Player versus Player R2D

Hi! I would really love if some1 made a PvP R2D where there either are 2 teams fighting each other or all versus all. I would really love if some1 made an R2D like that, and if that is the case I would love to join!

On my R2D, you can do whatever you want, as in... join the enemy and betray everyone...Seriously, given you have enough power/charisma/money/influence you could create your own empire...

Sounds cool! I'll check it tomorrow, imma go swimming now, and then to bed

You are already in the waiting list... >.<

Oooops, forgot that i checked in ;P Well, i don't remember much of the story, so i'll read it tomorrow again ;P

I see some problems with PvP R2D. First of all, I think it'd end pretty quickly (and I mean some twenty rolls, if you see it as a problem): you will probably face no more than six enemies (I remember Dragonchampion taking ~3 hours to roll in six player R2D on Wesnoth forums, will be more with more rolling, and with 20 characters to roll on both sides (be it individual characters or troops) you won't get one roll a day), and if we don't get confrontations, it's not much of a PvP.

It'd have to be played via pm, even the rolls would have to be pm'ed: if you post an action like 'hide behind a box in the left passage', the enemy team will know where you are and chuck a grenade/zap a firebal at you; and you will see their action in time to take cover. If the roll says 'person X gets Y equipment' the other team will watch out for the use of Y. I mean you can roleplay 'not knowing', but if you see an action 'cast Fire Inferno of Ultimate Ownage in case someone is there' it seems hard not to 'run in case someone casts Fire Inferno of Ulitimate Ownage'.

That'd be metagaming, and it's completely forbidden. At least on my game.

But there is no way to prevent people suddenly throwing AoE's at the area, especially those who didn't post an action yet.

Yeah, well... If he wouldn't have done it otherwise, it's metagaming, it's quite easy to tell, actually.

Let's say it's a sniper VS. sniper, one will take cover behind a rock, the other will just take cover and do a "search for snipers." which is a perfectly reasonable action and it is 100% metagaming, no way you can moderate that.

Let's just conclude it that if you want to have a PVP RtD, it will be either 2 teams, 1 on a seperate forum, or not doing it at all.

Dragon took 3 hours to roll 6 people? Bloody hell, I can roll 20 in 30 minutes (well, 20 ships, but that's not the point)

What if you where to make a map, and give one side one half of the map, and the other side the other half, and each side would start on their half. Then the other side wouldn't know where the players are heading at the beginning of the game.

Good point.

Frogger5: The point (my point, at least) is to conceal actions and most of outcomes from majority of players.

The reason I'm interested in PvP is that Moonlight and Blood has potential to create PvP - actually, PeterPorty said that at some point players will have a choice to join the bad guys, so we can expect PvP. The question is how to handle that. There's also a problem of limited knowlegde and taking non-informed risks: we saw Chip/John work on some gizmo, but according to our abilities no one knows what exactly has he constructed - right now it's not a problem and could be roleplayed, but supposing that at some point in the game he decides to betray the organization, constructs an 'improved shield chip' that really is a device allowing to take control over an airship, and 'forgets' to take it after betrayal - again we have a possibility of metagaming.

ShadoWKilleR: I don't think that would be metagaming. If you know the other team has a sniper, that's the reasonable thing to do and I believe it's actually avoiding metagaming. Meta would take place if there were three places where the sniper could be, and you had an RPG/grenades you can use to take out the sniper who's taking cover. Seems to me that your idea of separate forums/threads would be a good way to go.

Now, how different would that be from regular R2D? Or the other way around, what do we expect form PvP? (That's a question I'd like to see some answers on.)
I mean, in R2D it seems you are playing 'against' a human - your Game Master. But you don't get to employ real tactics in skirmishes - you can attempt to mislead your enemy by a feint or faking a retreat, but thing like faking to fake a retreat don't really make sense - GM (or rather your enemies controlled by GM) cannot act based on forseeing your actions: enemies prepared for your attack when you fake a retreat and attack would be metagaming on GM's side (unless he rolls for it, but still it's uncertain). So PvP should involve more mind game/mindf4k. At least 'haha i outrolld u lolz ure noob' doesn't seem that interesting to me.

How to set up the game? The most straightforward would be a Counter-Strike setting: we put two teams with preset goals (capture the area/eliminate the enemies/steal stuff vs hold out for a set amount of rolls/in-game time or something), let them choose some equipment and maybe abilities and uleash them against each other. This seems simple and doable with two threads and 4v4 players or so (6v6 seems like an awful lot of rolling, and in 2v2 you'll quickly run out of enemies).

There's also a free-for-all-ish way with heavy pm communication, and I think it has more potential for mind games, especially with individual goals for players (possibly mutually exclusive with one traitor in the team) and general goal for the team. I don't really have an idea how to conduct it now - you may set a thread for players and send a bajilion pms, but this could cause a lot of confusion. Also there is about one hundred lurkers (+ non-registered users) on the site, and they probably would want to know what's going on, so it's another thread for followers - seems complicated.

Anyway, what I'm trying to do is to make some mechanics for PvP, so someone can make one.

ShadoWKilleR wrote:Let's say it's a sniper VS. sniper, one will take cover behind a rock, the other will just take cover and do a "search for snipers." which is a perfectly reasonable action and it is 100% metagaming, no way you can moderate that.

Let's just conclude it that if you want to have a PVP RtD, it will be either 2 teams, 1 on a seperate forum, or not doing it at all.

No, unless I the character in-game had the information about "snipers being in the zone", I wouldn't allow that action, not if the other player posted said action before.

PeterPorty: I believe that if it was possible for the enemy team to have a sniper (I think you can expect snipers/grenades/booby traps/whatever another way of harming you the enemy may think of in PvP - if you have thought about it, and maybe employed it, chances are that enemy also did so), the 'search for snipers' action is valid - an example from Counter Strike (an tactical shooter I've been playing it a bit lately) would be that on certain maps (dust2) you always expect snipers in certain locations (long A, entrance to B from tunnels) and act like someone trigger-happy was waiting there.
I mean, if a player expects snipers and he's a sniper himself, so his abilities back up his expectations, what is he to do in such a situation? If the other sniper posted an action before, the only action that won't be metagaming is walking out in the open to get sniped.
It's a nasty PvP problem and it'd be nice if it was solved before it happens in-game.

Edit:
If the player didn't know about the sniper before, it'd be a perfectly ok action. Additionally, in PvP you know that someone's out there hungry for your liver and kidneys and he can be way nastier than a GM who generally doesn't present you with challenges you can't stand up to.

Well, of course if you go into the enemy's base, you can expect some kind of defense system, but "look out for snipers" when you're going into a supermarket would be metagaming. It's a pretty gray area, but it's up to the GM to decide whether it is or not.

Sorry to post in a slightly old topic but I had a nice idea regarding this PVP system; in summary, it requires 3 forums; 2 private for the teams, and 1 public that both and the public can access. But anyway, what this encourages is a more strategical game layout; a grid-based map where what you can see is governed by where you're located. This also leads to movement speed (e.g, X amount of squares per turn), chance based combat depending on weapons if you accidentally run into an enemy (lets say you run into someone accidentally. The combat will remain a roll, but the SMG wielder gets a +1 bonus against the -1 bonus sniper, and subsequently, remains chance based, but strategy is included).

I think I'd have the system where you do the following;
1: Move + other actions (shooting is less effective while moving)
2: Any actions EXCEPT ordered movement (character may dodge under the influence of a roll if a firing enemy is spotted). This is usually when you shoot an enemy you spotted on the previous turn.
3: Equipping weapons, healing wounds, e.t.c

A map will have to be updated every turn for both teams. Interestingly, you could possibly choose to shoot in the direction of specific co-ordinates, forcing dodge rolls on every person within a cone of effect on squares between the spots. Could be very tactical.

All this talk is making me consider making one. Since I cbb starting a forum for it, and there isn't a good place for one, would anyone consider joining if I made one as proof-of-concept test against NPCs? Would be a small map, and 4 players against 4 "bots" I think. Busy atm, so it wouldn't be tomorrow or anything, but if I get some interest, I'll make sure I do it.

Anyone worried about me "meta-gaming" be assured; I'd choose NPC actions by logical reasoning in combat, and by random selection from possible options in "mystery" situations. Hell, could even make some stereotypes, like 1 NPC being risk-prone, another being a turtle, e.t.c.

I'd join.

I think that for 'proof of concept' it'd be better to have 2v2 rather than four alive players versus four bots - you get actual PvP this way. And I think the public forum isn't necessary - if you read both team forums you will know what's going on, and if players can access public forum it can't reveal team-specific info (only both-teams-know-this), so it makes the players check two forums (their own and public) and everyone else needs to check three forums. Of course you can ignore all this.

Hey, Dragon: I just got an idea: Why not make 2 more forums: Team 1 and Team 2. Then if any R2D needs two teams or whatever, can half off all members be in one team and the other in the other team. Of course will it be the same team in all team-based R2Ds, becouse it would be really hard/annoying to make 2 forums for each game... Just an idea though.

The forums will be closed automatically after they stop being active, and making 1 forum more active will cost on activity in this 1.

If you can't see the logic behind what I said, be smart, and shut up.

It's YOU who didn't see the logic... It's not a new website-forum, it is like this forum:
Main
-Games
-Worlds
-General Discussion

and then can u add so it is like this:

Main
-Games
-Team 1 (Only the guys Dragon ranked with Team 1 can access this)
-Team 2 (Same, but Team 2)
-Worlds
-General Discussion

And, please be more polite to other people becouse i find it very rude when u tell me to shut up and when you only posts "It'll suck so hard that people will quit"

Guys, chill up... Both of you; if you want to have some massive flame war, do it in PMs, this thread is for discussing the PvP idea.

Yeah, sorry, I got angry But my last post was actually mstly for the PvP idea, that we have 2 different sections for different teams, and that the other team can't access that section. The only problem I see there is this: The gamemaster should have access to both forums to see what they write, but if he plays a game with 2 teams can it happen that he can read what the other team does, so my resolution is to have this: One major thread in the Games section for the rolls and general discussion between the teams, 2 different sections, 1 for each team. And when a team is done does some1 in that team PM the GM the actionlist.

Sorry, I was suggesting playing against NPCs more to test the map and strategy oriented gameplay, and to see if a shorter length R2D could work.

IMO, the PVP could only nicely work if most of the game was played via PMs, or by team-private forum subsections. The former is a tad unpleasant because there's nowhere for the team to discuss their strategies together (privately), and I don't know if the latter is possible.

Would definitely host such a game (PVP or "bot PVP"), I'm just liking the idea of a map that can sort of structure time and space in the game, and still leave room for creativity. This stemmed from the random idea that there could be a giant pillar on the map, and someone may randomly choose to break from the simple moves and just "Shoot the ugly statue". Boom! pillar falls over and actually effects anyone within the squares it lands on, squares it lands on being determined by the role. Still room for creativity