Joerock's Hotseat - Reboot

**joerock22** · January 29, 2016, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by themzr

I'm sorry but I really don't like the idea of ending the hotseat because one player demanded to do so. TATW hotseats are notoriously long and for me thats a part of why I play them. Additionally we have no definite winner, why are we ending this?

It's clearly not just one person. You are the only person who seems really determined to play on. I already said several times that I would continue if other people wanted to, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

**Adanedhel** · February 01, 2016, 04:13 AM

So, what about that new hotseat? Are you guys interested in playing? What do you think about the score scheme? Maybe someone has a new idea that we could try.

**Chieftain Khuzaymah** · February 01, 2016, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Adanedhel

So, what about that new hotseat? Are you guys interested in playing? What do you think about the score scheme? Maybe someone has a new idea that we could try.

Yeah that's a nice idea, it could be done.

I have another proposal, not saying it should be used, but it came to mind and perhaps with some suggestions and additions could be used for another HS besides the point system you propose:
The admin will set personal goals for each faction and share those with that specific player at the start of the HS. So everyone has a goal or victory condition for the HS but the other players don't know your condition nor do you know theirs.
A goal could be:
-Capture and hold 20 regions.
-Capture and hold Barad-Dur & Dol Guldur.
-Kill the SE FL or the Rohan FH
-Try to reach a NAP/Alliance with either Dale, Dwarves or Isengard. (Or any diplomacy goal for that matter)
or a combination of those.

It will be the job of the admin to set the goals for each faction such that the difficulty is fair. For example, capture and hold 20 regions will be a lot harder for Dale than for Mordor or Gondor.

But I think this will be a very fun idea for set up, especially because as we have seen, a FFA never really is a true FFA. With these victory conditions, it is truly everyone for himself. I mean, you still can ally up with a neighbour or something, but the danger is that you help him to reach his victory condition! However! It doesn't mean the total purpose of hotseating is gone. Controlling the map, defeating your enemy etc. as we usually determine the winner. If you apply your normal tactics and win against your opponent, you most likely increase your chances to win and decrease his chances to win. But how much time are you willing to devote to this war? Others might be getting closer to their goals too!

I understand if you need to form a diplomatic deal with another faction who will never accept because he is aware of the danger of accepting, you can never achieve your victory condition. Hence I would suggest for this condition to make it an 'or' condition or add several factions. With 'or' condition I mean for example for Dale: Capture and hold 10 regions and either 1) kill the SE FL, or 2) get a NAP/Alliance with either Mordor/SE/Gondor.

Of course, a PM on the forum or an ingame message are proof that diplomatic deals are reached!

**Egyptian_Viking** · February 01, 2016, 11:03 AM

Good thinking Chieftain! I like that a lot. It's like the boardgame Risk

I really like the last thing you said about having different goals or variations of them. An alternative to this could be that you get say 5 or even 10 goals, but you only have to complete a certain amount of them to win. And every time someone completes a goal it will be publicly announced by the admin. This makes it very likely that people might gang up together against someone if that someone is close to completing all of their goals.
I kind of like your original idea better, I'm just brainstorming away ^^

**JWANT** · February 01, 2016, 05:46 PM

Great idea Chieftain. I was wondering how to tie in lore related or non-lore related objectives into a hotseat - similar to how the single player campaigns have objectives in addition to a number of regions captured.

The great thing about this approach is that the admin can be very creative and that can really add some flavour to the hotseat. The tough part will be making sure it is reasonably fair. The best part is that no matter how imbalanced the factions are, the goals set can compensate. So like you said, Dale wouldn't b expected to accomplish as much as Mordor or Dwarves and I think that is fair.

It also takes away from the usual stalemates that occur, since objectives don't need to be the usual military victory - in fact, an objective like slaying a FL may even be achieved in a battle defeat

**themzr** · February 01, 2016, 07:16 PM

If everyone else wants to do a restart I will not stand in their way. I will be open to joining a new hotseat depending on what factions are available.

**Adanedhel** · February 02, 2016, 04:43 AM

The idea is solid! It has that boardgame feel to it. Could be really fun. Don't know if we should make a diplomatic objective for the reasons mentioned earlier. And besides, everyone will be afraid to make an alliance with someone, even if that person doesn't have such an objective.

**Chieftain Khuzaymah** · February 02, 2016, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Adanedhel

The idea is solid! It has that boardgame feel to it. Could be really fun. Don't know if we should make a diplomatic objective for the reasons mentioned earlier. And besides, everyone will be afraid to make an alliance with someone, even if that person doesn't have such an objective.

Ah yes, because players will probably break off bonds as soon as the other party is close to achieving victory condition. Good thinking.

**themzr** · February 02, 2016, 10:37 AM

I think an added dimension would be neat if only the players themselves were told their objectives. This means that you have to be even more careful with who you ally

**JWANT** · February 02, 2016, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by themzr

I think an added dimension would be neat if only the players themselves were told their objectives. This means that you have to be even more careful with who you ally

Yes secrecy is key otherwise everyone will attack the player closest to winning.

Specific territory captures like having the Dwarves capture and hold Moria would add great flavour and present a tough challenge to an otherwise overpowered Dwarves faction.

**KingofPoland** · February 16, 2016, 10:32 PM

I was rereading this thread and was reading about the objectives idea and love it. I think it would really bring a breath of fresh air to mod that is sometimes pre-determined at some stages, we could really make something that could turn the tables on how the hotseat would go. We could have his backstory of how Harad is jealous of Mordor's otherworldly powers and give them the objective of capturing Barad-dûr, while the silvan elves are trying to acquire the riches of Erebor. I feel like forcing good vs. good and evil vs. evil could help change things as I find people tend to keep the good vs. evil scope of the hotseat even if it is a FFA.

**Chieftain Khuzaymah** · February 17, 2016, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by KingofPoland

I was rereading this thread and was reading about the objectives idea and love it. I think it would really bring a breath of fresh air to mod that is sometimes pre-determined at some stages, we could really make something that could turn the tables on how the hotseat would go. We could have his backstory of how Harad is jealous of Mordor's otherworldly powers and give them the objective of capturing Barad-dûr, while the silvan elves are trying to acquire the riches of Erebor. I feel like forcing good vs. good and evil vs. evil could help change things as I find people tend to keep the good vs. evil scope of the hotseat even if it is a FFA.

The objective is meant as a totally random game for everyone. So not looking at what could be or what is lore-like. See the thread Fellowship of the Ring, you are welcome to join, join the discussion.