PvP FFA, anyone?

AuthorMessage
Ensign
Jun 16, 2013
28
Hello, recently joined the message boards, though i've been perusing the central forums for some months. So , hi all.

Anywho, down to the point of this.

A thought recently occurred to me while I was listening to a bunch of people complaining about the unfairness of random games and later was watching (with some amusement, I might add) a group of people trying to organize a fair 4v4 match.

But the thought that came to me during all this was the possibility of (and give me your thoughts on this) a Free-For-All (FFA) style PvP. Now I'm not talking about getting rid of the current system or to leave it as is, I know KI is working on improvements and overall updates for it. I'm talking about a more or less completely different game mode, probably with a "Brawlin' Hall" of it's own. But the thoughts I was having lead me to think more in regards of fairness and (personally) another type of challenge.

For fairness: There's no uneven teams as there are no teams at all, only true issue would be level differences.

Challenge: Imagine, if you can, a match with 8 players and their respective companions. But all of them simply trying to be the last crew standing. you're focusing on bringing down a Zeena owned by the player on your left when suddenly your Bonnie is ganged up on by another players entire crew. But while you're frantically tryign to push them off, another player sees an opening and attacks that first player directly, thus he breaks off his attack with you. (just giving an example here)

This is just an idea i was having and was wondering all your thoughts on it and possibly give the idea to KI (if only for them to toss about in the office).

-Silly Sebastian ()

Gunner's Mate
Aug 08, 2010
288
Good idea, but i don't think it would work.
You know there are pirate101 clans right? What if when in a FFA, people knew eachother and decided to form an alliance and not attack eachother? Plus how would that work out turn-wise? Would you have to wait 8 rounds to make your move? Or would it be all at once, creating pandemonium? Maybe you could change the whole idea and make designated areas you have to be in (1v1) with 4 areas so there would be 8 people (you can't leave your area, and nobody can join your area) you have to defeat the pirate in your area and then you can leave the area, and people can join it? I don't know, there are endless possibilities.

Merciless Jean Percy, 65
Merciless Jack Ramsey, 64

Pirate Overlord
Mar 10, 2009
6038
Silly Sebastian on Jan 10, 2014 wrote:
Hello, recently joined the message boards, though i've been perusing the central forums for some months. So , hi all.

Anywho, down to the point of this.

A thought recently occurred to me while I was listening to a bunch of people complaining about the unfairness of random games and later was watching (with some amusement, I might add) a group of people trying to organize a fair 4v4 match.

But the thought that came to me during all this was the possibility of (and give me your thoughts on this) a Free-For-All (FFA) style PvP. Now I'm not talking about getting rid of the current system or to leave it as is, I know KI is working on improvements and overall updates for it. I'm talking about a more or less completely different game mode, probably with a "Brawlin' Hall" of it's own. But the thoughts I was having lead me to think more in regards of fairness and (personally) another type of challenge.

For fairness: There's no uneven teams as there are no teams at all, only true issue would be level differences.

Challenge: Imagine, if you can, a match with 8 players and their respective companions. But all of them simply trying to be the last crew standing. you're focusing on bringing down a Zeena owned by the player on your left when suddenly your Bonnie is ganged up on by another players entire crew. But while you're frantically tryign to push them off, another player sees an opening and attacks that first player directly, thus he breaks off his attack with you. (just giving an example here)

This is just an idea i was having and was wondering all your thoughts on it and possibly give the idea to KI (if only for them to toss about in the office).

-Silly Sebastian ()
Welcome to the message board family Sebastian. You have some really unique and intriguing ideas. This is a very different concept and really sounds like a lot of excitement. Not that I am likely to try it, PvP is just not my thing, but I recognize a fun concept when I see it. I would love to toss a few of the bully teams in there to let them all get a taste of their own medicine.

