Moderator: Community Team
waltero wrote:Not sure Fog is the best route to go.
My Idea had fog in mind.
Speed or 24 hour.
waltero wrote:Can't remember how the territory's are devided up...Anywhoo long story short.
6 players, 96 territory's. every player would receive 16 Numbers...1 through 16.
Every player would then place all his numbers on the board. In the end everybody would only receive 11 territory's...have to give five more for possible displacement.
If there ends up to be more than one of the same number on a territory then the player who places First would get said territory.
Say red and green and yellow all placed there number 3 choice on same territory. Going by player (placement) order (green places first then yellow and then red) Green would keep his Third placement choice. Yellow and red (as well as everybody else) would have placed there Fourth ( placement ) choice on the board already. Yellow and reds fourth choice would now become there third choice placement.
DoomYoshi wrote:Another problem with the draft is that high level players would be able to discuss the merits of certain territories in the draft. It would start with classic and go from there. It wouldn't take long for clams to figure out ideal team rankings.
All in all, it's a lame idea.
waltero wrote:Oh, here comes the sour puss. No problem Greenoaks...you no like any suggestion
You think Bogus Drop is a good Idea.
waltero wrote:AH, I see no use in trying to get an idea across. It is either Too complicated (most always) for the current program.
OR people simply don't want to add anything to the game.
I would assume, that any suggestion that would be implemented would automatically be an option to chose from..while setting up the game.
If you don't like it Don't use it?
I for one do not like playing a game where the drop has already decided the winner of the game before it even starts...and I really hate taking a win like that.
A person comes up with an idea and post it. other people enter and Contribute, trying to make it work.
Pointing out potential problems...it is all helpful.
Coming in a room and saying I don't like it. OR it is a lame idea, does not help anything.
Won't work..can not work. Same room same time (speed game) only way this will ever work.
Where is your imagination...your creativity?
agentcom wrote:elonpuckhog wrote:I was thinking, and I think the OP suggested this, that we set up a "fantasy type" draft for this option. So, when you join a game with this option, all the territories would be ranked in alphabetical order, and you could change the rank. So if you really wanted Los Angeles (on the classic map), you would rank that #1. If you're first to go, you would get Los Angeles. The next person would get either their #1 choice (unless it was LA) or their #2 choice. So, rankings are done in advance to cut down on the time thing.
I think it would be a great addition, but I'm sure its been suggested before. I went looking a couple of days ago and couldn't find anything specific.
The problem with this is that usually people don't want a certain territ, they want to set their territs based on where everyone else is claiming territs. So it they go first and snag one in Aus, but then the next 3 players grab an aus, they may want to try to do something different. So I do not think any type of fantasy draft/ranking would work.
I just thought of another problem: in fog games, you would see where everyone is deploying. The best way around that I can think of is to have all territs except yours appear as "?"s. Then you get an error message if you pick a territ that has already been chosen. The downside to this solution is that toward the end of the territ selection you would either have to flip this so that it shows available territs (but then possibly giving away some info) or continue with the above (and have players potentially selecting 100 territs on a map like World 2.1 before finding an available one).
Thus, I think we've found another restriction on this: it couldn't be used for fog.
So, you'd only be able to do sunny premium/speed games.
waltero wrote:I am clearly not cut out for this. It was a mistake for me to post ''any'' suggestion. I do understand that it not the Idea that people do not like but rather the mechanics in which to implement said idea (was not the case on two previous suggestions).
It is not my intention to berate other gamers.
But to enter three of my (awesome) Suggestions and simply say ''I don't like it" equals ''Sour puss"
It is too much work...Not really worth it to me.
Users browsing this forum: Fewnix