Moderator: Community Team

This was actually suggested once long ago... And I came up with a great name for it: [color=dark red]Cutthroat[/color].Haydena wrote:you get points for the players you kill, not for being the last player standing...
Of course, but if I remember well, lack is not inclined to this cutthroat thing... But I know they have it in WaW, so, maybe you are in the wrong siteHaydena wrote:I would really like to see different ways of playing this wonderful game, and Marv, if you don't like the sound of these game types then you don't have to play them

yea but the unknown of the missions is the best part of the game i think it makes it more exciting because you are constantly tring to figure out your opponants mission and how to counter and/or defend aganst it while still fullfilling your own mission i would like to see it and if you dont like it much then dont play it but i think it is the best way to playzorba_ca wrote:While I am a fan of new game types, I am NOT a fan of "Mission" risk.
From what I understand, every player has a different "mission" to accomplish and whoever accomplishes it first wins the game.
The trouble with this format is the absence of one central goal. Without knowing what the intent is of the other players the game becomes much more based on luck than on skill (like Marv's example).
Variations such as Cutthroat, or Capitals are interesting. Even if the game had a universal mission - Just not individual missions for every player.
petebob wrote:You should drop out of school immediately--it's impinging on your game!
I like your Ideas and i think that mabye we can adapt modes of play from classic first person shooters like halo, but mabye not, just an ideaHaydena wrote:I think it may be a good idea to expand on the game types, other than just "Standard" "Doubles" and "Triples"... Maybe change those to Singles, Doubles and Triples in a new category called "Team Sizes", and then have different game modes
Such as "Domination" (Everyone is against each other and the last one standing gets points)...
Urrm, need a name for this one, but basically you get points for the players you kill, not for being the last player standing...
Maybe another one where one player is branded as the player who must be eliminated, and each player must try to eliminate that player, but not knowing who is who (could have interesting results)
Don't know how hard these would be to code, but I for one would like to see more different game modes or options to change the gameplay away from simple Risk...
petebob wrote:You should drop out of school immediately--it's impinging on your game!
Not sure what that means due to the glaring lack of punctuation.wacicha wrote:since i have been on the recieving end of zorba_ca mission in the games now mainly to kick my but and take my points.. i would rather not have a different mission then to get even
I would, but I can't find anyone willing.nascarfan38124 wrote:PS you wrote "from what i heard" which implies you havent played it yet i suggest you should try first then post again
i like his idea about capitals. Some things i would change is that you know the location of the capitals after everybody has chosen one. Also, each player on a team has a capital, and all the capitals have to be owned by one team to win.nascarfan38124 wrote:i enjoy playing the mission risk more because it is usually a shorter game and i would also like to see a capital risk where, if you dont know, each person would pick a capital from their beging territories and the objective is to capture all the capitals and if your capital is captured then you are not out of the game this gives kinda of a second chance
i would like to see these games and you can put a team mode where the teams have one mission and/or capital
The 1 person would have quite an advantage if they got a full 1/2. the percentages would have to be adjusted a bit.adam3b58 wrote:what about a game where, say its 3 ppl, it would be a 2v1, but the board would be treated like a 4 person game, in terms of number of territories given to each person. the 2 person team would each get 1/4, and the 1 person would get 1/2 of them.
Unless it's a small map... then the team would have a definite advantageStoney229 wrote:The 1 person would have quite an advantage if they got a full 1/2. the percentages would have to be adjusted a bit.adam3b58 wrote:what about a game where, say its 3 ppl, it would be a 2v1, but the board would be treated like a 4 person game, in terms of number of territories given to each person. the 2 person team would each get 1/4, and the 1 person would get 1/2 of them.
I like this and I've been thinking of the same idea...Itrade wrote:How about a king-of-the hill type game where one continent is the "hill" and has to be defended for a few turns (two or three sounds good). Or perhaps even a specific map for this.