Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xanmyral]

Perhaps, but that would of brought into question if you could of killed him quick enough. If you couldn't, GWG would of won even though he may or may not of been dead, due to point totals, after looking at the rules again. If the game went on for two more rounds, he would of won due to points regardless of his living status.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Another suggestion: Killing half the arena and dying to a lucky shot shouldn't put you out of the running. Maybe have a score penalty for dying. Also give the killing player a portion of the victim's points, say 10-25% of them, on top of a flat number; killing a kogan with several kills should be more momentous than killing a random horse. Perhaps the score penalties for death could also be based on the score of the killer, more if the kill err was dozens of points behind but less if you're just another in a series of murders by an awesome player.

I see your point, but I specifically like the way it is. I find there's some sort of twisted, ironic beauty in a character on a kill-streak getting killed randomly. The player has to choose either an offensive or defensive strategy, or something in the middle. In this case, defense worked. Besides strategy, I think the other thing to be factored in this game is the gambling aspect: Is it worth going for something and risking getting hurt, or not getting it and risking falling behind in the end?

It would be, if the answer wasn't obvious: Hide and hope to be the last killed. Let the others kill each other and hope you prevail when it's down to you and one or two others.
That's not fun, if everyone does it, and not doing it puts you at a disadvantage.

Isn't that exactly what Ryan did?

Precisely. He took the boring route "nobody" would because "it's not fun to hide," and thus won in the end.

-snip-
But the whole thing with that is, if everyone does it, one person will just pop out and slowly go about killing someone. PLUS, this is all a game of luck. And BECAUSE it's not fun to hide, nobody will do it. The object of this arena game isn't to kill everyone, it's just to have fun and try to survive. If you don't, oh well, there's always next time.

1. You assume too much. To have fun, someone needs to risk being killed early by going on an offensive streak. It's not a lot more fun if you're the attacker, so there's not that much incentive to do so.
2. If the objective isn't to kill everyone, why are points given for killing? For that matter, if when A (who has killed half the competitors) gets killed by B, who hasn't killed anyone, his points are rendered moot; what is the point of points?

My biggest complaint is that the sort of "strategy" implied earlier wasn't actually promoted. There was one "alliance," and the winner took the boring strategy because he was ignorable while the others weren't. Anyways, if the best of the characters get NO recognition after death, I know what my strategy next round will be...

[GreatWyrmGold]

I worked out the odds, GWG was the worst enemy for me with his flight and range, if I pull through with a little more health, superblast would of be easy picking. The dices roll against me.

That was roughly my logic as well.

[superBlast]

What do you mean i took the boring route? Winning is fun so that means I automatically had fun. Well I was having fun just trying to survive and try not being a person's target... plus I was on the defensive since I lose points for even killing people and I was hoping for lots of point opportunities... and points had very little to do with this game... so I did what I had to in the end to win.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Thank you for supporting my point.

TCM, you've got to ask yourself: Do you want to encourage 10-15 turns of everyone cowering before maybe a few turns of someone finally giving up and trying to kill someone, or do you want to make sure people have an incentive to kill people?

[Maxinum McDreich]

No, no, I see what TCM's after. Hiding IS a viable route. Until one person, who DIDN'T hide attacks and gets a kill. The moment that happens, the others have to kill him or he wins when the timer's done.

Ofcourse, with the random furry things ALSO providing points, it allows easy kills and forces others to react or lose. TCM wasn't going for a 'IMMEDIATEY BLOODBATH', though that is a regular occurence (), but rather, have tactics and timing play a part, or can do anyways. The points and the timer force you to fight, not necessarily to decide the winner.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem is, tactics aren't really being aided by not letting awesome dead guys have a shot at winning and having points affect the number of points gained by the killer and such; in fact, interestingtactics are being discouraged.

[Greenstarfanatic]

The points system is only to determine who would win IF the timer runs out.

If you're dead, you can't have been THAT awesome, otherwise you'd still be alive.

Tactics aren't exactly encouraged in these types of games, but are accepted nonetheless. Usually by a brutal murder for trying to make things more than just nonsensical slaughter.

