Moderator: Community Team
n00blet wrote:I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.
On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?
yeti_c wrote:n00blet wrote:I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.
On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?
IN.
C.
n00blet wrote:yeti_c wrote:n00blet wrote:I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.
On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?
IN.
C.
I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?
Ditocoaf wrote:I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!
Ditocoaf wrote:n00blet wrote:
I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?
I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!
n00blet wrote:Ditocoaf wrote:I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!
I'll give the handbook a look-see. If no one more experienced expresses interest in the next few days, I might make it myself
denominator wrote:I would also be in said tournament.
You would have to be very explicit in explaining the rules, and there would be tricky issues with making everybody follow the rules. I would suggest everybody gets one warning - then disqualification. It would take a lot of work to make sure everybody didn't cheat though.
yeti_c wrote:PLEASE - make sure it's not a 1 game you lose your out tourney... I'm loving this new style so much I just want to keep playing it!!
yeti_c wrote:To me - this and FOW are the biggest changes to the other game that we never mention that I've seen so far - not only are they ever so simple - but they're muchos funos...
Imagine... FOW - AA - Infected Neutrals... Awesome - CC PLEASE!
C.
lancehoch wrote:I would help out running a tournament. If you are doing it in the main Tournament Forum, you should link to this thread and make a post in here detailing the exact rules as we have discussed them.
n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....
denominator wrote:n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....
How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?
lancehoch wrote:denominator wrote:n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....
How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?
You warn them once and then kick them out.
I think rather that they should have one warning in round 1, and if they make it through the first round, then its assumed that they know how to play. People will have to be extra careful if there's no warnings, sure, but I think removing that cushion after the first game will be the best way to prevent the most mistakes.n00blet wrote:I think one warning and then disqualification is a good idea. Although, a truly ruthless player could wait until the finals and then use their "warning" to clean up . Maybe we should say that if they win the game because of that move, the game is redone? Although it's hard to tell sometimes when exactly the game turns around. If it's a clear-cut case then I suppose a warning and game redo would be fair.
denominator wrote:n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....
How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?
Newly conquered countries cannot attack for the duration of the turn they are conquered on.
For example, if lancehoch conquers Country A from n00blet in Round 4, then Country A cannot make any attacks until Round 5.
In the event of mid-turn spoils-cashing, the troops received can be deployed on any regions as normal, but all regions are still restricted as they were at the beginning of the round.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users