|
Post by nails on Dec 16, 2015 9:12:42 GMT
Got any ideas for future campaigns, anything you feel isn't working in the current campaign, post them here.
|
|
|
Post by nails on Dec 30, 2015 18:55:40 GMT
With the second campaign nearing the end, please post any views on how it went, what worked and didnt work, and any ideas you have for the next campaign.
One obvious question being was the campaign too short / long?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2015 22:35:57 GMT
I do love suggesting things, so here it goes. 1st off, definitely make the campaign longer; If you look at the current map there are quite a few low wyrdstone areas that nobody has touched. It just doesn't make sense to march in to these territories and claim the smaller yields with the campaign's end approaching so fast. We don't see much anyone fighting players other than the two on each flank, because they would have to take territory that is essentially useless late in the campaign. If the campaign is longer the immediacy of need for high yield territories would decrease. Warbands would have time to plan a few moves ahead and eventually fight more than a 2 or 3 other players in the same area. Case in point; I think most of us saw at week 5 or so that Warecaster was going to win. I seriously considered moving east to oppose him, but I would have had to move through 2 wyrdstone poor territories before reaching him and by that time it would be far too late. When I arrived the most I could have done was have set Warecaster back a bit, but I would have fallen too far behind myself to have any hope of winning the campaign. plus, the campaign just felt really short imo I say we try 150 points to win at the least. Secondly, a hypothetical: So 2 warbands launch into one of your territories, both intent on killing you and taking your stuff. If we were operating on common sense, you would be thinking "Oh crap I gotta fight off two of em!". Under the current rules, at worst its the same as being attacked by one warband. If you're lucky the two aggressors will beat each other up and you get to mop up the weakened winner. I propose we let 2 warbands attacking an occupied area allow for an attacking advantage, the same way setting an ambush allows for a defensive advantage. So, if two players attack a third on the same turn, they can decide to collaborate in beating the 3rd player. If they do collaborate they attack the 3rd guy one at a time, and get to decide the map, deployment, wandering monsters, etc. Which attacker goes first would be determine by a coin toss (I guess?). If the first attack defeats the defender, he and the other attacker fight on normal terms. If 2 players are collaborating to take an area, they should either be immune to an ambush set in that area. (Alternative ideas to that are welcome) This mechanic would represent the defender having to divide his attentions because he is fighting a battle on two fronts. It would also encourage alliances between players, which were not useful enough to bother with under the current rules. Hopefully with a rule like this, if one player is leading by a huge margin (*cough*warecaster*coughcough* ), or has a stronger warband than his opponents, the other players will have a chance at taking him down. Criticism is encouraged
|
|
|
Post by ark667 on Jan 1, 2016 15:54:56 GMT
i agree with knockoff on the ability to not be forced to fight an ally when moved into same area.
i would like to see the monster setting in control of the admin.maybe at the start of campaign the admin select various squares to either have random or specific monster, or no monsters.once the games are anncouned the contents of that square are revealed. to a similer note i would like more variety to the stages,i think all of my matches were played in the merchant or noble quator,(i realise i have not progressed very far on the map) i dont mind the more select locations to be duplicated to different tiles.)
i would also like the campaign to go on longer.to be able to develop the gang more and to have more competition for rescources,
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jan 2, 2016 0:06:49 GMT
if points are totaled as they are now then we need 200+ (i like 350 personally maybe more)
maybe monster on maps that have the most WS (not set to random but a demon of a different type on each selected at start of campain) yeah i also think the attackers should each fight the defender first and if both attackers win then they get the option for one to pull back (no fight) both pull back (make area neutral) or fight it out and winner gets it
side note i also think we should get the option to "come to the aid of a player" how this is done is i use my attack move to go into an allies map (i dont attack my team mate) if no attacker invades no fight and i move back out, if an attacker invades he has to fight us both to get the map, If my team mate lose and i win (in defense of his map) I then have 2 options give the map back to him or fight him in a double cross (or we dont get this option and must give map to the guy you came to help) I also think if that is to be used the friend/ alliance must be publicly know before hand (if using double cross option and that once you double cross you cant have an alliance with that player again) and you can only use the come to their aid once you have this public alliance
And Ark yeah you needed to go to the top WS places to get the other maps
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jan 2, 2016 0:18:37 GMT
oh and if 2 attack same guy and he had an ambush the defender should get to use it on one but not the second knockoff you suggest because he has had to slit his force he cant use at all, but i think as he has had it set he can use one one (first to attack) but not have time to set for the second) as the attackers are working together they can work out who is the first to kick in the door if they cant then admin coin toss
|
|
|
Post by nails on Jan 4, 2016 9:05:36 GMT
sone good ideas. one query is who would give up their chance to capture an area by going to defend an ally who may noy even get attacked?
do ppl like starting with one area or is dividing them up randomly at the start a better idea, so you aren't just fighting you 2 neighbors for most of the campaign
|
|
|
Post by Coach TS on Jan 5, 2016 16:21:53 GMT
I feel the starting point location really limits the people u can play against and u feel helpless when u can't attck the leading WB. What I would suggest is we keep the same starting points but u can move to any map location u choose. However, if u have to move through an area that is owned by another warband. There are a number of things that can happen
1- if there is an alliance between the two nothing happens unless the WB that owns said area wants to break the alliance and attack.
2- if there is no alliance there is a chance the WB can sneak by unnoticed
3- the WB that controls the location spots the WB sneaking by and can attack them (ambush) or just ignore them.
Now there is a lot we can add or take away from this but wanted to get the leagues thoughts.
As for making the league longer just limit to one cluster and maybe 2 large stone locations all the rest would be small. This would make even the small locations relevant.
|
|
|
Post by nails on Jan 6, 2016 8:34:29 GMT
interesting idea, moving anywhere would get round the just fighting your neighbours problem, I think ud need to specify which areas ur moving through, and maybe limit it to 2 or 3 moves.
limiting the number of high yeilds would just move all the fights to a couple of areas, increasing the limit should be fine. we could add same areas where if you control all of them, then you get a bonus.
I also think once attacks are known either wb can retreat avoiding the fight
|
|
|
Post by Coach TS on Jan 6, 2016 16:04:42 GMT
Well I like the idea when 2 warbands attack the same location. This will make it harder for one warband to hold all the prime locations.
As for moving 2-3 zones per turn would be fine and yes u would have to identify the route. For instance 31 to 32 end in 33.
But I would still only allow one defend and one attck per warband per turn.
|
|
|
Post by hdawg on Jan 8, 2016 21:52:13 GMT
Could attach a cost to a move like that too possibly. Like using 1 wyrdstone allows your WB to move up to 3 zones away spending 2 lets you move up to 6 and spending 3 lets you move to any other zone. It'd certainly help with the duration of the game too if people found the last rounds too short as you'd have something strategic to spend your victory points on. Also limits people overusing it vs attacking an adjacent zone.
|
|
|
Post by nails on Jan 9, 2016 0:02:34 GMT
Could attach a cost to a move like that too possibly. Like using 1 wyrdstone allows your WB to move up to 3 zones away spending 2 lets you move up to 6 and spending 3 lets you move to any other zone. It'd certainly help with the duration of the game too if people found the last rounds too short as you'd have something strategic to spend your victory points on. Also limits people overusing it vs attacking an adjacent zone. good idea
|
|