Once again, it's like 'Who's line is it anyway?'. You win 10 points, and the points don't matter. Because everyone will die anyway.

[Xanmyral]

Lowering the turn count to ten instead of fifteen might make points more relevant, as it would be harder for everyone to kill everyone else, but still possible, thus points matter more.

[Greenstarfanatic]

Lowering the turn count to ten instead of fifteen might make points more relevant, as it would be harder for everyone to kill everyone else, but still possible, thus points matter more.

But that's the whole point! TCM probably doesn't WANT the points to matter as much! It's SUPPOSED to be a bloodbath EVENTUALLY!

[scapheap]

Lowering the turn count to ten instead of fifteen might make points more relevant, as it would be harder for everyone to kill everyone else, but still possible, thus points matter more.

But that's the whole point! TCM probably doesn't WANT the points to matter as much! It's SUPPOSED to be a bloodbath EVENTUALLY!

And the man speak the truth, listen to the man. you are a man right?

[GreatWyrmGold]

You don't need to be pathetic to die, just unlucky.

A person with a shield who  lost points  for dectly killing people won because he was lucky enough to kill the last other player. anwhile, a guy w acactually tried to kill other players, in a strategic manner (at first focusing on the low-HP ones, then when there weren't those left the ones with ranged weapons) lost completely due to unluckily being shot.

I'm nit asking for a complete revamp of the system, just some alterations--ones I would be willing to write up if desired.

[Greenstarfanatic]

Lowering the turn count to ten instead of fifteen might make points more relevant, as it would be harder for everyone to kill everyone else, but still possible, thus points matter more.

But that's the whole point! TCM probably doesn't WANT the points to matter as much! It's SUPPOSED to be a bloodbath EVENTUALLY!

And the man speak the truth, listen to the man. you are a man right?

Why yes, I am a guy.

You don't need to be pathetic to die, just unlucky.

A person with a shield who  lost points  for directly killing people won because he was lucky enough to kill the last other player. AND, while a guy who actually tried to kill other players, in a strategic manner (at first focusing on the low-HP ones, then when there weren't those left the ones with ranged weapons) lost completely due to unluckily being shot.

I'm not asking for a complete revamp of the system, just some alterations--ones I would be willing to write up if desired.

FTFY
Man, were you writing that on a cell phone? There are so many typos!
That and I completely disagree. TCM already said (s?)he would change some mechanics, but to his/her ideas.
PLUS, RTD is a luck-based game most of the time. If you are unlucky, then you'll lose often. Be unlucky enough, and you can lose in some spectacular ways. I've actually hoped to get bad rolls in some situations, just so if I DID die, I'd die in style.

[Xanmyral]

Lowering the turn count to ten instead of fifteen might make points more relevant, as it would be harder for everyone to kill everyone else, but still possible, thus points matter more.

But that's the whole point! TCM probably doesn't WANT the points to matter as much! It's SUPPOSED to be a bloodbath EVENTUALLY!

I'm just trying to offer some compromises. I personally think the system is fine as it is, just pitching ideas at the wall.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You don't need to be pathetic to die, just unlucky.

A person with a shield who  lost points  for directly killing people won because he was lucky enough to kill the last other player. AND, while a guy who actually tried to kill other players, in a strategic manner (at first focusing on the low-HP ones, then when there weren't those left the ones with ranged weapons) lost completely due to unluckily being shot.

I'm not asking for a complete revamp of the system, just some alterations--ones I would be willing to write up if desired.

FTFY
Man, were you writing that on a cell phone? There are so many typos!

Tablet, but it all comes down to the same issues.

That and I completely disagree. TCM already said (s?)he would change some mechanics, but to his/her ideas.
PLUS, RTD is a luck-based game most of the time. If you are unlucky, then you'll lose often. Be unlucky enough, and you can lose in some spectacular ways. I've actually hoped to get bad rolls in some situations, just so if I DID die, I'd die in style.

I'm just providing my ideas and offering my aid.
And how would luck be affected by such things as having notorious kills be worth more or letting people keep points after death?