AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Unbelievable Advantage
The advantage you guys give to Generals here is unbelievable. They have all of the experience, they get to use all of the Specialty Units they want, which are more powerful per dollar than standard units lesser ranked players get to use, AND you let them build custom pieces that are unmatched on the battlefield for anyone less than a General.
Do you all hate losing so much? Is a fair fight not in your vocabulary? Do you get some glee from wiping out people with your special units that they can not hope to compete with?
Let me give you an example. Bishop has a Heavy Missile Cruiser that has FIVE attacks at a 4 or less or an offensive firepower of 20. It costs a mere $25 to produce. Let us compare that to someone who is not a General.
It would take 10 submarines to get an offensive firepower of 20 so $80…
It would take 6.6 fighters to get an offensive firepower of 20 so $66…
It would take 5 bombers to get an offensive firepower of 20 so $75…
It would take 5 battle cruisers to get an offensive firepower of 20 so $75…
So on average it is THREE TIMES cheaper for Bishop to equip a fleet with offensive firepower than any non-General player. In ADDITION the Heavy Missile Cruiser can fire its missiles with impunity at any land unit at no risk to itself. If it is just killing infantry then it is killing $10 worth of infantry every Turn for free. That is some free additional ability for a military unit that already is three times cheaper to produce to rule the seas.
But wait Andrew, it only has a defense of 1 you say. Who cares? Only a fool would build it by itself. You build a fleet around it and no one can touch you. And heaven forbid if you go first because anything within range will be wiped out.
Does no one actually look to see if units are broken when they are built. I can understand say a missile launcher over an artillery piece but this kind of drastic unbalanced piece is ridiculous.
Wow… you guys are unbelievable…
Wednesday 7/28/2010 |
Rick
We make war that we may live in peace. -Aristotle
Num Posts: 404 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
well first off we are scaling back the general units and limiting them to 22 IC, so this is going to change.
Secondly your analysis is a little off because you are comparing the offensive capability and ignoring the defensive. A fighter defends at 4 so it would take 4 Missile Cruisers to equal 1 fighter! that's 100ic to 10!
also a single bomber with technology upgrades will get 5x3 on attacks over land for just 15ic, so that's not too bad.
up until a couple of weeks ago generals only made pieces around 15 ic and they didn't even get used much, so we have to make some adjustments as we go along.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 06:09:30 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
The Custom pieces are very Beta. We're not always certain just how some features will really play out.
I do understand Andrews frustrations and thanks him for cleanly and clearly voicing his concerns. It's clear that he's not the only one feeling this way.
As far as experienced players getting better pieces, though not really part of a traditional board game, is a fundamental part of many (dare I say most?) computer games? As you progress through levels you get bigger and better units. That's a perk and a reason for pressing forward and trying to advance. Being basically a board game played online Andrews points have validity. However part of the fun of a computerized version is some variances that would be harder to impliment in a board game.
I remember, just a year ago, starting out trying to get the special units. Custom pieces hadn't been considered yet (at least not publicly). I remember the additional challange of over coming an opponent with special pieces, but they all have weaknesses. If the special units seem lethal it's not so much because they are but because the player masters their use, as with any other piece. I've laughed a lot to see massive build ups of special units that were far more easily wiped away than had he bought infantry and fighers. I enjoyed the challange, being at the top takes away a bit of the motivation I once had and my losses have krept up accordingly, despite the special units. Remember, you just recenetly effectively neutralized my nation in a single turn?
I do recognize that there were a lot fewer players with special units back then, but there were also fewer players period. I just rallied support to overwhelm the strongest players rather than always joining the throng trying to appease them. As has been stated several times, rank means little here. With enough patience and diligence everyone will reach the top ranks. You tell the good players by how fast they climb. So, there are several higher ranked players that are very likely to be easily toppled by skilled newwer players. Do we know more of the nuances of the game? Sure, we've gotten used to the mechanics. We're more than willing to help you learn.
We want you to be the best players that you can. The game is much funner with good, strong competition. Without that it's just fighting neutral, that gets dull real quick - trust me on that one.
