more war realistic and fair?
  • 112 posts
  • Page 8 of 8
Matty wrote:
Not sure about the ascending cards - that's like increasing but then +1 instead of +5 every new set?

The attendence score restriction (or restrictions based on the others: chat and fairplay scores) would be a nice feature I guess, also for non-team games. How do others think about this?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
aeronautic wrote:
I believe that if, whether or not you could be invited to a game, depends on your fair play, chat & attendance scores, this would cause players to clean up their act and would probably make a distinctive gap between serious players and "couldn't care less" players.

There are no excuses for 2 of the reputation scores, if players are guilty of either, then they can simply change their attitude for the better and become reputable or carry on and get left by the wayside.

Attendance is a fickle creature, in some parts of the world, particularly in the UK, Internet is not government backed nor fibre to the doorstep and is mostly a monopoly with 1 very unreliable company, prone to constant maintenance shut-downs without warning.
I would call the help line on no less than 20 occasions every year and I used to get booted from live games a lot (even when winning... AAAAAH!), this was before the reputation scores, but if I played regular now, I would probably be on <90.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Hoodlum wrote:
@matty, yup +1 starting from 4/5/6/7/8 rather than 4,8,12,15,20 etc.
Matty wrote:
I know that Cireon is against more options, not sure what a game with this card setting would look like. Probably quite a lot like a fixed card game right?


(Reason: more options make things really unclear. More really good options is fun of course, but adding more and more somehow ok-ish options is a really bad thing).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Hoodlum wrote:
yeah, i would only recommend it as a setting for team games only or 1v1 because it requires aggressive gameplay, similar to capped games. i could live without it myself. team games with these settings are played similarly as they are now played with normal increasing cards, except it wouldn't be predictably over by a certain trade time, you can cross your fingers still for your opponent to have bad dice and with skilled teams have an epic game. plus, i think i could convert more of my old 2v2 buddies over here who still actively play this setting :)
BETA wrote:
Even if it is uncontrollable, low attendance affects other players.
So, while it might not be a result of carelessness or disrespect, it still reflects the likelihood of a player missing turns.
SO, regardless of WHY the turn is missed, other players should have the option to not play with such players.

And Hoodlum is pointing out that the effect of attendance on other players is leveraged in a team game.
Matty wrote:
@Beta: it might however mean that your attendence score is of no problem for Long Term games, only for Live games.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria