.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)
-   -   Evermore - MegaGame - Winner: AdmiralZhao! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=35902)

Zaramis August 30th, 2007 01:09 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Strongly agree with Gandalf.

Multiple winning conditions would be nice for a game this big, where we can actually take our time and plan for the extremely long run http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif At least with the right peaceful neighbors.

llamabeast August 30th, 2007 08:30 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Szumo, that map editor looks awesome! You should make a thread on the maps/mods forum section.

Some kind of well defined victory conditions/turn limit sounds sensible to me. If it goes on too long people will drift away, and then its somewhat ruined for remaining players. To me the early turns of a game - 0-75 perhaps - are the most fun. 125 should be plenty. However, I won't be playing, so you should probably disregard this opinion!

Jazzepi August 30th, 2007 08:34 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Personally Ive always liked multiple winning conditions for a game like this. The way that some other games allow. Something like

A) xxx number of Provinces
B) xx of Forts
C) xxxxx Income
D) xxxxx Gem Income
E) xxxxxx Research
F) xxxx Dominion
G) xxxxx Army Size
H) xx Victory Points
I) xx ownership of uniques
J) casting a particularly difficult to reach/hold global

Also maybe something like "no winner for the first 100 turns" and "must fill 4 of the above conditions".

I like that a game setting like that can open the door for many strategies including turtling, or rush-research. And making an unexpected grouping of lesser conditions to slip by others expectations.

Gandalf Parker

I'm definitely not playing in a game like this.

Jazzepi

Wikd Thots August 30th, 2007 08:46 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Yeah. Crap if we have a game like that then we can't have all the discussions and betting early about who will win. No one would be able to say ahead of time who is strong or not. Leave it just "my army can beat your army" until only one is left standing. So those with more experience will know where they rate. It doesn't matter if a game this big can never finish a game that way. Because that's the way the game is supposed to be played.

Zaramis August 30th, 2007 08:54 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Yeah, it would suck to have actual strategy in Dominions. Damn, who came up with that stupid idea.

BigDisAwesome August 30th, 2007 09:04 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
In a game that is basically ALL strategy, I'd have to agree with Wikd Thots.

Image a small nation with NAP's to all it's neighbors. It is free to spam forts, research, and cheap units. And if it played it's cards right it could win the race to the uniques.
All of a sudden a nobody non important nation just won the game.

llamabeast August 30th, 2007 09:09 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Velusion's own suggestion sounded very sensible to me.

Velusion August 30th, 2007 09:15 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
I've always looked at all those other attributes (army size, research, forts, etc...) as just tools to help you take over the world (ala provinces).

Salamander8 August 30th, 2007 09:45 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
Perp has been such a blast I'd love to play in another of these games. Looking forward to see how it pans out once it is closer to finalization.

Baalz August 30th, 2007 10:31 PM

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 
That map looks awesome Szumo! Perfect for a mega game!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.