I've been rambling on trying to remember what I wanted to comment on. And yes, the Custom units do keep getting more sophisticated and powerful. The Hvy Missile Cruiser was well thought out, being cheap enough to still build a fleet around it. The Sea Shadow went through over a month of design. I really wighed every point on that one. You thing it strong? It didn't function the way I had invisioned it to, so it's not as deadly as I had hoped. The newer pieces aren't really designed (at least not mine) to overpower newer players) but rather to combat the surge of powerful custom general pieces - most of which are aircraft hence the targetting of their planes. Andrew and Mike have made a valid point. Although we build units and counter units to fight amongst ourselves the newer players get caught in the cross hairs. The Sea Shadow was designed for large Diplomacy games where fighters become prevelant adn FFA games that tend to drag on log enough for expensive navies to be built. In smaller games it becomes exposed to attack due to the high cost of building a fleet to accompany it.
I really like my Sea Shadow. Seriously, if any of you had it wouldn't you like it? I do have a smaller piece in mind already past the design phase, so if you all want the Sea Shadow retired, I will retire it - or rather ask Rick to as only he has that ability.
I recall someone making the suggestion of voting on the top 5 Custom pieces and having them available to all the Generals as the perk for reaching the rank. On the quick gl...
Wednesday 7/28/2010 07:13:46 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Rick,
This is your game, do what you want, make it as unfair as you want; but don’t try and pretend that this is fair.
First off it is your analysis that is off. The defensive capabilities are meaningless for two major reasons.
1) You can not compare the defensive capabilities of the unit by itself; for Bishop would never deploy it by itself. You have to compare it to the overall value it adds to a mixed fleet. Pick any amount of money you want and I will build you a fleet with Bishops troops that will wipe out anything you try to build without it. With the ability to add offensive firepower so cheaply I can easily buy the defensive units necessary to protect the fleet and still wipe out anything that gets in my way. All armies are made of mixed units and any unit’s value should be compared as to what role it plays in the mixed army. This Heavy Missile Cruiser is THREE TIMES cheaper than any normal unit that can be bought to combat it when considering offensive firepower.
2) It is not necessary for the Heavy Missile Cruiser to defend itself as nothing on the board can stand up against it. Any unit that it can reach will be wiped out for a huge loss that even if there were troops left to sink the Heavy Missile Cruiser it would not matter. This game is built on offense, not defense.
For a unit to be fair and balanced it should not give Nation A an unbeatable advantage over Nation B. In this case it does. Take as an example Nation A fighting Nation B and Nation A has the Heavy Missile Cruiser.
Scenario 1, Nation A goes first. Since Nation A goes first the fleet that is built will annihilate any defending fleet. Defense is not an issue. With the enemy fleet destroyed I can now wipe out their land forces at will. Game Over…
Scenario 2, Nation B goes first. In this case Nation B has a choice to make. They can build lots of land troops but if they do Nation A builds a fleet and they lose as above so instead Nation B builds a big fleet to attack Nation A’s fleet. However Nation A simply builds lots of land troops and smashes Nation B because Nation B’s fleet CAN NOT SMASH LAND TROOPS like Nation A’s ships can.
That is what is truly unfair about Bishop’s unit. It is one thing to buy a unit that gives you mastery of the sea because your opponent can at least concede the sea to you and try to win a land war even though you have amphibious maneuverability on your side threatening his rear areas. But in Bishops case the dang ship COMES with built in Cruise Missiles! So not only does it fulfill its role of controlling the seas it also is an extremely cheap land attack unit as it kills at a MINIMUM roughly 40% of its cost every Turn for free.
Also your contention that you can equal the combat capabilities of this unit by researching Tech is frankly ludicrous. Not only does that add additional cost to the Nation that is trying to compete with the unit but what if they don’t get the Tech? The fact that this unit COMES with a Tier 2 Tech should make it even more expensive. How much money would a normal Player need to spend to get Cruise Missiles? $50, $80, $120? The fact that you say a Player would need to Tech to equal the firepower of a unit that requires no Teching proves how unbalanced it is.
Finally if you have decided that there are good reasons that all units more than $22 should be disbanded than do so right now! Why allow the already agreed upon unbalanced units to continue in play?
In closing I offer a challenge; if you do not think it is broken then give it to me. I will play ANYONE on this site with that unit and if they do not have access to it I will beat them hands down.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 07:40:56 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Well spoken Andrew. Oh, I will take your challange. My Sea Shadow costs more, but I bet it is up to tasking the Hvy Missile Cruiser. :-) I also gave it mobilty and the ability to sweep all his defending fighters off the carriers. I wanted to target Robbs pesky bombers with the Cruise Missiles but it turns out they simply weren't scripted with that option, period :(
I've only got to barely test out the Sea Shadow and I will concede even falling short of what I wanted it to do it is still an exceptionally good buy at 40 IC (and I can't understand why Andrew has not targetted it in his examples, perhaps since I am not defending or denying it).
