No dice games [REJECTED]

[DiM]

i find it amusingly ironic how a suggestion to eliminate luck actually manages to make the games 100% luck.

in a no spoils no dice game where the person that starts the game gets a bonus from the drop, the second guy has no chance to come back and win.
game over from the start. so much about "stratagy"

[Bones2484]

I think the title of this thread should be changed to: "Whoever is luckiest to go first wins games".

[betiko]

what is "stratagy"?

[Criticalwinner]

Does anybody hate it when your opponent gets a lucky win?
Does anybody hate it when you get an unlucky loss?

Well, what if there was another game option. This option would allow little to no luck to be in the game. This new option would include the following

-no dice
-colorless cards

Does anybody hate it when you bring up a topic that we've already seen and proven that it didn't work?
Does anybody hate it when the "new option" just turns it back into a purely luck game based on drops, player-owned cards, and who goes first?

Well, what if there was an opinion about this?

This "stratagy" would include the following

-Not Implementing This (Ever)

Back to the drawing board.

[tkr4lf]

Don't they actually have this option over at majcom?

I'd be interested to hear how it works out...

[DoomYoshi]

Let's have a completely penis based game. Whoever has the largest penis will win. Girls can use dildos if they want to,or they can borrow their significant others.

We can implement it at the same time.

[jammyjames]

hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

[Bones2484]

hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

[jammyjames]

hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

I play freestlyle mainly - therefore your first argument is invalid.

What would i have to complain about when losing a no-dice game except for that first point?

Please enlighten me...

[agentcom]

This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

[jammyjames]

This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

Please - do go on?

What maps / settings would have an unbreakable tie?

[Bones2484]

hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

I play freestlyle mainly - therefore your first argument is invalid.

What would i have to complain about when losing a no-dice game except for that first point?

Please enlighten me...

Actually, my argument is perfectly valid. It just does not apply to your situation.

This setting would be absolutely useless for sequential (and most freestyle) games. Really the best use of this game type would be speed freestyle, and since this site only has ONE developer I really doubt he'll focus on something so specific to a small amount of the community at this time.

[agentcom]

This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

Please - do go on?

What maps / settings would have an unbreakable tie?

Farming: Actually, I have to think about this one. It could generally be done, but high ranked players would be at risk against and equally talented but low ranked team, if that team went first.

Unbreakable ties. Think of a simple CC map where all territs are able to be attacked (no neutral barriers) and where there are no easily taken bonuses. Let's say that map has a 14 territ per player drop. Let's further simplify this and say there would be only one front (but the analysis is the same with 2 or 3, it just gets more complicated to type out). Picture it almost like the players are playing in a straight line.

Game Starts:

R3 - R3 - R3 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red's turn: Deploy

R3 - R3 - R7 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red attacks:

R3 - R3 - R1 - R3 - G3 - G3

Red Forts:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G3 - G3

Green (13 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G7 - G3

Green attacks

R1 - R3 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G3

Green Forts

R1 - R3 - R1 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red (14 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R5 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red attacks:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1

Red forts:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G1 - G1

Green (13 territs) deploys:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G5 - G1

Green attacks:

R1 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G1

ad nauseum. Basically as long as you don't attack any neutrals and no bonuses are taken, both teams have exactly the same amount of troops at the end of any given round (after both players have gone). How many drops do you think you can take and hold a bonus when your opponent is getting the exact same troops and dice as you and you're playing a map that allows you both to drop 4 in the first turn. Or a map that allows you to drop 3.

Then there's the problem of maps with 15 starting territs. The player that goes first would certainly be able to send the other player to 14 territs, which means that the starting player would get +1 relative bonus each turn for the first several turns until he could knock the player down to 12 and have a +2 relative bonus. Then the other player would be down to 11 territs and the first turn guy would get +3 relative bonus. The first turn would end the game unless you play against someone dumb who goes after neutrals or is otherwise crazy.

[Army of GOD]

In jammyjames' case, the game would be dependent on the drop. Such an awful suggestion.

[agentcom]

Unbreakable ties. Think of a simple CC map where all territs are able to be attacked (no neutral barriers) and where there are no easily taken bonuses. Let's say that map has a 14 territ per player drop. Let's further simplify this and say there would be only one front (but the analysis is the same with 2 or 3, it just gets more complicated to type out). Picture it almost like the players are playing in a straight line.

Game Starts:

R3 - R3 - R3 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red's turn: Deploy

R3 - R3 - R7 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red attacks:

R3 - R3 - R1 - R3 - G3 - G3

Red Forts:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G3 - G3

Green (13 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G7 - G3

Green attacks

R1 - R3 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G3

Green Forts

R1 - R3 - R1 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red (14 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R5 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red attacks:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1

Red forts:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G1 - G1

Green (13 territs) deploys:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G5 - G1

Green attacks:

R1 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G1

ad nauseum. Basically as long as you don't attack any neutrals and no bonuses are taken, both teams have exactly the same amount of troops at the end of any given round (after both players have gone). How many drops do you think you can take and hold a bonus when your opponent is getting the exact same troops and dice as you and you're playing a map that allows you both to drop 4 in the first turn. Or a map that allows you to drop 3.

Then there's the problem of maps with 15 starting territs. The player that goes first would certainly be able to send the other player to 14 territs, which means that the starting player would get +1 relative bonus each turn for the first several turns until he could knock the player down to 12 and have a +2 relative bonus. Then the other player would be down to 11 territs and the first turn guy would get +3 relative bonus. The first turn would end the game unless you play against someone dumb who goes after neutrals or is otherwise crazy.

If no one can overcome this problem, then this should be rejected, IMO.