Adjacent Attacks

Suggestions that have made it through the grind, and have become integrated into the site!

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

What do you think about Adjacent Attacks?

I would support this being an option
293
65%
I would oppose this being an option
117
26%
I don't care/I don't know yet
43
9%
 
Total votes : 453

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Blinkadyblink on Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:36 pm

Having finished my first adjacent attacks game, I thought I'd write a little about the game and strategies and how I thought they differed from normal play.

First, a few disclaimers:
1. I played a standard, sequential, flat rate game with adjacent fortifications and no fog on World 2.1. Any other AA games played with different settings are most likely very different.
2. This was my first time ever playing on World 2.1, and so anything that I attribute to AA could actually just be the map.
3. Everything I write, unless it is obviously indisputable fact, is my opinion and may or may not agree with other people's opinions.

I felt the game could be divided up into three parts, which for lack of better terms, I'll call the beginning, middle, and end. Each of these parts had unique events and strategies, and, more importantly, each was affected by AA differently.

I'll define the beginning as the time from the start of the game to the point at which all surviving players had at least one continent and most of their territories were contiguous. This part was probably the least affected by AA, simply because even in a normal game, people tend to only attack one or two territories per turn. Attacking three territories defended by three armies each with a six army deployment essentially amounts to suicide. That being said, as this stage progressed people did begin attacking three and four territories a turn, and probably could have attacked more without AA. I don't think AA changed what happened in this part, but it may have happened more quickly in a normal game.

By my definition, the middle was the time between the end of the beginning and the point at which one player received more armies per turn than all his opponents put together. This stage lasted the longest, and, although the beginning certainly had some effect on the outcome of the game, the winner was ultimately decided in the middle. I think that this was also the part most influenced by AA. Once everyone had a continent, their primary goal became protecting it. The easiest way to do this in AA is with buffer territories. Because your opponents can't attack from a territory they conquer on their turn, as long as you keep at least one buffer territory between your continent and your opponent, it is physically impossible for your opponent to break your bonus.

In many cases, there is one buffer territory between two continents, and the owners of both continents have to fight over it to decide who's bonus remains protected and whose gets broken. I had a lengthy battle with Nooblet over North East Brazil, a buffer territory between his bonuses (Amazonas and La Plata,) and mine (Magreb and Africa as a whole) that was not resolved until the end of the game. Basically, each of us attacked it on our turns, so neither of us got a chance to break the other's bonus.

Sometimes, however there are no buffer territories between two continents, and in these cases the owner of one continent breaks the other person's bonus on his turn, and then the owner of the other continent must use his turn to reclaim his bonus and cannot break his opponent's. This happened to me when I controlled the Middle East and Sully had Indian Subcontinent. He was able to attack Iran, breaking my bonus, every turn, while on my turn I could only take back Iran and could never break his bonus.

The game essentially became a series of stalemated border disputes, in which the front never advanced more than one territory in either direction until the very end.

The main strategy I used was attacking every territory I possibly could every turn and then advancing only one or two armies, so that my opponents couldn't slaughter my entire force. Unfortunately, this eventually led to my loss of the Africa bonus, and then I started advancing all my troops into conquered territories and hoping that sooner or later my opponents would fail to win back the territory and the front would move in the direction I wanted.

I define the end as the period from the end of the middle to the end of the game. In the normal games I've played, the end often begins when one player controls over half the armies on the board, but in this case Sully was the first to manage that, and yet he was not able to kill the rest of us. This was partly due to how slowly AA forced him to advance and partly due to the enormous bonuses in World 2.1. At any rate, AA affected when the end came, but once it did come, the outcome was decided and all AA did was slow it down.

In terms of overall strategy, I think that there is different strategy in normal and AA games, but not necessarily more or less in either one. In AA, there are fewer options during your attack phase, and therefore less strategy involved in picking the best one. On the other hand, there is more strategy involved in the AA deployment phase. If you don't deploy in the right place, you won't be able to fight on all your fronts and your opponent will gain ground that you may never be able to reclaim. As a result the stakes are much higher during deployment in AA than in a regular game.