You know Rick? He makes a really good point as to how VERY cheap it was to add Cruise Missiles to the ship - only 10% of the minimum amount required to acquire it by research.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:01:18 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
TGB,
I understand your point and appreciate your honesty. As you said as Generals you are building pieces to fight each other but where does that leave the non-Generals? Is it fair for non-Generals to suffer through loss after loss just because they don’t have access to all powerful units? If you Generals want these pieces to fight amongst yourselves, than fine go ahead. But don’t use them in games where there are non-Generals.
Also I love to play computer games, both war and RPG. And I agree wholeheartedly that as you grow and experience your troops gain more and better capabilities. It is a rewarding and fun experience. But as you do become more powerful the game throws tougher and more challenging enemies against you. You HAVE to be stronger as your enemies are stronger too. In this case as you grow stronger it is as if you are going all the way back to level 1 and wiping out the easiest enemies. What fun is that? Plus even if YOU enjoy it you are not playing a computer you are playing another person. How fun is it for them to play knowing they have no chance no matter how well they play?
So is this a board game or a computer game? You give the pretense that it is a war game of strategy. But strategy war games are based on… guess what… strategy. For all intensive purposes the two sides are equal in strength or at least close enough that whoever plays better, barring very bad dice rolling, will win. If one side has a built in GAME PIECE advantage because they have been playing it longer it is no longer a strategy board game. The person playing longer should win, as you said, because they understand the game better, its mechanics, and required strategy to win; not because they have unbeatable pieces.
Finally I have been playing a couple of weeks and I have NOT complained about the specialty units. It does seem unfair that they are slightly better than the normal units but the key here is that they are only slightly better. And as you say TGB they have weaknesses too that you can exploit. The reason I am voicing my concern of this particular unit is it is so broken and so overpowering it is ridiculous.
I like the specialty units. They add a nice flair to the game. Trying to figure out what mix to buy and how they all interact both offensively and defensively adds a certain flair to the game. But so far I have not seen any yet that are so overpowering that they are unfair. A good player can overcome a slight disadvantage but overcoming a monstrosity like the Heavy Missile Cruiser just can’t be done.
My suggestion, until Rick gets his 22 IC max coding in, is that the General does not use the custom pieces until then. But while I think it is wholly unfair I can adapt. I will simply not play in any game with specialty units. If that means all I get to play in is 1v1 games so be it. I prefer to play in fewer fair games than more unfair games.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:08:53 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
TGB,
The reason I have not brought up the Sea Shadow was two-fold. First I have not seen it in a game so I was really not paying attention to it. Secondly I thought it was being disbanded anyway so why even look at it.
Also my challenge is based on the argument that the General’s Custom Pieces are too powerful in comparison to both the Standard and Specialty Units. If you want to take up the challenge you have to do it without your custom units.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:13:15 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
I was challanging you with you having the Hvy Missile Cruiser, not really realistic.
Rick, while you're implimenting new scenarios how about the option to Host a game where ranked units only upto the Hosts rank can be used? That way he can gain experience using his new units without the fear of the superior units still overpowering him. I never considered turning them off as I moved up, but I believe there are many players that would more fully appreciate the units and the game overall if they perceived a more level playing field. Just to be clear I suggest this as an optional feature, not the default scenario.
