On 24.4.2017 at 10:20 PM, JRosen9 said:

What if you compare with both the the highest and lowest player and only pay once?

Example:

Player A Bids 5

Player B Bids 4

Player C Bids 3

Player D Bids 2

Player E Bids 1

Player A compares to himself and Player E. He Gains 0 honor (5-5 = 0) and Loses 4 Honor (5-1 = 4) for a net of 4 honor loss

Player B compares to Player A and E. He gains 1 honor (5-4=1) and loses 3 honor (4-1=3) for a net of 2 honor loss.

Player C compares to Player A and E. He gains 2 honor (5-3=2) and loses 2 honor (3-1=2) for a net of 0 honor change

Player D compares to Player A and E. He gains 3 honor (5-2=3) and loses 1 honor (2-1=1) for a net of 2 honor gain

Player E compares to Player Player A and himself. He gains 4 honor (5-1=4) and loses 0 (1-1=0) for a net of 4 honor gain.

I see no reason why this shouldn't work

This approach has two flaws. lets say you have only four player and ever resolt fro 1-4, which means the average ould come down to a number that lies between 2 and 3, so would players no suddenly get half point or lose half points? Or do you then add another rule on how things should be rounded and thus make certain choices better than others and that on top of the already high book keeping time with that approach, which seems to me not much fun.

And the second flaw is that it makes the average of 3 always the best bet to be, where you lose the least points while still getting a decent amount of cards, while the risk of taking only one card is not rewarded properly with plenty of honour, and the option to take five cards is also not as punishing in regards how much honour is lost, which could screw the game balance quite a bit.

So, overall I think that would be a terrible solution.

31 minutes ago, Drudenfusz said:

This approach has two flaws. lets say you have only four player and ever resolt fro 1-4, which means the average ould come down to a number that lies between 2 and 3, so would players no suddenly get half point or lose half points? Or do you then add another rule on how things should be rounded and thus make certain choices better than others and that on top of the already high book keeping time with that approach, which seems to me not much fun.

And the second flaw is that it makes the average of 3 always the best bet to be, where you lose the least points while still getting a decent amount of cards, while the risk of taking only one card is not rewarded properly with plenty of honour, and the option to take five cards is also not as punishing in regards how much honour is lost, which could screw the game balance quite a bit.

So, overall I think that would be a terrible solution.

You are wrong on that.

In a four player game where 4 players bid 1 to 4 the outcome would be:

Player A bidding 1 gain 3 honor

Player B bidding 2 gains 1 honor

Player C bidding 3 loses 1 honor

Player D bidding 4 loses 3 honor

Also bidding 3 would not be the best bet always and would be relative to what the other players bid. Bidding 3 would be a safe bet just like it would be in 2 player L5R.

1 hour ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

You are wrong on that.

In a four player game where 4 players bid 1 to 4 the outcome would be:

Player A bidding 1 gain 3 honor

Player B bidding 2 gains 1 honor

Player C bidding 3 loses 1 honor

Player D bidding 4 loses 3 honor

Also bidding 3 would not be the best bet always and would be relative to what the other players bid. Bidding 3 would be a safe bet just like it would be in 2 player L5R.

So, you think rounding down is then the way to go? That still would require a sentence in the rules, and surely would often lead to people having to loo that up. So, I see not how I am wrong, that is exactly the problem I am talking about. And you simply deciding one option that seems logical to you doesn't remove all the drawbacks I have pointed out. I would say with a rounding down system the incentives to pick a three are even higher, ruining the whole system even stronger.

30 minutes ago, Drudenfusz said:

So, you think rounding down is then the way to go? That still would require a sentence in the rules, and surely would often lead to people having to loo that up. So, I see not how I am wrong, that is exactly the problem I am talking about. And you simply deciding one option that seems logical to you doesn't remove all the drawbacks I have pointed out. I would say with a rounding down system the incentives to pick a three are even higher, ruining the whole system even stronger.

I don't get why there is rounding. There is no average, just addition or subtracting. When you bid you gain honor equal to the difference between your bid and the highest bid and lose honor equal to the difference between your bid and the lowest. No rounding required

1 hour ago, Drudenfusz said:

So, you think rounding down is then the way to go? That still would require a sentence in the rules, and surely would often lead to people having to loo that up. So, I see not how I am wrong, that is exactly the problem I am talking about. And you simply deciding one option that seems logical to you doesn't remove all the drawbacks I have pointed out. I would say with a rounding down system the incentives to pick a three are even higher, ruining the whole system even stronger.