I hope you had fun reading through all this; I'm not sure how clear I was, but it all made sense in my head :roll:
User avatar
Major Blinkadyblink
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: The Local Group
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:48 pm

wOw blink....long post :lol:

Read it all, of course (life? nah....). I would have to agree on the main points about the border stalemates and importance of the deploy stage =D> .

sully800 wrote:Let's do another escalating game!


I made another one (Game 3613149). You missed it ](*,)

I'll probably start another some time in the near future. :) Of course, if you want to make one before then, go right ahead. If you post it in this thread, people will join.
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:57 pm

I think it's time to start asking for this sugg's consideration. With a 93% approval rating (ignoring neutral-votes), and a cult following of honor-system games, Adjacent Attacks has very clear support.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Blinkadyblink on Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:33 pm

n00blet wrote:wOw blink....long post :lol:


Thank you.

I got it over 900 words :P.
User avatar
Major Blinkadyblink
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: The Local Group
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby denominator on Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:38 am

In regular games, the mid-turn cash of cards is a big deal (after you eliminate a player), especially in escalating games, where it makes kill runs possible. However, how mid-turn cashes can be dealt with leaves 2 possibilities. We started touching on this in the game chat in 3613839, but I figured it's a big enough discussion to get moved to the thread where everybody can comment on it.

Basically, it comes down to two possibilities.

(1) - The territories you have at the beginning of your turn are still the only ones you can attack from. This means a kill cash only fortifies your borders, and deployed troops to newly conquered territories follow the same rules as those advanced there.

(2) - Once you deploy on a territory, it "resets" to being able to conquer new territories. This means that any territory you own when you cash cards is reopened to attacks, and a kill cash allows you to move your armies much, much quicker on all fronts.

While at first I was fully in favour of option 1, the more I think about it I believe option 2 has much relevance. I believe that any newly deployed troops should be allowed to attack, following adjacent attack rules. While I haven't played an escalating game yet, I think this would dramatically affect the strategy of setting up for a kill, even in AA.

For example, in the game above, it was clear that Haggis (pink) was on the rocks and about to be eliminated. However, in my (blue) position, it wasn't worth setting up a takeout on the prior turn because I would weaken my own borders so much by advancing into such a position. If I had been able to attack again once cashed, I certainly would have taken this gamble, because a mid-turn cash allows my armies to advance 2 territories per turn, rather than the usual 1. It would have been possible to completely fortify the Asia-North America choke point border by gaining those 2 territories in one go. In the end, it didn't matter because n00blet (red) eliminated Haggis before I even had a chance.

It's an interesting dilemma, and I think we ought to try it both ways and see if one way or the other works better. Regardless, I'm interested to see what others have to think on it.
Image
User avatar
Captain denominator
Beta Team Member
Beta Team Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:41 am
Location: Calgary
Medals: 74
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (5) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:28 am

Denom, there's no need to complicate this further... it's still advantageous to make a kill, because the extra armies can be used to better defend your position, and also to expand in the other directions.

Right now, it's a simple rule; that can be explained in any number of ways that are all short sentences. Adding clarifications and complications will just detract from what should be a simple toggle, imo. While the mid-turn cash may be something important strategically, I don't think it's really something so important game-mechanics-wise to warrant a change in the rules.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:37 am

denominator wrote:In regular games, the mid-turn cash of cards is a big deal (after you eliminate a player), especially in escalating games, where it makes kill runs possible. However, how mid-turn cashes can be dealt with leaves 2 possibilities. We started touching on this in the game chat in 3613839, but I figured it's a big enough discussion to get moved to the thread where everybody can comment on it.

Basically, it comes down to two possibilities.

(1) - The territories you have at the beginning of your turn are still the only ones you can attack from. This means a kill cash only fortifies your borders, and deployed troops to newly conquered territories follow the same rules as those advanced there.

(2) - Once you deploy on a territory, it "resets" to being able to conquer new territories. This means that any territory you own when you cash cards is reopened to attacks, and a kill cash allows you to move your armies much, much quicker on all fronts.

