Splinterlands Battle Layout Idea

Actually, not sure if this is old news, but I haven't heard about it before so here it goes.

This morning I was thinking about the layout of the battles in splinterlands. Currently we have the standard 6 vs. 6 attack lay out that we have come used to:

sssd.jpg

So what if we mixed things up a bit? Similarly to the changing rules of the battles we could have changing battle layouts. It could perhaps look something like this:

sssed.jpg

Changing the layout would mean that we would have multiple battles in the battle field. In "A" there would be two battles with 3 vs. 3 and in "B" there would be three battles with a 2 vs. 2 each.

This layout might make battles interesting in that one could try to win the battle by choosing monsters that would otherwise lose to a 6 vs. 6. A problem especially seen in "B", however, is that it emphasizes the use of melee and magic monsters.

An obvious question that would arise here is the determination of a winner. E.g., in "A", what would happen if only one battle is won by a player? A solution to this could be to determine a winner by stats (e.g., the most health left (which isn't such a good solution)) or perhaps by letting the remaining monsters battle it out (e.g., in "A" monsters 3 of each player would fight against each other across the battle fields). Perhaps there is a better solution to this and maybe there are also more problems that would make such an implementation difficult.

Anyways, I just wanted to get the idea out there @aggroed @yabapmatt because I think it might be an interesting addition

Bottom.jpg

⛅🌦🌧🌦🌧🌨☁🌩🌦⛅🌧☁🌤🌥🌪🌧🌨🌩⛅🌦☁🌤🌥🌤⛅🌤⛅🌦⛅

lovetheclouds_community_banner.jpg

Check out the Love The Clouds Community if you share the love for clouds!

⛅🌦🌧🌦🌧🌨☁🌩🌦⛅🌧☁🌤🌥🌪🌧🌨🌩⛅🌦☁🌤🌥🌤⛅🌤⛅🌦⛅

Bottom.jpg



0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

These are insightful.

But I don’t find ‘A’ to be much intimidating. As its just two battles playing. 3v3 is something we already get to experience often during fights with low mana cap.

But ‘B’ is interesting for sure. 1 vs 1 fight. It would be fun to play and experiment. And it would boost the value of various cards that suit this particular setup. Also it would introduce more meaning to levelled up cards. As even a slight stat difference of each particular card gonna matter more in single card fights.

Thumbs up 👍 for this
Best Wishes


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

you are right "A" might not be too different from a low mana cap game.

But I guess a difference would still be that it would be two battles instead of one. Also each battle filed could have an individual mana cap which would prevent one player putting all his high mana cap ones on only one side. But I agree, "B" looks more interesting.

I guess another option would be a 2v2 and 4 v 4 battle. Would that be more interesting than a 2x 3 vs 3?

0
0
0.000
avatar

To be honest, I don’t envision them to be a part of the basic game mechanics. And used in ranked battles. I mean, its always good to have something more. But for me, it doesn’t add to a significantly better fundamental experience of the game. Multiple battles on the same screen are still the same battles that were just being played separately. Except 1 vs 1. Rest of the instances present more or less the similar experience, that we are already having now, may be just less often.

Rather I think, all these variants can be incorporated as additional game mechanic. Like they can be included in tournaments. Or pvp challenges. Or they can also be included as a separate game mode like ‘Arena’ where people can post the challenges in particular variants and bet DEC in fights. There can be so many other ways this can be implemented.

In addition to the benefits as stated for 1 vs 1 fights. It would create users that are niche experts. Who are more proficient in a particular type of battle variant. People might even own decks customised for a particular variant. This can add another level of depth to the game, which gaming companies are always on a lookout for. So yes, i think that your ideas are promising, may be just not in a way you are looking at them.

0
0
0.000