There is no averaging or rounding as long as bids are whole numbers between 0 and 6.

(Highest Bid - Your Bid) - (Your Bid - Lowest Bid) = Change in your Honor

This is the same formula used in the 2 player version.

39 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

I don't get why there is rounding. There is no average, just addition or subtracting. When you bid you gain honor equal to the difference between your bid and the highest bid and lose honor equal to the difference between your bid and the lowest. No rounding required

The is rounding involved because you compare to both directions. Sorry, that I go beyong simply addition and subtraction but look at those things from a perspective of calculus and higher maths to determine if a system is useful in the long run. So, you have the plus/minus 0 result at the center which appears if both ends are equaly far away, but the moment you cannot achieve that 0 because it would lie between two whole numbers you already create a system that has to deal with those fractions in the long run. But like I said, that is not the only problem at hand, there is still that with looking at both ends that the meridian is always the best option, and so if the meridian falls between two numbers as it happens when the average is formed then you have to deal with mathematical consequences of that.

4 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

There is no averaging or rounding as long as bids are whole numbers between 0 and 6.

(Highest Bid - Your Bid) - (Your Bid - Lowest Bid) = Change in your Honor

This is the same formula used in the 2 player version.

For every single comparison you might be right, but that is not what I am talking about, I talk about the properbilities and the best bets in the proposed system, which require to think about averages. And so you can tell me you don't get what I try to say, I am fine with that, but you cannot tell me I am wrong since you do not even understand what I am trying to say. Again, I talk about the system as a whole, not about any single given gain or lose. Which means I talk about maths, while you are stuck at calculating.

On 4/21/2017 at 10:00 AM, The Laughing Monk said:

...I agree with Sparks and think L5R multiplayer was terrible. People gang up on you, you're out and you watch for the next 2 hours . . . I'd rather just play 1v1 and rotate.

It is, about whom you play with. There are folks I won't even play Monopoly against... It's this weird balance... if you have been in a good multiplayer environment than you get it. The game doesn't matter, the folks do. Spike is prevelant in Old L5R. If your Spike, multiplayer isn't for you...

In multiplayer, social dynamics take precedence over skill. So, if your a threat, a jerk or someone doesn't like the way you just smirked... your the first one out.

I think with old L5R... the game is so complicated that most casual folks don't or simply won't play it. With Multiplayer there is just too many interactions. Most games are going to go on well over 3 hours... turns last forever.

So now with a newer incarnation it will be very interesting to see what possibilities multiplayer offers...

2 hours ago, Drudenfusz said:

The is rounding involved because you compare to both directions. Sorry, that I go beyong simply addition and subtraction but look at those things from a perspective of calculus and higher maths to determine if a system is useful in the long run. So, you have the plus/minus 0 result at the center which appears if both ends are equaly far away, but the moment you cannot achieve that 0 because it would lie between two whole numbers you already create a system that has to deal with those fractions in the long run. But like I said, that is not the only problem at hand, there is still that with looking at both ends that the meridian is always the best option, and so if the meridian falls between two numbers as it happens when the average is formed then you have to deal with mathematical consequences of that.

For every single comparison you might be right, but that is not what I am talking about, I talk about the properbilities and the best bets in the proposed system, which require to think about averages. And so you can tell me you don't get what I try to say, I am fine with that, but you cannot tell me I am wrong since you do not even understand what I am trying to say. Again, I talk about the system as a whole, not about any single given gain or lose. Which means I talk about maths, while you are stuck at calculating.

No, Druden. We get exactly what you are saying and you are wrong. You seem to have an incredibly poor grasp of game theory which is far more important in this case than probabilities.

The "maths" base of your argument is flawed.

On 4/24/2017 at 1:20 PM, Mirumoto Kuroniten said:

Hello, did you have rice today?

I found a piece of information that, if intrepreted correctly, shows without the shadow of a doubt the existence of a multiplayer option, probably to come further down the line.

I have taken the liberty to turn upside down this image taken from the excerpts FFG has provided for us. By taking a close look to the Steadfast Samurai you can see one word that changes everything. (emphasis mine)

I believe that if L5R LCG was meant as a 2-player game they would have used the word "your", however they deliberately chose "an" and that tells me a lot.

There probably multiply player out of the starter box BUT will probably come later on.

On 4/24/2017 at 4:20 PM, JRosen9 said:

What if you compare with both the the highest and lowest player and only pay once?