While at first I was fully in favour of option 1, the more I think about it I believe option 2 has much relevance. I believe that any newly deployed troops should be allowed to attack, following adjacent attack rules. While I haven't played an escalating game yet, I think this would dramatically affect the strategy of setting up for a kill, even in AA.

For example, in the game above, it was clear that Haggis (pink) was on the rocks and about to be eliminated. However, in my (blue) position, it wasn't worth setting up a takeout on the prior turn because I would weaken my own borders so much by advancing into such a position. If I had been able to attack again once cashed, I certainly would have taken this gamble, because a mid-turn cash allows my armies to advance 2 territories per turn, rather than the usual 1. It would have been possible to completely fortify the Asia-North America choke point border by gaining those 2 territories in one go. In the end, it didn't matter because n00blet (red) eliminated Haggis before I even had a chance.

It's an interesting dilemma, and I think we ought to try it both ways and see if one way or the other works better. Regardless, I'm interested to see what others have to think on it.


Option 2 seems too open...

i.e. it should only allow attacking from where you place armies... - and realistically should only include the armies you have placed...

It shouldn't allow you to place armies on one side of the map - and allow extra attacking on the other side.

Therefore - I guess Option 1 is a lot safer.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby SuicidalSnowman on Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:40 am

Denominator's idea is highly logical and even fits with the motivation behind rules such as adjacent attacks, that is that it is unrealistic to expect an army to roll across the world in a series of quick successions without any other army even moving. When you capture an opponents stronghold, surely there would be sympathizers or 'the liberated' to join your side, plus we can all imagine the excited fever pitch of a total victory spurning people on.

And strategically, it does make sense that going for a mid turn cash should give you more strength, it makes setting up and completing a kill much more important. A bigger risk for a bigger reward.

My final point of support for this is that it only opens up territories re-deployed on, and even then, only one more space.

Having said all that, I do understand the thought behind leaving it as it is to keep things simple and make it easier to balance. Especially as this is something new, and we know how much inertia this site has.
User avatar
Private SuicidalSnowman
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:40 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:56 am

Option 2 really does change the game play in a way...

It also means you have to be a lot more strategically aware...

i.e. - you're going to kill one guy on the right - but if you attack some on the left first - then once you kill the guy on the right - you can drop on the left and make more ground up...

But - does that not completely change the reason behind AA - i.e. the realisticness of it... why should a group of guys half a world away - be able to attack further - just cos they got 1 more reinforcement?

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:46 am

I believe we also had this discussion in Game 3436975. We came to the decision that option 1 is more with the spirit of the rule. One of the biggest reasons that this became a suggestion was that nooblet did not like the way someone could cash mid-turn and sweep the board. By allowing someone to continue attacking when they reinforce a territory, you are in essence still allowing the board sweeping maneuver.
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:58 am

Yeah... even if the entire force on a just-taken territ is new, its still unrealistic to attack further. I see this rule as limiting the time-span of a round. You aren't going to be able to attack a region, conquer it, deploy on that region, then attack from that region and conquer another, all before anybody else does anything. I still think that regions you conquer cannot attack until the next round works best... because it's as if you just finished conquering it for each region. Like it's happening simultaneously.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby denominator on Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:53 pm

SuicidalSnowman wrote:And strategically, it does make sense that going for a mid turn cash should give you more strength, it makes setting up and completing a kill much more important. A bigger risk for a bigger reward.


That was the key issue I was addressing. I see that, like in no cards games, there really isn't that great of an advantage with a kill.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:My final point of support for this is that it only opens up territories re-deployed on, and even then, only one more space.


Exactly. Only territories that are deployed on are eligible for the extra attack. Once you cash in, it essentially resets your advancements and any territories you deploy on are able to make attacks and one more advancement.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Having said all that, I do understand the thought behind leaving it as it is to keep things simple and make it easier to balance. Especially as this is something new, and we know how much inertia this site has.


