Aliance Event

Ideas & Feature Requests
1

I got the idea for a new event of the whole alliance and I will be
happy to read it.
The event would be based on the co-op system. The idea is that 2/4 of
the alliance players would meet in one round. Let’s say the event has
45 rounds divided into difficulties, as in Seasonal Events (15x
Normal, 15x Advanced and 15x Hard).

Example:
-4 players will join the round. (P1, P2, P3 and P4)
-Each player logs 5 heroes from their list
-These 4 players will choose 20 heroes from the following list, so P1
will be able to play with P2 heroes
-Everyone chooses their items
-Then they split into two teams (Team 1 and Team 2) and go into battle
-Fighting will be divided into rounds, which Team 1 and 2 will pass separately
-In the last round, both teams will meet against Boss or Titan

Game mechanics:
-In the first rounds, both players play at the same time, so in order
to send stones, both players must draw each on their Board. This also
applies to a special attack.
-If the player does not want to use a special attack, just drag the stones.
-If one player has combos and the other doesn’t, they have to wait
until all the stones have fallen and then play together again.
-Mana, qualities, healing would only take place in each player’s team.
-As soon as one team reaches the last round, it must wait for Team 2.
If one team dies before reaching the last round, only Team 1 must
complete the round.
—In the last round—
-The mechanics would be divided into teams. So Team 1 will be able to
pull 3 times or 4 times together and everyone will send their stones.
Team 2 is waiting.
-It might be good that for the sent stones P1 and P2, the heroes in
the color for both will be recharged at the same time. So P1 sends ice
stones and P2 holy stones, recharges the all ice and holy heroes from
team 1.
-An opponent’s attacks would only go to Team 1, which plays. Team 2
would be in defense.
-After three/four draws of Team 1, Team 2 plays the same principle
until all members die or win.
-Regarding the buff / debuff count, the assignment of, for example, a
mana reduction by a player 1 from team 1 is counted every turn of the
whole team. Buffs for allies would be counted by pulling a certain
team, so if the other team played, it would freeze.

*Of course, chat would have to be available right in the game for
strategy. When Team 1 is playing, the second team can still discuss
the next three/four moves.

Rewards:
The Valor system is ideal. Two categories, one V.I.P and one classic.
Anyone who took part in at least one round to complete would be
entitled to rewards in all difficulties. Each round would be played
once by the alliance, so one difficulty can be completed by weaker
members. Hard difficulty would be played by the strongest members. In
other words, even a weak player could get better rewards if strong
players complete the rounds. The rewards would be collected as in
Valor, with the proviso that if he wanted better rewards from the
rounds the alliance would complete, he would have to buy a Valor V.I.P pass.
It would be the cooperation of the whole alliance and the rewards
would be for everyone involved. The whole alliance will be
strengthened in this way and strong players can help weaker players.
I would not limit the event to any flags or elements, such as in a
seasonal event. Simply a classic board with members of the alliance
against opponents, who will be strong, so that they have to cooperate
and find teammates with matching heroes.
It’s quite complicated, but it would be a combination of elements of the game.

  • Rewards like in Valor.
  • Rounds as in the Seasonal Event on three difficulties
  • Boss as Titan
  • And all wrapped up in alliance cooperation like in War.

I believe that it would be a good system even for weaker players. If
they had a chance for nice rewards due to the fact that other members
can complete the event, they would buy a Valor V.I.P pass. The Alliance
should help itself, and if a player played only a few rounds and won
rewards without much hard work, it would be beneficial for the
Alliance.

There are a lot of questions, such as what if a player came to another
alliance, so only a member who was in the ali before the event would
be eligible. Etc…

Thanks for reading

2020-08-27_163926
2020-08-27_163926623×841 88.9 KB

2

Welcome to the forums.

Different idea. I suspect it would be too convoluted to code for or to implement though (making it a practically difficult proposition). Not to mention it sounds like you need people online at the same time.

Some aspects of the proposition seem a bit too optimistic. And since I do get nit-picky, I’ll just go on and try and pick away at some parts of the idea.

  1. How are odd numbered member alliances accounted for?
  2. How is the pool of heroes chosen and distributed?
  3. How do players play at the same time?
  4. Follow up to 3. Is it on the same board taking turns or some other method?
  5. Follow up to 4. What heroes/items are displayed onscreen?
  6. What is the purpose of the other Team in defence?
  7. How does a turn end? You suggest ‘three/four draws’ then until win or die.

A lot of clarification is required, I think, to bring your idea out.

3

Hi ThePhilosopher

Thank you for reading. I think there are still a lot of questions, but as a concept, you might be able to work with that.
As for the people connected at the same time, I believe that in many alliances, members can agree to play together if the event lasts for some time.

  1. I would see it so that only players in even numbers can join the round.
  2. I just don’t know how it could work, but I’d imagine a double choice. The first would be just to register the heroes in each player’s round. Subsequently, just before the start of the round, each player could choose from a list of registered heroes of connected members in round. So, for example, four players would register 20 heroes and each chose one.
    3/4. I still thought about it and at the same time it probably wouldn’t work, but maybe it would be on one game board, where each player draws once in the team. Mana would be recharged, for example, by the player who is playing and the player right behind him. In short, it would pull P1, then P2, P3, P4 and so on.
  3. In terms of display, each player would only see the names of the heroes, and after a long press, the hero’s card would be displayed. On the left would be only P1 to P4 and the items could be common, but in a higher number. There are four, so 4 players would choose one. If two players are playing, chooses two.
  4. At first I thought that there would be two teams in the final round.
    a. First he would play Team 1, which consists of players 1 and 2. So he would pull P1, then P2 and like this 3 times. (P1-P2-P1-P2-P1-P2). Then they would go on defense and Team 2 on attack. So he would play (P3-P4-P3-P4-P3-P4). And then again Team 1.
    b. Or, P1-P2-P3-P4 would be played sequentially and again and again.
  5. This “draw” was supposed to be a stone move. That was a translation error. : D I’m not entirely English. So I meant 3 or 4 moves of stones and then another team plays.
4

I wrote the numbers for the answers to agree with your question but I don’t know why the numbers for the answers have changed … nevermind :slight_smile:

5

I did think ‘draw’ meant ‘turns’, so the translation isn’t too bad. :slightly_smiling_face:
I’ll try and stick to the initial numbering of my questions and reference your responses and further thoughts.

  1. I would imagine an alliance event would have to include all alliances regardless of membership numbers, so this aspect could be problematic. Because it would either exclude odd membership alliances from participating, or potentially preventing a member of such an alliance from participating.
  2. My initial concerns were if one player immediately chose all the ‘best’ heroes. I certainly don’t mind the idea of playing with heroes I don’t have, but it might just be simpler for people to use their own rosters.
  3. I think the practical aspect of playing on the board would be too difficult to implement. Also, it changes the gameplay nature of the game.
  4. There are games (my favourite) where opponents share the board and take turns, but this isn’t the gameplay mechanic in E&P. But the format in your idea means there’s potentially a third party in this.
  5. It’s possible to have the alliance as one side, and enemy the other. But the display and sharing between alliance members could prove tricky.
  6. I think I see, but still not too sure. It sounds like taking turns or waiting for your turn rather than an active defensive role.
  7. Keeping the way the game plays would probably be simplest rather than introduce turn limits (three or four moves isn’t a lot). Besides, there are enough complaints about board RNG. Limiting number of moves will only increase complaints, I think.