Quote:
Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect
Sector's idea is the most appealing to me. It is also the least amount of work to implement. Risk does indeed have a method of play where you need not beat every faction into submission, but instead complete an objective which is half-way toward victory. It always ended a game before it got to that depressingly sad moment where the winner wanted to squash the last player who didn't have a chance.
I think it would be nice if every player was assigned 2 or 3 enemies. And victory was achieved by having your enemies eliminated. So long as everyone has a different enemy the game always remains interesting. For example:
In a four player game each player is given 2 enemies.
-Player 1 has 2 and 3
-Player 2 has 3 and 4
-Player 3 has 4 and 1
-Player 4 has 1 and 2
If player 1 is eliminated then player 3 and 4 only need one more opponent removed. This creates a dynamic game were people help other factions simple to buy the time they need to beat up another faction. If it so happens that two players need the same opponent to lose in order to win, then I suppose the one who kills him wins.
I think it would be more interesting then simply, "gang up on the scary guy".
|
That would have an incredibly awesome "free for all cage match" feel to it if it were a 12 player map, and each player had 3 rivals to eliminate. Especially, I am sure there is an equation that would show the mathematical distribution - but if no one had reverse applicable lists. That is, you are not trying to kill any of the people who have you as a target.
I'm strongly considering setting up such a game now, I think it would provide incredible hilarity and tension.