Andrew, let a few games fizzle out and you may have your duel.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:40:35 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
I like the idea of limitiing the Specialty Units to the lowest level playing as an option that would allow some Speciaty Units as TGB suggested.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:42:32 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Not the lowest level playing, just to the level of the Host. I don't want any confusion on that. It's purpose is not to curtail more veteran players their enjoyment of their pieces, but to provide a "safe" environment for the more timid to test out their weapons. Plus, it shakes up the game for those of us with over 150 games making us rethink our strategies again.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 08:46:52 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Got it. So a low level player hosting can still use his first level Tier Specialty Unit without worrying that some General is going to come in and smack him with 4th level Specialty Units or custom pieces. I still like it :)
Wednesday 7/28/2010 09:36:49 PM |
General Robb
Num Posts: 43 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
I haven't read all this string becuase you guys are so long winded lol but I think your analysis is off AAGamer. The special cruiser costs $25 and gets 5 dice at 4. So the way I see it the math works like this: 25/(5*(4/6)) = 7.5. So basically he is paying $7.5 per hit. A tank costs $5 and hits half the time so it costs $10 per hit. An infantry attacking with a general costs $9/hit. That is not a big difference when you consider the huge defensive difference (the $25 unit is worthless on defense). A nuke cannon (4@4) costs just $3.8 per hit. Yes a sub costs $16 per hit but it also gets pot shots so half the time the defender does not get to return fire which means it's really only $8/hit, not that big a difference. I tell you what: Take $96 and tell me what navy could withstand my 12 attacking subs. I don't care what you buy, I will win. Navies in this game are set up to hugely favor the attacker and Bishops specialty unit exploits that further. If you ignored defense on a super battle ship, which is available to everyone, you could build one that attacks 3 times at 5 for $21. That's $8.43/hit, almost the same. Add to that defense, antiaircraft and extra hitpoints and it's better than his cruiser, in my opinion.
Wednesday 7/28/2010 10:46:19 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
General Robb,
a) You are comparing land units to sea units. That is an unfair comparison. You need to compare the same type of units to each other; i.e. land units versus land units, air units vs air units and sea units vs sea units.
b) As you state yourself the sub costs TWICE as much to produce than the Heavy Missile Cruiser. However even that is far too low. A sub costs $8 for a firepower of 2 or $4 per point of firepower. The revised Heavy Missile Cruiser costs $22 for a firepower of 16 or 1.37. Therefore a sub costs THREE TIMES as much to build than the Heavy Missile Cruiser. In addition the sub does not get to fire at planes so it has a built in weakness and it does not get to bombard land units for free. If you Tech, and if you get Homing Torpedoes AND Cruise Missiles (2 Techs) now your sub has a firepower of 2.66 which is still HALF as powerful as the Heavy Missile Cruiser AFTER you paid goodness how much money for Technology.
c) In your scenario of building 12 subs I have two answers depending on if I go before or after you. If I go before you I attack you with 2 Heavy Missile Cruisers, 3 Subs and a $27 Super Battle Cruiser (2 extra hits, 2 extra attack dice). I have a firepower of 50 while yours is 24. I get 8 hits on round 1 while you get 4. I lose 2 hits on the SBC and 2 subs; you lose 8 subs. I now either withdraw after getting a 4-1 disparity in cost or on Round 2 with a firepower of 34 I kill your last 4 subs while you get 1 hit perhaps 2. At BEST you kill $46 worth of ships while I kill $96 and more likely you only get $24. Bring it on. You go before me: I laugh at you for building such a huge fleet, attack it with some planes to kill 1 or 2 subs for free and then build a massive land force to wipe you out. Now you start to spend money like crazy on Techs so your sub fleet, which rules the waves, can also be used to fight against land troops. Unfortunately you just can’t get the Tech you want and you lose the game. Too bad. Or you spend so much money and it takes you so many Turns that by the time you do get the Techs you want you still lose the game because a) you spent so much money to get it you have no land troops to stop my drive on your Capitol and b) even when you do get it your subs are still half as powerful as my Heavy Missile Cruiser would be in the same situation WITHOUT Teching!
This is the issue as I described before, which I guess you didn’t read, that the main problem with the Heavy Missile Cruiser is it comes with Cruise Missiles for free. It is just as capable for sea attacks as it is for land attacks and that is main reason why it is so dang powerful. Everyone else has to spend money in hopes of getting cruise missiles. It is a risk. If you are lucky and get them fast it may win you the game depending on how much money you spent. If you don’t get them you will lose. This unit removes the risk and is more powerful to boot! Without the risk it still bombards land units twice as well as your Teched up subs!
Another point you guys are missing is the time and cost of Teching. There is only so much money to be spent every Turn. We don’t have an unlimited budget to compare what is the best fleet to build. If I get $50 a Turn it may take me three or four Turns to get the Tech I finally need to make my huge sub buy pay off while the Heavy Missile Cruiser starts paying for itself immediately.
So let’s compare the only other sea unit that COMES with free Cruise Missiles. Note this unit is ONLY for Japan so there is already an advantage that in any game Bishop can get the HMC while everyone else only gets it for Japan.
