[GO] No Dice Games

by **army of nobunaga** on Fri May 07, 2010 6:18 pm

i think that if you think this out it would always end up with a map with a ton of "1's" and a few "2's" you would never ever get up to 90 troops like in your example.

by **tonbomorphew** on Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:31 pm

On the start a game and game finder boxes there will be:
Dice: Regular - No dice
Gameplay
[*]The attacker has 4 people defender has 2 4-2=2 he gets two armies too advance

Specifics/Details:

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

More people will play games
Complaints about dice\die will not happen

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:47 pm

tonbomorphew wrote:On the start a game and game finder boxes there will be:
Dice: Regular - No dice
Gameplay
*The attacker has 4 people defender has 2 4-2=2 he gets two armies too advance
Specifics/Details:
xxxxxxx
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
xxxxxxx

Since there is clearly no benefit at all to the site, I move that this suggestion be trashed.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:48 pm

This has been suggested before. This would create a ton of stalemate games. Technically, No game on Circus Maximus that is 1v1 would ever end, unless someone deadbeated.

by **jrh_cardinal** on Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:14 pm

then the only way you would gain an advantage is the drop. There's no way to gain an advantage if both people play correctly beyond what you get on the drop

by **Queen_Herpes** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:11 am

jrh_cardinal wrote:then the only way you would gain an advantage is the drop. There's no way to gain an advantage if both people play correctly beyond what you get on the drop

Perhaps he is also suggesting that there should be no drop, then there will be no complaints about the drop.

by **Army of GOD** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:28 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:
jrh_cardinal wrote:then the only way you would gain an advantage is the drop. There's no way to gain an advantage if both people play correctly beyond what you get on the drop

Perhaps he is also suggesting that there should be no drop, then there will be no complaints about the drop.

But then they'd complain about human error.

How about: no dice, no drop game played by super-computers?

by **Queen_Herpes** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:39 am

Army of GOD wrote:
Queen_Herpes wrote:
jrh_cardinal wrote:then the only way you would gain an advantage is the drop. There's no way to gain an advantage if both people play correctly beyond what you get on the drop

Perhaps he is also suggesting that there should be no drop, then there will be no complaints about the drop.

But then they'd complain about human error.

How about: no dice, no drop game played by super-computers?

I get to go first!!!!

by **Army of GOD** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:43 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Queen_Herpes wrote:
jrh_cardinal wrote:then the only way you would gain an advantage is the drop. There's no way to gain an advantage if both people play correctly beyond what you get on the drop

Perhaps he is also suggesting that there should be no drop, then there will be no complaints about the drop.

But then they'd complain about human error.

How about: no dice, no drop game played by super-computers?

I get to go first!!!!

Freestyle, no spoils, btw.

by **bedub1** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:17 am

If you play poorly you loose...if you play properly you win? the "randomness" of the dice no longer have an affect on the outcome of the game?

by **jrh_cardinal** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 am

bedub1 wrote:If you play poorly you loose...if you play properly you win? the "randomness" of the dice no longer have an affect on the outcome of the game?

and if both people play properly...the person with the first turn wins?

that's totally fairer than dice

by **tonbomorphew** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:12 pm

WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT!

by **the.killing.44** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:14 pm

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095

Great suggestion, better fleshed-out by Fruitcake.

by **Queen_Herpes** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:16 pm

I like it, seems like it would be a fun option. Well-written suggestion.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:19 pm

tonbomorphew wrote:WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT!

Try reading what we said.

Anyways, merging this with the other thread.

by **tonbomorphew** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:23 pm

.....

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 pm

Actually, not yours, Fruitcake came up with it about 2 years ago.

by **yeti_c** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:02 pm

Really surprised as to why this hasn't been fasttracked.

C.

by **Woodruff** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:56 pm

tonbomorphew wrote:My Idea!
*hugs*

No.

by **Queen_Herpes** on Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:48 pm

Woodruff wrote:
tonbomorphew wrote:My Idea!
*hugs*

No.

But you like the idea, right Woody?

by **Woodruff** on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:33 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tonbomorphew wrote:My Idea!
*hugs*

No.

But you like the idea, right Woody?

Honestly? I think it's a really dumb idea that hasn't been thought through well at all.

That said, I have always said that I believe that having more options is a good thing. But dumb.

by **the.killing.44** on Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:05 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Queen_Herpes wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tonbomorphew wrote:My Idea!
*hugs*

No.

But you like the idea, right Woody?

Honestly? I think it's a really dumb idea that hasn't been thought through well at all.

lol

Please explain.

by **Army of GOD** on Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:52 am

Instead of another randomizing factor, you're basing games on drop and who goes first.

No.

by **rdsrds2120** on Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:53 am

This is 60/40? Garsh. Well, let's say that this were an option games. Why would we want to change the assault buttons for only those games (because we would), and how many games do you think would eventually come down to something that looks like the near end of a nukes game where every territory instead became a random 'player' one instead of neutral? It just doesn't seem to have enough practical benefits for the game and site itself to be worth the work that would have to be done to implement this setting.