Ensign
Jun 16, 2013
28
DeathWiz101378 on Jan 11, 2014 wrote:
Good idea, but i don't think it would work.
You know there are pirate101 clans right? What if when in a FFA, people knew eachother and decided to form an alliance and not attack eachother? Plus how would that work out turn-wise? Would you have to wait 8 rounds to make your move? Or would it be all at once, creating pandemonium? Maybe you could change the whole idea and make designated areas you have to be in (1v1) with 4 areas so there would be 8 people (you can't leave your area, and nobody can join your area) you have to defeat the pirate in your area and then you can leave the area, and people can join it? I don't know, there are endless possibilities.

Merciless Jean Percy, 65
Merciless Jack Ramsey, 64
Thanks for the input, this is the very reason I tossed this idea up here

In regards to the "In-Match" alliances, I don't know if you've ever played Risk or 4-Player Chess but both games have a similar idea to this. They both not only allow in-game alliances to be formed between players, but actually encourage it. Cause, in the end, only one player can be left standing. So at some point, those alliances have to break up. Now, whether this is before or after they've accomplished whatever goal they set for themselves (whether it be simply beating everyone else, or they were just worried about one really strong player), or one of the players decides to take an early advantage over his partner and back stab him when he ain't paying attention, it's all part of the strategy this style would introduce.

As for the turn system. Thats the point I can't quite pin down. Obviously, making everyone wait 7 turns in order for them to have there turn is a REALLY bad idea. They could easily be killed in that time, assuming the other players are focusing on them or something of the sort. Also, this system would favor the first one or two people who get a turn.
I had the thought of maybe a "preperation/safety" period at the start (just 1 or 2 turns) where no one can be attacked yet, thus ensuring everyone at least has a chance to prep themselves before being tossed in the frying pan, but this still has similar issues.

If ya got any ideas, feel free to toss them in

-Silly Sebastian ()

Gunner's Mate
Aug 08, 2010
288
Silly Sebastian on Jan 12, 2014 wrote:
Thanks for the input, this is the very reason I tossed this idea up here

In regards to the "In-Match" alliances, I don't know if you've ever played Risk or 4-Player Chess but both games have a similar idea to this. They both not only allow in-game alliances to be formed between players, but actually encourage it. Cause, in the end, only one player can be left standing. So at some point, those alliances have to break up. Now, whether this is before or after they've accomplished whatever goal they set for themselves (whether it be simply beating everyone else, or they were just worried about one really strong player), or one of the players decides to take an early advantage over his partner and back stab him when he ain't paying attention, it's all part of the strategy this style would introduce.

As for the turn system. Thats the point I can't quite pin down. Obviously, making everyone wait 7 turns in order for them to have there turn is a REALLY bad idea. They could easily be killed in that time, assuming the other players are focusing on them or something of the sort. Also, this system would favor the first one or two people who get a turn.
I had the thought of maybe a "preperation/safety" period at the start (just 1 or 2 turns) where no one can be attacked yet, thus ensuring everyone at least has a chance to prep themselves before being tossed in the frying pan, but this still has similar issues.

If ya got any ideas, feel free to toss them in

-Silly Sebastian ()
Yeah, but still. Even though there has to be one winner, it would still get very annoying for the people who aren't working in allainces to be defeated by too many pirates on one. Although the allaince would break up in the end, the damage would've been done already. The people who lost earlier, no matter what the end result, would be very annoyed that they were ganged up on.
And turnwise, maybe they all go (like i said) in an area that they cannot leave and other people cannot join, with another player where they have to defeat all companions and the pirate in their area (usually just one other pirate so it's a 1v1 situation) then get a turn to buff/heal and are released into another area, where pirates may still be fighting. This method would stop allainces as you have to defeat whoever is paired up with you to advance. Plus it's less pandemonium than if they were all together in an arena to prey on those who attack. And it's a lot less frustrating since you could be targeted if you're a threat and taken out in near to no time.

Ensign
Feb 08, 2014
23
This is a good idea. But for the turn system I got a new type of ffa but really. It starts out normal 4 v 4 but when the team wins it turns into 2 v 2 (healed and random teams) then finnally the winners will do a 1 v 1. So its not exactly ffa but what I could think of.