The Jap Cruiser costs $10 and has 1 attack at 3 for an offensive firepower cost of $3.33. Comparing that to the new LOWER value of the HMC of $1.37 you would need to buy $53 worth of Jap Cruisers to equal the value of one $22 HMC. That is 246% more expensive!
As I said before I don’t...
Thursday 7/29/2010 06:45:17 AM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
(Truncated my answer... here is the rest)
As I said before I don’t mind a slight advantage for Specialty Units and I think they do bring a flair to the game. So let us make a comparison of other Specialty units to see just how unbalanced this HMC really is.
(Offensive Firepower = OF / Offensive Firepower Cost = OFC)
Artillery = Cost $5 / OF 2x3 or 6 = OFC of $1.20
Missile Launcher = Cost $7 / OF 2x5 or 10 = OFC of $1.42
Scud Launcher = Cost $8 / OF 3x4 or 12 = OFC of $1.50
Nuke Cannon = Cost $10 / OF 4x4 or 16 = OFC of $1.60
As you can see the Nuke Cannon is only 33% more powerful than a standard artillery unit. Two artillery costing the exact same as the Nuke Cannon give you a firepower of 12 versus the firepower of 16 for the Nuke Cannon. This 33% offensive advantage is partially made up for by the defensive issue that when attacked you only have one unit to throw away for the Nuke Cannon versus the 2 units for the artillery. So the SLIGHTLY better offensive power has some defensive drawback to make up a little for it. Though most of us would still buy the Nuke Cannon if we could it is not a 246% advantage.
So to summarize I see three issues with the Heavy Missile Cruiser:
1) It is a piece that Bishop can buy every game instead of just a single Nation.
2) It comes FREE with cruise missiles.
3) It is drastically overpowered, at least two times greater, than any other sea unit.
Rick, I see you changed the HMC. I appreciate you acting so quickly on this subject. However, it is still too overpowered as I have shown above. At a minimum I would remove the free Cruise Missiles. Also if it were me I would change it to 4x3.
Thursday 7/29/2010 06:51:11 AM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Funny, I have a real world example for you General Robb. In the “New Auto-Balance Variation!” game Ahmed is going for a cruise missile strategy with subs. On Turn 5 he bought 5 subs and 1 Tech for $50. On Turn 6 he purchased 5 more subs and 1 Tech again for $50. He has also purchased from Turns 7-9 six more Techs for $60. That is a $160 total investment so far. He has yet to hit even Homing Torpedoes. Does his fleet rule the waves, yes it does. How many land troops has he killed for that $160 investment? ZERO!
If Ahmed had the Heavy Missile Cruiser ability then on Turn 5 he could have purchased 2 HMCs and then on Turn 6 2 more HMCs saving himself $12 to boot. So even saying the missile cruisers were busy killing ships on Turn 5 and 6 on Turn 7 the 4 HMC can now start hitting land troops. On average and assuming only hitting cheap infantry the 4 HMCs would do $32 worth of damage on Turn 7, 8 and 9 for a total of $106 land troop damage.
So for an $88 investment Ahmed would have killed over 3 Turns $106 worth of land troops and he rules the waves too when in the real game Ahmed has invested $160 MORE THAN DOUBLE and yet has not killed a single dollar worth of land troops. Hmmmmmm…
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:12:24 AM |
General Robb
Num Posts: 43 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Ok, I see your point even if a little mellodramatic. Any tracking navy will always beat any equivalent defending navy. I think it is solved by charging a higher premium to add cruise missiles to your specialty boat or making cruise missiles only available with the tech upgrade. I also think it should not be allowed to have a movement of 3. That is a specialty reserved for Latins destroyer.
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:54:31 AM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
It can only move 2. I think at a minimum it should lose the free Cruise Missiles. I still think it should be powerd down a tad more, perhaps 4x3 but just removing the free crusie missiles would go a long way to making it somehwat balanced.
Thursday 7/29/2010 09:31:58 AM |
Bishop
Num Posts: 23 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Well, I'm not taking the fact that my unit is in the crosshairs personally as I don't think that Andrew is trying to just say my unit is a problem so much as he's trying to make an argument about special units generally.
