From various posts in the forum, ganging up on the weak and ringfarming seems to be an issue. It got me thinking and I would like to know your thoughts on the following suggestion and it’s variants.

Suggestion: Honor is given to the defending player.

If everyone attacks everyone equally, there will be an net honor balance. If one player is being picked on, that player will have compensation.

Proposed variants:

1) - X Honor is given by attacker to defending player.

2) - X Honor is given by attacker to defending player equal to X multiplied by the number of times attacker has declared a conflict against defender this round. (1 or 2, 2 or 4, 3 or 6 ...).

3) - X Honor is given by the attacker to defending player for each broken province the defender has.

Question 1: Which variant do YOU think would be the better one (maybe yours), and why so?

Question 2: How much honor is an attack worth, depending on the variant?

I'm not sure it's enough; Paying honor is a small price to pay to be able to quickly and efficiently farm rings. If I had the option to pay 2 honor to grab two essentially "free" rings? That's 2/5th of a victory condition for 2/25ths of another. It's a fantastic trade.

1 hour ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

I'm  not sur    e it's en  oug  h  ;   Paying honor is a small        price to      pay  to be able to quickly and efficiently far  m rin  g   s      .                     

True. I’m not sure eighter.

You are right about honor being a small price to pay. Honour is like “life” being a resource in MtG. Doesn’t matter if your at 1 life as long as you win.

But consider Assassination . Playing the first one is usually no problem right, but what about the second and third one?

So how much honor would one be prepared to lose each round by attacking the same player twice, or the player holding the Imperial Favour (suggested variant 3)?

There is a clear lack in players attacking as is, I doubt restricting attacks will be any more fun. The game will literally devolve into 3+ players holding 20 cards in their hands spending fate to do nothing until the last player decides he can attack.
Some brainstorming has led to this suggestion how about something random. Roll a die. Or have each player make an honor bid, and attack based of the result

6 hours ago, Froysadal said:

True. I’m not sure eighter.

You are right about honor being a small price to pay. Honour is like “life” being a resource in MtG. Doesn’t matter if your at 1 life as long as you win.

But consider Assassination . Playing the first one is usually no problem right, but what about the second and third one?

So how much honor would one be prepared to lose each round by attacking the same player twice, or the player holding the Imperial Favour (suggested variant 3)?

As many as I need to win the game. Normally, for me, the 3 honor loss in playing assassination is a benifit; I *want* to drain my own honor so I can make use of my stronghold ASAP.

4 hours ago, moto_rudhra said:

There is a clear lack in players attacking as is, I doubt restricting attacks will be any more fun. The game will literally devolve into 3+ players holding 20 cards in their hands spending fate to do nothing until the last player decides he can attack.
Some brainstorming has led to this suggestion how about something random. Roll a die. Or have each player make an honor bid, and attack based of the result

There is a clear lack of players attacking until there is a clear target , at which point the game devolves into beating on the loser to farm rings the fastest. As it is, collecting the rings is the most efficient victory condition; you only need to win up to 5 attacks; and with a weakened and downed player, why would I waste resources targeting a strong player when that could potentially burn my resources and turn *ME* into the losing player. No, far better to just keep beating on the ganged-up player; it's safer, less risky, and more likely to pay off. If I have the choice between a weak target and a strong target, why the **** would I ever go after the strong target? The point in making it easier to defend is to limit that kind of situation. Ganging up is currently the primary strategy; and that's awful from both a design and play perspective.

7 hours ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

14 hours ago, Froysadal said:

So   how much honor would one be prepared  to lose each round by attacking the same player twice, or the player h  olding the Imperial Favour (suggested variant 3)?

  As many as I n  eed to  win t  he game  .   

Well that goes without saying. I still imagine there is a threshold, even for a scorpion player, on how much honor an attack is worth.

I don’t think I would ever attack the weakest player if the price was 10 honor, unless it guaranteed the win. On the other hand, if the price was only 1 honor I would be attacking all day long.

Where is the sweet spot that makes attacking the weak only occasionally worth it?

11 hours ago, moto_rudhra said:

There is   a clear lack in players attacking as is, I doubt restricting       attacks will be any more fun.   