Example:

Player A Bids 5

Player B Bids 4

Player C Bids 3

Player D Bids 2

Player E Bids 1

Player A compares to himself and Player E. He Gains 0 honor (5-5 = 0) and Loses 4 Honor (5-1 = 4) for a net of 4 honor loss

Player B compares to Player A and E. He gains 1 honor (5-4=1) and loses 3 honor (4-1=3) for a net of 2 honor loss.

Player C compares to Player A and E. He gains 2 honor (5-3=2) and loses 2 honor (3-1=2) for a net of 0 honor change

Player D compares to Player A and E. He gains 3 honor (5-2=3) and loses 1 honor (2-1=1) for a net of 2 honor gain

Player E compares to Player Player A and himself. He gains 4 honor (5-1=4) and loses 0 (1-1=0) for a net of 4 honor gain.

I see no reason why this shouldn't work

Remember its just gaining honor, its taking honor from the higher bidder. So so who is D gaining his honor from?

seems like yuo're making too complicated. Just have the highest bidder pay the honor to the lowest. If you're in the middle nothing happens.

59 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

Remember its just gaining honor, its taking honor from the higher bidder. So so who is D gaining his honor from?

seems like yuo're making too complicated. Just have the highest bidder pay the honor to the lowest. If you're in the middle nothing happens.

But you can't have every player take from the highest bidder as he would lose to much. If the bids are 1-1-1-5 and the highest bidder gets his honor taken 4 times he just lost 12 honor and is likely out of the game. Conversely if you have bids of 1-5-5-5 you can't have the lowest player gain 12 honor as he likely just won the game. My suggestion keeps all honor gains and losses between 1 and 4 and makes sure each player loses or gains a proportionate amount of honor to all other players.

With my suggestion in the first example the gains would be 4,4,4,-4 and the in the second example the gains would be 4,-4,-4,-4

Altering the dial mechanic is a possibility. Make the standard card draw 3 and slide honor gain and loss with each card taken above or below 3.

6 - lose 3 honor, gain 6 cards

5 - lose 2 honor, gain 5 cards

4 - lose 1 honor, gain 4 cards

3 - gain 3 cards

2 - gain 1 honor, gain 2 cards

1 - gain 2 honor, gain 1 cards

0 - gain 3 honor, gain 0 cards

This may take some of the fun out of the secret bidding but is simple enough to keep the core concept alive and allow decks to maintain their themes.

43 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

But you can't have every player take from the highest bidder as he would lose to much. If the bids are 1-1-1-5 and the highest bidder gets his honor taken 4 times he just lost 12 honor and is likely out of the game. Conversely if you have bids of 1-5-5-5 you can't have the lowest player gain 12 honor as he likely just won the game. My suggestion keeps all honor gains and losses between 1 and 4 and makes sure each player loses or gains a proportionate amount of honor to all other players.

With my suggestion in the first example the gains would be 4,4,4,-4 and the in the second example the gains would be 4,-4,-4,-4

Yes, I would hae the lowest bidder take from the highest bidder. And anyone in the middle stay neutral. There would need to be some kind of tie breaker.

The other possiblity is that multiple player is introduced as different type of play (similar to Star Wars) and the betting and card draw mechanic is completely different. That could also be how the Shadowlands are introduced - a multi. player faction designed a little differently and capable of taking on 2-3 players at a time

I will just chime in to say that, well... like everyone else...

It seems to me with everything previewed, the main serious issue to deal with is how exactly to deal with the honor counter and card draw... and I really don't see how this could be handled well...

Hmm.. it would reduce quite a bit of the strategy to it, but... What if everyone simply compares to the static number of "3"?

Yes, it removes quite a bit of the strategy from that aspect of the game, but it seems like the simplest solution.

Draw 1 card? You get 2 honor. Draw 3 cards? You get and lose 0 honor. Draw 5 cards, you lose 2 honor.

Yes, it erodes some aspect of the game.

The other issue is that each ring in conflicts can only be chosen once a turn. When each player has 2 military and 2 political conflicts-- no big deal because you only use 4 out of 5 rings.

But with 3 players each able to initiate 2 conflicts, you are going to need 6 rings per turn. And if there are more than 2 players? It creates a massive problem.

And a minor problem is that well... with 2 opponents able to strike back at you and such low province strength, it'll be far too important to be defensive in order not to lose the game very quickly... and the personalities don't stick around long enough to allow anyone to win if everyone is being defensive. That is also going to be an issue.