Just to head-off any, "Bishop made an abusively bad unit" claims in advance though, I just want to emphasize that I used the same rules that everyone else used to make their units. Yes, I tried to make the most effective unit I could...but I thought that's the idea...right? Not, "Ok, make a special unit...but try to make it suck!" :-)
If we're talking about changing special unit rules I hope that we'll just change the rules accross the board and not just nerf on unit or two. If the rules change a lot then anyone the rules changed on should be able to redo their unit...just as when helicopters were changed. Please note that I haven't been screaming about my own unit being nerfed and I can understand the arguments about revision of cruise missiles in general and missiles on special units in particular...so I hope my unit and I won't continue to be used over time as the poster children of all that is evil with special units.
Moving on...I can understand your arguments Andrew, but I hope you tone down your rhetoric a little. This is Rick's sandbox...he's just nice enough to let us play in it. He's always been really good about taking comments and suggestions, and OFTEN implements them. Start a thread and a reasoned debate on suggested changes and I think you'll be pleasently surprised at how much he seriously considers what you have to say.
I understand where you are comming from regarding the fact that the veteran players are veteran players...do they really NEED all the special units when they already have experience as an advantage? Some board games and video games give bonuses or extra income or something to rookie players until they get some time under their belts and the game gets harder as you gain experience. I don't think that Rick's intention in this game is to just make it so veteran players can just beat-down new players for the sheer joy of making them feel bad. I think that it's more an idea that you have to "earn" a higher rank ad that implies a certain minimum level of skill. Granted, that's undercut somewhat by higher ranked players with bad win/loss records...but that's a seprate issue to be addressed.
If you think changes might enrich the game, I'm open to that discussion and might agree with some of your ideas. I don't think that it's fair to just assume that the rules are written as they are just because high ranked players are afraid of losing. Also, anyone who has gotten to a higher rank had to go through the same steps as are up now to get to high rank so no one is asking a new player to do anything that a veteran player themself did have to do to get to higher rank.
Finally, anyone always has the option of a no special units game. I've played quite a few of those.
Thursday 7/29/2010 04:46:16 PM |
Rick
We make war that we may live in peace. -Aristotle
Num Posts: 404 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
ok i just created a new game option for playing with regular specialty units but not the General's custom units. So that should fix that!
Thursday 7/29/2010 04:57:17 PM |
Bishop
Num Posts: 23 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Good idea.
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:00:07 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
That's good, but I still think equal to the Host's units would have been better.
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:15:55 PM |
Scollack
Num Posts: 4 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Thanks Rick! I think that is a great idea for the specialty units. I want to thank Andrew for coming up with the idea! Great Idea!!! TGB does have a good point to with the hosts level. hmmm.
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:35:21 PM |
Mike186
Num Posts: 5 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
I feel like I got this discussion going with my little fit/rant/tantrum, whatever you want to call it the other day (I got better!). I like what I have been reading and like the ideas. TGB makes sense with his proposal of the host's level setting the specialty limit. If you dont want to fight general units you won't play against or in a general hosting a game.
I have to disagree with Andrew in one area. There are some veteren players that I can beat 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 times. So even though some people have alot of games under their belt, their tactics are still weak compared to others. You Andrew for example are new to the game but have some of the best tactics around (which sucks for me, LOL)
I want to thank Rick and TGB for talking about this and looking at defferent fixes.
I still kind of like my idea about 5 general pieces that all would get. Maybe 1 of each type of unit...if there has been at least one of each created (don't think there are any super tanks or artillery pieces).
Thursday 7/29/2010 05:52:46 PM |
TGB
They exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.
Num Posts: 330 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
i'd be up for that idea Mike, but if you enlisted think things are bad because we have 1 custom piece honed to dominate in 1 field of operation, do you really want ALL the Generals to have a unit specifically designed to dominate in ALL theatres of operation?
Some games favor diferrent strengths more than others. So, all of us having 5 would guarantee that we have a dominant piece no matter what the game make up.
I'll grant you this though, if we tried to dominate with all 5 pieces at the same time we would have no "staying power) meaning it would require VERY few hits to entirely wipe out our forces.
Thursday 7/29/2010 06:00:31 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Bishop, I am certainly not, as I said in my earlier e-mail to you, trying to pick on you. I was just using your piece as an example as it was the first one that I had encountered. You are correct my issue is with General Custom Units in general, no pun intended, and not specifically your unit. In fact during the day I have been working on a looooong post discussing this very issue. I think I will still post it when I am done with it since I think it is still a valid issue but Rick’s implementation of the “No General Custom Units” is a good fix for now.
