Moderator: Community Team
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.
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.
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.
yeti_c wrote:Option 2 really does change the game play in a way...
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.
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.
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?
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users