MP: VS League

[DakaSha]

how do people feel about mulligans for catastrophic events in the first couple turns? (lab fire, troglodyte attack, half population gone)

[WingedDog]

Random events could be set to rare at the beginning of the game.

[hEad]

As far as nation selection goes, you could employ a random choice sort of thing.

Each player puts in 3 nations they would like to play. Each player is then randomly assigned one of the nations from the pot. This way selecting the strong nation may backfire as the other player gets it instead.

Another possibility is the addition of a new nation. I've been mucking around modding a nation that has no recruitable troops at all but gains 7 of each gem type per turn. This way i have to build the mages i want from scratch through empowerment. I have also included in the mod an easy access gift of reason spell so the game is very much about summoned GoR'd thugs and indi armies and its great fun. It would be quite balanced for an MP outing and 1 v 1 would be vicious.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by DakaSha

how do people feel about mulligans for catastrophic events in the first couple turns? (lab fire, troglodyte attack, half population gone)

I think your 1-on-1 league sounds fun, but I'm not so interested in the whole competitive ladder idea. That's probably why the idea of mulligans makes me cringe.

@WingedDog: if you set random events to rare, there's really not much point in taking turmoil/luck scales, which are going to be pretty unlikely in 1-on-1 anyway, so you're cutting down on diversity.

[Executor]

I like the idea of 1vs1 league as well, don't really care if the wins get singed in or not doe.
This should be made a sticky.

[rdonj]

You know, if you're talking 1vs1 ladder games there's one mod that really springs to mind... Dr. P's Mirror Match. It has identical nations and would be pretty much perfect for a ladder scenario.

[quantum_mechani]

I think you guys are getting way too concerned over how 'fair' the matches are. Having people pick nations would mean lots of nations never used, rare events would screw over the strategy of any ballsy person who wanted luck or god forbid turmoil, and any standardized map is just boring after a game or two.

To some it up in a cliche, it's about the game not the winner. Baalz and I have played a bunch of fun duels with just random maps/random nations (though I do recommend the easy research).

[Executor]

The settings should really be left to the two players playing. I'm for random nations myself, however if people want to play Arco vs Marverni it's their choice.

As there is interest for 1vs1 games, I say a sticky be made for organizing such games, with some voluntary players admining (nation selection, and such).

Now what I think would be interesting, is a turnament.
For eg. 16 players sign up, and we play by knock out until there there are two players left for the finals.

[Raiel]

I worry a little about the "Only 1 Game at a time" restriction. While I do agree that there should probably be a limit, this would still result in major differences on the number of games played per player.

If this is to be competitive (as is intedended), then noobs are probably going to need more time in each turn to effectly analyze situations that most vets are going to be feflexively familiar with... any game with a new player will almost certainly go longer than a game between two vets.

Edit: I should have said that turns involving a new player will each take longer than those between experienced players.

[llamabeast]

1 game at a time is not much, being as they might easily last a month or two each.