1v1v1 - 3 Players game

[Tokata]

Hey,
i wanted to ask if there are any working concepts for a 3 players game... (as we are 3 ppl playing that would be great, because just to watch could get a bit boring^^)

- as far as i thought of it the 3 player game would need a map made of triangles, kinda like the triforce from zelda (just a row of triangles more^^)

Am i totaly wrong with this idea, or is there anyone who already tried 3 players game and can tell something about it?

[pixelgeek]

I don't think that you'd need to modify the playing area for a three player game. Just start each player in a corner or perhaps start two players in the corners of one long side and then the third player in the middle of the opposing long side.

[Tokata]

[2][-][-][3]
[-] [-] [-][-]
[-] [1][-][-]

sorry for that bad "painting" [-] = free field

• = fiel with mage

so how did you thought this out to be even=? 1 is nearer to two then to three in this case, or nearer to 3 if you put it 1 field to the right
Or do i miss a point?
as i coudn't play till now i don't know in how far that would matter


edit:
[2][-][-][-][3]
[-] [-][-][-] [-]
[-] [-][1][-][-]
that could work: 3 additional spacecs, each player needs 4 spaces to get to eachother^^

edit²:
Another option would be this setup
[-][-][1][-]
[-][2][-][-]
[-][-][3][-]
guess the first moves will be something like this
[-][-][-][1]
[2][-][-][-]
[-][-][3][-]
That leaves the third player nearer to each of both oponents but also grants him the option to cast a full action spell^^

[ABGames]

free-for-all games are suppose to be played with 2 boards together, so it is a huge battlefield, with plenty of room for 3 or 4 players

[tsilver33]

But in that case, how would you set up the board? 3X8 doesn't really serve a three player game well, it would always leave two players closer to each other. 4X6 has the same problem. :/

My main gaming group tends to be three people, so this is a variant I'd love to see. At the moment, I'm thinking a 5X5 board would work best, but this will require some playtesting.

[wtcannonjr]

I was considering a double arena with two mages at opposite corners and the third mage starting in the center. The center mage would get a special Preparation Stage to setup the arena before the battle. This might be X spell points or Y mana points worth of spells that are 'free' and are not cast from the spellbook. I might limit this Preparation Stage to casting only Conjurations or Equipment in the center 4 zones, but having some starting Creatures in play might be interesting to try.

It would need to be balanced through trial in order to set the right X or Y points.

Just some initial thoughts on this topic.

[Deefer]

I was thinking something like this

Code: [Select]


     [1]
    [-][-]
   [-][-][-]
  [-][-][-][-]
[2][-][-][-][3]

using either squares or hexes.

Everyone should have a target (either left or right of you)... what if your target changed mid game? randomly? what would trigger it?

[Gewar]

Maybe, for 3 players game, it would be good to use portals Pacman style - you can leave board on the one side and enter it on the other side.

[Fenix86]

I played a three player game a few times and found it to be a little frustrating in terms of initiating the fight. In a 1v1 game, you want to be the one to draw first blood, as that sets up the momentum of the game. But in a 1v1v1 game, I feel like you're punished for starting the fighting as you become the target of retaliation, and while you and one mage kill each other, the third one just sits back and then cherry picks the win. Three player free for alls take longer because of this.

Also tried a variant with each mage being assigned a target, and victory was only achieved if your target died. This resulted in a paradox of not being able to retaliate against the guy trying to kill you, as hurting him only helped the guy you yourself were trying to kill.

Three mages on the board, regardless of board size is just an off kilter style of play. I feel like the best option is to have one player control two mages and the other two work together in a 2v2 game.

[MrSaucy]

I played a three player game a few times and found it to be a little frustrating in terms of initiating the fight. In a 1v1 game, you want to be the one to draw first blood, as that sets up the momentum of the game. But in a 1v1v1 game, I feel like you're punished for starting the fighting as you become the target of retaliation, and while you and one mage kill each other, the third one just sits back and then cherry picks the win. Three player free for alls take longer because of this.

Also tried a variant with each mage being assigned a target, and victory was only achieved if your target died. This resulted in a paradox of not being able to retaliate against the guy trying to kill you, as hurting him only helped the guy you yourself were trying to kill.

Three mages on the board, regardless of board size is just an off kilter style of play. I feel like the best option is to have one player control two mages and the other two work together in a 2v2 game.

This. The game gets too political with 1 vs. 1 vs. 1. It turns into "Hey! Why are you attacking me? I'm not attacking you!" No matter what you do, people will form alliances because it will be in their best interest. Eventually, you get 2 mages fighting and the last mage waiting for the right time to strike. It isn't very fair.

You MIGHT be able to play a 2 vs. 1 game and give the solo person better abilities: more starting mana; more channeling; more starting life; an extra action marker.

[NocnaShada]

I made hexagonal tiles and it works out great!