd be happy to play in the next one though.

/D.

[korexus]

New Rule:
"When a human loses his SECOND colour, nobody gets the RIP."

I think *this* is a horrible idea. Coming as I do from the stand point that taking out robos is not a satisfying win condition, this seems to turn the game from a Duel (or Triel? Trial?) into a race. Everyone whomping on the closest robo, trying to get to the requisite number of kills first.

The kill X robots rule is the reason duels tend to be quick and IMHO less fun. This will take that trend still further.

I made a suggestion earlier, that no one seems to have responded to.

f you want to keep the diplomacy down, you could change the win conditions, so kor has to kill Yon, Yon has to kill Drag and Drag has to kill kor. No way am I going to want to help Yon kill Drag as then he'll win, similarly Drag won't help me kill Yon. Player NAPs suddenly become a very stupid plan.

Like the secret win conditions in risk, but not secret. It would force players to be a bit strategic, instead of going straight for the jugular.



korexus.

[Tinker]

I've already had 4 applications for the 2 places to playtest Trinity alongside Yondallus. I'm going with the more experienced 2, both to stress-test the rules, and for ability to comment and improve.

So, it's Yondallus vs Hryllantre vs Duke.

Sorry to Tinker and Dragonette, thanks for volunteering, you are in the second game if it happens.

Han

No problem from my point-of-view. It's a test game, after all, and I can see where you would want experience and solid rules knowledge.

[Duke]

Well, if he wanted it that way he shouldnt have opened it up for grabs. He should have just asked the so called experienced players if they wanted to do this here.

Still claiming that first in line plays and I wasnt first. Simple as that. Still want to try this so get it going already and get this testing thing on its way.

[Tinker]

...I'm GM'ing it, Yond is playing it, we want two more volunteers to play/test the first go at it, preferably people with some WOK experience, for their input....
hA<b>n</b>n<b><i>i</i></b>Ba<i><b>L</b></i>

The way I read his original post, he did limit it. I put my name in because it sounded interesting, but I also said that I understood completely if he went another route.

[korexus]

Why are we arguing here

• Duke says he would like to play, but is willing to give his spot to Dragonette as she asked first.

• Tinker says he would like to play, but understands if Hryll goes ahead of him in the queue due to more Dueling experience.

• Dragonette and Hryll would both like to play.

As far as I can see, everyone is happy with the status quo...
So I suggest that Hannibal runs the game with Yon, Hyrll and Dragonette. Also, he could find one more player to go with Duke and Tinker. Or he could play himself and I could GM the second game. - More test games aren't a bad thing...


Chris.

[Dragonette]

ive being playing since april, being in many duels and duel lites overall about 10 at least. Standerd games at least 5. I class that as quite experienced.

to make it more fair why dont you find a NON experienced player and let tinker and me[ who's annoyed full stop] and have 2 tests that way you can make the test more effictive by looking at 2 sets of results.

dragonette

[korexus]

ARBCO, I think she's calling your name...

2 test games does seem tobe an obvious solution here. Apart from anything else, players of differing skill levels will probably come up with different problems.

Be fair though, Dragonette. While you've played quite a few duels now you've still seen orders of magnitude fewer turns than a player like Duke (who has been here more years than you have months). Experience is always seen as a sliding scale, if you want people to stop thinking of you as one of the least experienced players, you'll just have to get some more people to sign up!


korexus

[Duke]

Alright then. I'll gladly play but I dont want to walk all over Dragonette to do it.

If you set up another game for her I guess we are all good.

[korexus]

Another game set up, I need one more player.

Chris.