A change to the Assassin gametype [To-do]

[maniacmath17]

Currently if someone kills a target that isn't theirs, the person who has that target wins.

Instead, how about if someone kills a target that isn't theirs, the person who's target just got killed, now has that dead target's target. It's the same rule as when a player deadbeats in an assassin game, just now applied also to when a player takes out a target that isn't theirs.

Why it is needed:

It would greatly increase the level of skill and thought needed to win an assassin game. With the current system, all you really need to do is starting with round 1, seek out your target and just keep attacking them till they are dead. With escalating cards, players simply try to kill their target with every cash, knowing even if they come up short, they are still getting closer to their goal.

With the new rule, that mindless strategy of just going at your target will be much less successful. Players who use a big cash to bring their target's troop count to almost nothing will have to watch as another player kills off that target and uses the cards to help in killing his or her own target.

Priority: 5

[dominationnation]

I like it but there is a problem. The only assisan games that I ever win are the ones where some n00b that didnt know what assisan was eliminate my target. ONly one I ever won

[maniacmath17]

I like it but there is a problem. The only assisan games that I ever win are the ones where some n00b that didnt know what assisan was eliminate my target. ONly one I ever won

True.. but how much skill does it take to have someone else kill your target for you?

[dominationnation]

I like it but there is a problem. The only assisan games that I ever win are the ones where some n00b that didnt know what assisan was eliminate my target. ONly one I ever won

True.. but how much skill does it take to have someone else kill your target for you?

but this way I look like I have skill

[andreweberman]

Currently if someone kills a target that isn't theirs, the person who has that target wins.

Instead, how about if someone kills a target that isn't theirs, the person who's target just got killed, now has that dead target's target. It's the same rule as when a player deadbeats in an assassin game, just now applied also to when a player takes out a target that isn't theirs.

Why it is needed:

It would greatly increase the level of skill and thought needed to win an assassin game. With the current system, all you really need to do is starting with round 1, seek out your target and just keep attacking them till they are dead. With escalating cards, players simply try to kill their target with every cash, knowing even if they come up short, they are still getting closer to their goal.

With the new rule, that mindless strategy of just going at your target will be much less successful. Players who use a big cash to bring their target's troop count to almost nothing will have to watch as another player kills off that target and uses the cards to help in killing his or her own target.

Priority: 5

Wouldn't that make a person the target of two others, your original killer and now the new one?

[AK_iceman]

Andrew, think of it the same way as the Assassin deadbeats work.

Maniac, I think it's an interesting idea but I'm not really sure if I like it. I think you're right about how people just chase their opponent around the map, and the majority of games really have no strategy involved. But I think if this were to be implemented that Assassin games would become too similar to Standard games where people would just kill others for cards and use the domino effect to kill their target.

I would like to see Assassin strategies posted somewhere (if they aren't already) so people start blocking and faking others to make it into a more strategic game type.

[andreweberman]

Andrew, think of it the same way as the Assassin deadbeats work.

Maniac, I think it's an interesting idea but I'm not really sure if I like it. I think you're right about how people just chase their opponent around the map, and the majority of games really have no strategy involved. But I think if this were to be implemented that Assassin games would become too similar to Standard games where people would just kill others for cards and use the domino effect to kill their target.

I would like to see Assassin strategies posted somewhere (if they aren't already) so people start blocking and faking others to make it into a more strategic game type.

your right, I read that wrong. Still don't like the idea though

[maniacmath17]

Maniac, I think it's an interesting idea but I'm not really sure if I like it. I think you're right about how people just chase their opponent around the map, and the majority of games really have no strategy involved. But I think if this were to be implemented that Assassin games would become too similar to Standard games where people would just kill others for cards and use the domino effect to kill their target.

I would like to see Assassin strategies posted somewhere (if they aren't already) so people start blocking and faking others to make it into a more strategic game type.

It's true that there may be some escalating games in which players can just eliminate others and use the domino effect till they reach their target, but it won't happen nearly as often as you'd think.

