TimmerB123 wrote:
I figure I should chime in on this, since my playstyle is being discussed.
I hate not playing to the complete death of 1 team. If anyone doubts this - ask Deri how many times we have "played out" games after the 1 hour mark. I hate time limits as it is, and I still dream of a no time-limit tournament (I may still try and and run one at some point on Vassal.)
Vouched for.
I know you would rather play them out.
Quote:
But as the game is right now - this is the strongest completely legal strategy (I have found) to win games. At the highly competitive level - the point is to win. Bill and Aaron and Deri and most other high level competitors agree on this point.
The game has gotten to the point where if you position one piece badly - you'll likely lose them. And I don't mean low HP pieces like Lobot or Princess Liea - I mean you could easily lose Mara Jade Jedi or the Snowspeeder in one phase. Caution is the way you HAVE to go now, due to high power output. Force the OTHER GUY to make that one mistake and capitalize.
So - what is the solution? I don't know. But I just wanted to be clear that my "playstyle" is a direct result of what the game has become.
Yeah, i'm not critisizing you, lobo or anyone for this strat. I used it in Racine extensively. The game is what it is. Any legal strategy is valid regardless of how the opponent feels when he is on the recieving end of it.
My belief is that where the game is now extends directly from the power of Override. When we 1st played back in rebel storm we actually nerfed override so that neither would abuse it.
My last 150 tourney game was won because i abused the heck out of it.
Gambit was brought in to combat the lock wins in tourneys and so center games are an indirect result of this game mechanic.
I don't want override nerfed but the game should force action, REWARD action. At the moment it rewards high activation gambit getting in the majority of squads because the opponent has to "charge the trenches" once a points lead is lost. Its one of the reasons the OR, vong, mandos and Sith can't really compete.
If the scoring zone was out of reach for both teams what would the game become?
Quote:
Boris said
3. Warbands have size limits, 8 or 10 depending on which version of the game being played. It may have even been as many as 12 characters at one point.
4. The maps - there was basically "warband A" and "warband B." Each warband had a specific set-up area (not 4 squares from the edge, either), and specific victory areas. In some cases, the victory area was the same spot, but there was always more than one. And you only scored points if you were the only player with a figure in your victory zone. Otherwise it was considered "contested." What this pushed the game toward - as I played it, at least - was to field a band of mostly melee characters, a wizard with unlimited "grip" damage, and a couple of back-up pieces that could make ranged attacks. I would set the character that didn't need to benefit from a commander effect as much in an enemy victory zone to defend, and use the rest of the band for offense. I never played a DDM tournament so I can't say how solid my strategy would be in a more competitive setting. Additionally, most maps had features that changed how the game was played. Some maps had areas that gave attack and armor class (defense in SWM terms) bonuses, and then there was the unique "teleport" map, with teleport artwork drawn onto certain squares of the map allowing characters to move from one area to another via these teleporters. It was probably my favorite map to play on.
well these are the most interesting points to me.
Limiting activations would certainly put people on an even footing although it would require some clarification regarding reserves and reinforcements, but it would certainly weaken gambit getting to a certain degree. However, it still leaves the tempo control pieces in control of the action and the center and that means a similar situation to what we have now.
The Maps are obviously an important aspect, hence the reason Dean started the topic. Its the most aspect accesible to us, the players, for changing.
i kind of like the scoring being nullified if both teams have a figure in there. This would prevent scores increasing everyround to a degree and would put a slightly larger focus on having to defeat something. But there is nothing stopping that strategy.
The game is so developed at the moment that quick fixes arn't an option. Also, without knowing where the game is going its hard to suggest alternative ideas.