This is why it took me so long to bring it up. We already have a good thing going here, and this rule makes things really difficult to explain to newcomers.

yeti_c wrote:Option 2 really does change the game play in a way...


It changes it dramatically, much the way that strategy changes dramatically from a no cards game to an escalating game in normal mode.

Ditocoaf wrote:I still think that regions you conquer cannot attack until the next round works best... because it's as if you just finished conquering it for each region.


The boost of troops would allow you to make one more attack in that round. It brings in the strategy of eliminating players along with conquering territories, which I feel is a large part of this game.

Would anybody be interested in playing a game like this? ClassicArt, Flat Rate, Sequential, No Fog?
Image
User avatar
Captain denominator
Beta Team Member
Beta Team Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:41 am
Location: Calgary
Medals: 74
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (5) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby sully800 on Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:52 pm

I don't think the rule matters much either way. I've given both options a lot of thought but I think for simplicity the original rule is best.

It may make sense if you say troops can only attack from the country they are deployed on instead of attacking from countries that you start with. But then again, at the start of a turn you might have a stack that was fortified the previous round (ie not deployed on that territory). So then you have to say you can attack from countries that you own at the start of the turn OR from territories where the armies were deployed. BUT if some of the armies were advanced and then others deployed you could only attack with the deployed portion?

Simplicity rules in this case for me. Sorry for the above free thought rambling ;)
User avatar
Major sully800
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (3) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (5)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:05 am

The reason I dislike it - is because it has too many loopholes and can be abused - thus pretty much overriding the premise of the original idea...

For instance - you have a 20 stack - and you attack with them to conquer 1 territory - that gives you a continent... and you still have 15 left on there.

Then you attack elsewere and kill someone... now you can drop 1 troop on your 15 and attack into someone else's continent - when they should've had it safe...

Seems like a big loophole... and the sort of thing I dislike about freestyle play...

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:27 pm

yeti_c wrote:The reason I dislike it - is because it has too many loopholes and can be abused - thus pretty much overriding the premise of the original idea...

For instance - you have a 20 stack - and you attack with them to conquer 1 territory - that gives you a continent... and you still have 15 left on there.

Then you attack elsewere and kill someone... now you can drop 1 troop on your 15 and attack into someone else's continent - when they should've had it safe...

Seems like a big loophole... and the sort of thing I dislike about freestyle play...

C.

exactly. It's improbable, but possible, that you could defeat three other players in a single turn, and then attack three territories away in a single round... this completely invalidates the strategy of this turn.

The point of this rule IS NOT to limit how far each specific army can move, per se. More precisely, the point IS to limit how far YOU can advance your empire in a single round. It's much simpler if we don't start adding exceptions at this point.

anyway, let's vote on this, I suppose? So far, we have:

FOR midurn-cash-resets-territ's-ability-to-attack:
Denominator
SuicidalSnowman

AGAINST midurn-cash-resets-territ's-ability-to-attack:
Sully
Yeti-c
lanceloch
Ditocoaf
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:08 pm

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?
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:09 pm

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.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:14 pm

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.


:lol:

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? :)
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:17 pm

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.


:lol:

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!
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:20 pm

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 :shock:
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:21 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:
n00blet wrote: :lol:

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!


I'm currently hosting 2 so wouldn't want to add another one - especially as the C4 tourney is very hectic!!

But like DC says - it's mega easy...

The one thing I will say is - I would make sure that everyone posts that they understood the rules - and the punishment for breaking them... if any game is broken in - the breaker gets booted - and the game gets replayed without them...

Tourney minimum is 16 players... so if you're worried about running a tourney - only make a 16 big one...

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:22 pm

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 :shock:


And if you do - my name goes onto the list!!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:51 pm

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.
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:54 pm

ooh! and also link to my post explaining why AA is so very awesome!

Aslo,

add me to the "in," whoever ends up running this.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:03 pm

Looks like you have a quarter of the necessary signups already - of course - the idea was to get it out to the public - not the core fans already!!

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!!

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.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

PreviousNext

Return to Implemented Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login