Players would be a lot less likely to try eliminations since coming up short would mean having to start all over next turn knowing their target will be taken out. And the idea of blocking would be more apparent in these games, since people would hate to see the target that they had been setting up to kill the whole game get taken out, which would result in fewer games where there are chains of cashes.

Also, don't forget how this would really make the no cards and flat rate games much more interesting, since players would want to wait till just the right time to hit their target, leaving much more mystery as to who everyone's target is.

[AK_iceman]

Hmm... good points.

But the thing I disagree with is that by definition an assassin kills their target only. Colateral damages shouldn't benefit them, it should penalize them somehow. When you kill someone elses target you should not receive their cards, as punishment for killing someone other than your target. Then you will still be hindering another player, but you won't benefit from it except for the extra territories you took over.

[maniacmath17]

Well I hope the name of the gametype isn't what is swaying your opinion on the matter. Essentially, assassin is mission risk except the only mission is to kill a certain color. And in the rules, every single version of risk since it first came out (with the exception of 1 version) has the rule that if your target is killed, the person who had the target gets a new mission. The reasoning of course is that this helps keep the mission a secret, which I think would definitely make the games more interesting.

[RobinJ]

I like this idea (it would mean we could follow through gibbom's idea of an assassin Battle Royale! ) but it has one major flaw: you could end up being your own target, which would cause all sorts of problems

[maniacmath17]

There must be a way around that. It's similar to the following situation with the current system:

Lets say your target deadbeats, so then you are given the deadbeats target. Now if the new target has you for their target, and that person deadbeats, what happens?

[AK_iceman]

Hmmm... is that even possible? I think I remember Lack explaining how assassin was set up, and that particular scenario isn't even possible.

But back on topic, Assassin is similar to mission risk, but not the same. The suggestion you're proposing would make it the same as mission risk, which I believe Mission Cards are on the to-do list already. Sooo... I think Assassin is fine the way it is, since we'll eventually have both.

But good suggestion maniac!

[Forza AZ]

There must be a way around that. It's similar to the following situation with the current system:

Lets say your target deadbeats, so then you are given the deadbeats target. Now if the new target has you for their target, and that person deadbeats, what happens?

Assinsin games are indeed set-up that the targets are in a circle (so player 1 has player 2 as target, player 2 has player 3 as target, ..., last player has player 1 as target), so the only case in which you can get the above is in a 3 player game, but in that case you will already have won, because you are the only player left.

[maniacmath17]

AK, mission risk isn't on the to do list, so i really think the best thing we can do is make assassin as good as possible, which I believe would require this change. Why have this current rule when almost every single version of risk has had the suggested rule?

As for the whole having yourself as a target thing, it wouldn't happen since the targets are in fact in a chain. That also means it wouldn't be possible to have yourself as your own target by implementing this suggestion.

[AndyDufresne]

'Mission Risk' itself is not on the to-do list, but with new XML changes, maps can be created that have 'Objectives'.


--Andy

[AK_iceman]

If you look in the Pending section for Gameplay, Mission Cards Option is on there.

[maniacmath17]

true.. but if you look at the thread for mission cards, you'd notice its been pending for over 14 months now

If the argument against it is that it would be similar to a gametype that hasn't even been created yet then l say we just make it happen and worry about having two similar gametypes if (and thats a big if) the other type ever gets made.

[maniacmath17]

the votes don't lie! lets make it happen.

[lackattack]

Mission Cards are now Rejected.

I think we should go ahead with this too. It would solve the problem of noobs ending the game prematurely when they take out someone else's target.

[maniacmath17]

Thanks lack. Seems like not many assassin games have been getting created lately, and I think this new rule can really help that.

[gold trigger]

thi is awesome would love to see this done

[treefiddy]

I like this suggestion a lot. Glad to see Lack's behind it.

[Fircoal]

I thought up this same idea, because but never posted it.

I'd really want this to happen.

[maniacmath17]

just wondering if we can get a status update on this... lack was on board with it but it's not on the to-do list?