Forum
why should one fight - you only lose points
|
mozzer wrote
at 7:27 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT
i'm what they call 'a fighter' - all i can say is that the new scoring system sucks - how boring - if you want to fight you lose points, even in 2nd position (but scared pussies in 6th position do) - if it was your purpose to transform a fantastic game into a dull and boring game, then your mission has succeeded
MOZZER |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 17 of 17
|
Elithrion wrote
at 10:53 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT One more note about that scenario. If second and third team up and the leader thinks he can't win, so he flags, the next correct course of action would be for 2nd and third to fight each other for first while ignoring the grey territories (since if one goes for neutral bits and the other attacks him, he'll be at a disadvantage). However, if the neutral areas stay neutral, the two remaining players' dominance rankings will, frankly, suck. So they may as well just have flagged in the first place, since even if all goes well there's no guarantee of a better finish (especially if first has some fun carving them up before flagging, thus further decimating their dominance rankings).
|
|
Sinth wrote
at 12:19 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT @Elithrion:
Your argument is based on a mistaken assumption. There is no point killing neutrals "for DOM". One thing about the new system is that it's ALWAYS a zero-sum game. I mean, at ALL times. Whether there are 7 players in or just 2, it's always zero-sum among the remaining players. The only way to be gaining dom is to own more than your share of the lands currently occupied. |
|
Cleopatra wrote
at 4:24 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT My general feeling about the new system - after playing 24 games as "cleo_" - is that it makes the games quicker, but more casual and careless.
In gives less place for more sophisicated strategies, tactics and diplomacy. The "social element" will also be reduced, as players have to concentrate on chosing the right moment for flagging, which seems to be the key issue in the new system. So I have mixed feelings. |
|
Cleopatra wrote
at 4:30 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT Additional thought - I like in the new system that the winner gets most of the points;)
|
|
hydrocodone wrote
at 6:31 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT I tend to agree with cleo. The new scoring appears to remove the depth and neat part of the game. In its place is a dice rolling game for people on their lunch break. Having said that i will continue to play and try to have fun. Maybe i will get the "lunch break" mentality. Also ryan mozzer has never posted before i think... |
|
frambojan wrote
at 8:13 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT I appreciate the work put in to change the system, but I really feel that it robs that game of a lot of depth and tactical avenues. I love the feeling of being down early, hustling to survive the midgame, and coming back to win through pataitnce and skillful play. Any attempt at overcoming a bad start is essentially punished under the new system.
Skill, paitance, and game managment have been massively devauled; lucky starts and easy surrender have become overvalued. |
|
veinti2 wrote
at 8:48 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT hey guys i need some help.. ..im a newbie on this. i played as a flash game until i discovered this web. im wiht a friend here at home. i hve 2 computers, is one connection... .. and we cant play on the same table. what can we do? i wanna play agains him..
|