In regards to your other points. I recognize that this is Rick’s game and I hope you noticed that was the first thing I said in my posting. He can do what he wants. My issue is the feeling I get from reading the rules and posts is that Rick really wants the game to be fair and played as a strategy game. Thus when I see things that I feel are unbalancing the game I am going to pipe up. He can take or leave my suggestions without hurting my feelings. I will adapt and adjust my behavior based on what he does. But so far I have seen that he REALLLY CARES and takes input to heart and acts on this input tremendously quickly. It is because I have seen this behavior from him that I actually decided to speak up. I have been feeling this way for the two weeks I have been playing but initially felt “why say anything” but then after being here for a bit I realized Rick really cares and wants input and is willing to change things if he sees the value in it. Thus my postings.
As for the melodrama of my postings you are just going to have to live with that. I get passionate about my opinions and pour that into my writing. It is not intended to be forceful but I know it comes across that way many times to people who do not know me. I am just trying to make a point as convincingly as possible, if that bothers you then I am sorry about that but I know myself and know this is how I write and it is me.
As for veteran players not wanting to lose I can only ask why they feel they need better units than lower ranked players have available to them to win if they don’t want to lose? Personally I feel it is all about a level playing field so it is your TALENT, and sometimes the dice… grumble, grumble, grumble… that decides the day. If they are not good enough to win without better units then they should not be so highly ranked. Which is another posting I am working on but perhaps I will wait till things die down a little before I post that.
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:55:10 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
Mike186, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the veteran Players and only use that term to denote the higher ranked Players or Players who have been here longer. Many of them are not, based on their win/loss records, very good players. I am sorry if I upset anyone with that statement but anyone who loses more games than they win should not be a highly ranked Player in my book. What General in real life keeps command when he loses more battles than he wins? Having said that there is a caveat because you guys play multi-player games where really talent is meaningless. There is no possible way for the best player to win in a “gang up on him game” if everyone decides to knock him out of the game. It is like the “Survivor” tactic; vote the best people off the island to give yourself a chance.
That actually is the biggest issue I am having with my posting about Rankings. For while Auto-balance games, locked games, and 1v1 games are mostly based on talent these free-for-all and diplomacy games are not and yet both have to be accounted for in the rankings. Hmmm, as I said that is for another post.
Thursday 7/29/2010 08:56:30 PM |
General Robb
Num Posts: 43 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
keep in mind that win-loss records are fairly easy to skew. Since you get to choose who you play 1v1 games against (and who you decline to) you could easily play only the bad players and have a good record and visa versa. Also, if you play lots of 8 player free for alls a win percentage of .250 in those would be spectacular. But, in general it's probably a fairly accurate gage of skill.
Thursday 7/29/2010 09:40:10 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
I agree 100% with you General Robb.
Thursday 7/29/2010 09:57:04 PM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
In fact so much so that is a main point in my Ranking / Points posting that I am working on. Why does a General receive 3 points for beating a lowly private just out of boot camp, 3 points for beating a higher ranked general and 3 points foo winning an 8-Player free for all? They are all vastly different in difficulty and yet the reward is the same.
Thursday 7/29/2010 09:59:39 PM |
PabloNada
Num Posts: 35 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
i agree the reward should be commensurate with risk, actually maybe there should be more risk, i.e. losing points or at best 0 for a loss, to allow the rewards to be increased? The risk with an 8 player FFA or Diplo is pretty high, maybe winnings should be better, maybe evry player in a game is worth 2 points, so if 4 winners at the end of an 8 player diplo win, then they divvy up 16 points? if one manges to an 8 player FFA maybe he deserves the 16 points thats pretty tough lol.
Friday 7/30/2010 12:24:48 PM |
PabloNada
Num Posts: 35 |
Re: Unbelievable Advantage
basically I guess I mean every player in a game chips in 2 points to the pot (or 1 or whatever) and the winner(s) take the pot.Maybe u can say points chipped in depend on rank? enlisted 1-2 pts; sergeants 2-3 pts warrant officers 3-4; officers 4-5; generals 5-7. And the winners subtract the poits they chipped in from there chare of the winnings. So if a general plays a private the pot would be (say) 6; if the private won he'd get 5 points, if the general won he'd get 1.
Saturday 7/31/2010 08:16:24 PM |