True, but restrictions seem to be a necessity under the current rules.

Maybe a restriction should be accompanied by an inscentive to attack.

What if fate being placed on your rings, somehow, was a reward for attacking once, or maybe only when attacking twice each round?

Fate does after all seem sparse in multiplayer according to the forum, and thus a real incentive.

If defending player get more cards, it help him/her most to defend next attacks. The trick is that both the attaking player and defending player Are losing cards. So both Are weakned

it is allso about the meta. In our game the player who has most rings is most likely attaked. So it is often better to attack the previous attacker because he has more ring to catch than a player who was attaked. It is better to get two or three rings with one attack than it is to only get one.

But all in all it is more effective to give attaked player extra card(s) than to give him a feit. Even though in the long run They Are allmost the same thing.

I'm just getting into L5R, but I'm confused not to have seen the following suggestion for fixing the gangup problem.

* You may not declare a conflict against a player who has already been the defender in two conflicts this round.

This restores the max 2 attacks, max 2 defences balance of 2-player, while still forcing everyone to deal with the wider variety of threats posed by facing multiple clans decks at once.

It can get a bit janky and artificial if one player comes into a round very weak, because "only 2 people will have a chance to take advantage of it", but this feels perfectly balanced for 3 player, at least.

The only solution is there to be only one set of rings, not multiples. If they only way to get rings it either out of the still unclaimed ones or from another player, then no one is incentivized to attack a weakened players for a ring victory. It’s really that simple.

If Player-A has four of the rings and Player-B has the last ring for Player-A to win, Player-A shouldn’t be able to win by attacking Player-C.

5 minutes ago, Hyperjayman said:

The only solution is there to be only one set of rings, not multiples. If they only way to get rings it either out of the still unclaimed ones or from another player, then no one is incentivized to attack a weakened players for a ring victory. It’s really that simple.

If Player-A has four of the rings and Player-B has the last ring for Player-A to win, Player-A shouldn’t be able to win by attacking Player-C.

The issue with that is in a 3 or 4 player game you run out of conflicts for those players who are acting later in the turn. Unless you allow them to declare a conflict with out a ring type declared. You could also add that they must in that case attack a province with a ring on it already and that the conflict gains the type of the ring on the province.

6 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

The issue with that is in a 3 or 4 player game you run out of conflicts for those players who are acting later in the turn. Unless you allow them to declare a conflict with out a ring type declared. You could also add that they must in that case attack a province with a ring on it already and that the conflict gains the type of the ring on the province.

The conflict element should automatically be the type on the declared attacked province if it has a ring on it, since ya know thats kinda the point. Attacking for the wind ring for example should come from the unclaimed wind ring or the province its on.

This it to reinforce attacking the players with rings since attacking players without them is a waste of resources. Not a free win.

Having only one set of rings makes claiming them all pretty much impossible (it gets harder at higher player counts), however.

7 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Having only one set of rings makes claiming them all pretty much impossible (it gets harder at higher player counts), however.

It will and won't. What it will do is make conquest that more important as you can't place rings on broken provinces so as more provinces are broken you'll end up with a more rings clustered on fewer provinces allowing bigger swings as provinces break and one side is able to claim those rings. It will likely be more of see saw with sides rising and falling with their ability to break key provinces.

12 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

It will and won't. What it will do is make conquest that more important as you can't place rings on broken provinces so as more provinces are broken you'll end up with a more rings clustered on fewer provinces allowing bigger swings as provinces break and one side is able to claim those rings. It will likely be more of see saw with sides rising and falling with their ability to break key provinces.

Exactly. That ecourages people to attack the player in the lead to keep them from winning....which is how all games are suppose to work. Knocking out a weaker player never should be able to win you the game. Thats like achieving global domination by destroying a third world country. No other country on earth would bow to another who dispatches an easily beaten nation.

What my group and I do when playing multiplayer is: one turn each player can only attack the person to his right. Then the next turn you can only attack the person to your left. That keeps bullying in control. It also makes fun interactions when negotiating and with players interfering in other conflicts they arent participating in. Its not the most competitive solution, but I dont think multiplayer l5r is a competitive format, and is certainly is fun.