SuicidalSnowman wrote:I hate to be this way, but I don't see why there is so much negativity to this. Yes, there will always be games that don't work with some settings, or games that are more "farmable" or settings that are unfair.
The answer is, however, don't play those settings.
Personally, I do not like Freestyle because I cannot monitor my games enough to make it work for me. So I only play Sequential. I find plenty of good games to play. I know some people play almost exclusively Freestyle. They enjoy that type of game.
Some people only play speed. I personally like to ponder my moves for more than five minutes. (Seriously.) So I play Casual.
HOWEVER, I think it is awesome that if I have 30 minutes and want to get a game started and finished, I CAN play Speed. The option is there. Its not my favorite, and for the most part I don't play it, but I can if I want to.
Same with Freestyle. I know I will probably lose, but if I want to try it, I CAN play it.
Why would anyone complain about more options?
Sure, Farmers may be able to use this to get points. But 1) Nothing is stopping you from doing the same thing and 2) If a game type is found to be supportive of farmers, in my experience with CC, it falls out of favor with tournaments and clan games. Even though some of the guys on the top of the scoreboard play hundreds of City Mogul games, how many tournaments use it?
More options is great. And the general player use will dictate which types are used and how often, and in what regard they are held.
I am disappointed as well that this isn't the update that will revolutionize how we play games, but at the same time, I can't be angry about getting more choices. Just my two cents.
Tisha wrote:-Maximus- wrote:We already have games that take months....whats the big deal if a game takes 2 weeks to start.
what are you talking about? two weeks to start?
-Maximus- wrote:Tisha wrote:-Maximus- wrote:We already have games that take months....whats the big deal if a game takes 2 weeks to start.
what are you talking about? two weeks to start?
Was talking about having initial placement with sequential settings and no fog. Had some groans about 2 weeks before a game could start. But some games take many weeks, so....
72o wrote:I just started my first game. This update isn't what I thought it was.
I thought we were going to be able to choose the territories we wanted to occupy first. Like the original gameplay of the board game that shall not be named. Everyone goes in sequential order claiming a territory until the territories are gone, then everyone places an army at a time on whichever territory they choose until they are gone.
Instead, this is more like the gameplay version where you deal out all the cards and then you get X number of armies to put on the territories you received however you see fit. I definitely get why people are complaining that someone will just drop them all on a single territory, and why the first turn is such a significant advantage.
While I am all for new options, and this one certainly provides some new strategies for gameplay, it's not what I was hoping for.
I understand the concern with taking 2 weeks to start a game where you would select your territories in sequential order, but I'm ok with that. Since I'm premium, I could start a whole lot of games and do many of these concurrently.
It might encourage more premium purchases, since this option would be frustrating for those with only 4 slots. Or, you could make it premium-only...
Theoharis wrote:Well, manual placement is certainly an interesting tweak, that with time and discussion will develop into something balanced. Now it just started, so it's bound to have some faults that will be discovered and dealt with in time.-Maximus- wrote:Whats wrong with sequential placement and no fog. Yes takes more rounds to even start the game, but would be the real "initial troop placement" Could even make each map have a specific round limit to get all the troops deployed by forcing X amount of troops be placed per round.
I agree that this is perhaps the best way to go, but I can see it working only in speed games, otherwise it would take ages. With stacks of, say, 3 troops deployed each round. And definitely with no fog.
King_Herpes wrote:I say roll a single die in order to determine who places their armies first. Highest roll wins, where if somebody ties on that initial roll then they must roll again until it's decided. Then deployment commences starting with the highest roller to the last. Territory by territory with or without fog( That's an interesting component and I suppose that it should also be an option). A freestyle round will just be exploited by those who are speed junkies and just seems out of place anywhere besides speed games themselves. Overall, I'm mildly aroused by the new update.
Your beloved Conqueror and life time confidant,
MudPuppy wrote:I'd like to see:
The number of placement rounds would depend on size of map, number of players, and number of troops placed per round but unless the troops placed per round is high, there would be minimal incentive for players to wait to see where others place their troops within each freestyle placement round... thus speeding things along... in theory.
- No fog during placement phase (for sunny games);
- Knowledge of play order before troop placement begins (this option not critical);
- Manual placement of troops done in a series of rounds;
- Number of troops placed per round as an option (1,2,3...all);
- Freestyle order of placement within placement rounds to keep things moving.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users