46 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

Yes, I would hae the lowest bidder take from the highest bidder. And anyone in the middle stay neutral. There would need to be some kind of tie breaker.

So in the case of bids of 1-1-4-5, you would have the player who bid 5 lose 4 honor, one of the players that bid 1 gain 4 honor, the other player that bid 1 gain nothing and then draw cards equal to their bid? This is horribly unbalanced for the two people in the middle. As one draws nearly as many cards as the top bid but pays no cost and the other draws the exact same number of cards as the low bid but gains to benefit.

7 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

So in the case of bids of 1-1-4-5, you would have the player who bid 5 lose 4 honor, one of the players that bid 1 gain 4 honor, the other player that bid 1 gain nothing and then draw cards equal to their bid? This is horribly unbalanced for the two people in the middle. As one draws nearly as many cards as the top bid but pays no cost and the other draws the exact same number of cards as the low bid but gains to benefit.

as Is aid, you'd need some kind of tie-breaker, I dunno what it would be. As for the unbalanced part......your betting, its gambling. Some out-comes will be unbalanced.

1 hour ago, JRosen9 said:

But you can't have every player take from the highest bidder as he would lose to much. If the bids are 1-1-1-5 and the highest bidder gets his honor taken 4 times he just lost 12 honor and is likely out of the game. Conversely if you have bids of 1-5-5-5 you can't have the lowest player gain 12 honor as he likely just won the game. My suggestion keeps all honor gains and losses between 1 and 4 and makes sure each player loses or gains a proportionate amount of honor to all other players.

With my suggestion in the first example the gains would be 4,4,4,-4 and the in the second example the gains would be 4,-4,-4,-4

I think, to keep it simple, you just have any honor lost go to the bank and any honor gained come from the bank. If you're the highest (or tied for highest) you only compare your result to the lowest to determine how much you lose. If you're not the highest, you compare to the highest to determine how much you gain. But all actual losses/gains go through the bank, to keep it simple and prevent absurdly high losses/gains.

46 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I think, to keep it simple, you just have any honor lost go to the bank and any honor gained come from the bank. If you're the highest (or tied for highest) you only compare your result to the lowest to determine how much you lose. If you're not the highest, you compare to the highest to determine how much you gain. But all actual losses/gains go through the bank, to keep it simple and prevent absurdly high losses/gains.

Why am I not surprised that a Mantis wants a bank to hold and loan to people?

1 minute ago, Tebbo said:

Why am I not surprised that a Mantis wants a bank to hold and loan to people?

Mantis Honor Run is going to be driven by charging everyone else Honor Interest.

Y'all is definitely speaking words (or numbers, rather)...

to be fair, I can't think of another one of their lcgs that has a free for all format. I know Star Wars has a 4v4 and 2v1 formats. The 4v4 being teams of 2, and the 3v1 where 2 players go against a special deck.

My money is on this type of multiplayer format, with a special Shadowlands deck being the 3v1.

11 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

to be fair, I can't think of another one of their lcgs that has a free for all format. I know Star Wars has a 4v4 and 2v1 formats. The 4v4 being teams of 2, and the 3v1 where 2 players go against a special deck.

My money is on this type of multiplayer format, with a special Shadowlands deck being the 3v1.

In AGoT's Melee format 3-6 players can compete against each other.

17 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

to be fair, I can't think of another one of their lcgs that has a free for all format. I know Star Wars has a 4v4 and 2v1 formats. The 4v4 being teams of 2, and the 3v1 where 2 players go against a special deck.

My money is on this type of multiplayer format, with a special Shadowlands deck being the 3v1.

similar to the seige games.

18 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

to be fair, I can't think of another one of their lcgs that has a free for all format. I know Star Wars has a 4v4 and 2v1 formats. The 4v4 being teams of 2, and the 3v1 where 2 players go against a special deck.

My money is on this type of multiplayer format, with a special Shadowlands deck being the 3v1.

While I think the shadowlands 3v1 deck would be awesome, I will be highly disappointed if this is our only multiplayer option. To me, the 1v1 scene of oldL5R was kind of lame, and the game really shined in the 4-8 player range.

OK, wasn't War of Honor AEG's attempt at multiplayer? (I think I have my Mantis tiles around here somewhere...)

Why not have some sort of regional system where conflicts are you vs. 1 opponent? Other players may contribute to the fight but maybe you lose honor if there's 1 v 3 going on.