|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 8:55:12 GMT -5
As few banned things as possible are best, imo.
The things I did ban are either because they are broken, or because they create an imbalance between the two sides (e.g. evil starts with a troll on minas tirith and good doesn't, most heroes are imbalanced, etc.)
Don't presume that my rules are so poorly thought out as you are trying to imply.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Feb 21, 2010 9:06:58 GMT -5
Also, none of these are banned.
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Feb 21, 2010 9:13:29 GMT -5
"or because they create an imbalance between the two sides" by having no mage cap creating an imbalance between the two sides? There are 4 Classes, this is not Magequest.
And I never presumed that any of your rules were so poorly thought out, they are valid & have been adopted for the most part in Clan battles, & I think (possibly assuming, & I apologies in advance) that at one time you had a mage cap?
By not having a mage cap, I believe that having a good ol fashioned battle that is hard fought by both sides where strategy and tenacity and heroics will seize the day. Not firewalls and lightning zaps by hordes of mage harems. Where is the honour or fun in that? It will only result in bitter resentment for the 'losing' clan who sought a battle worth fighting for.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 9:19:26 GMT -5
Both sides can use an equal number of mages. It's not a broken strategy. That's all the criteria that matter when determining whether or not to ban something.
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Feb 21, 2010 9:26:52 GMT -5
didn't say its a broken strategy.
Actually not' really all the criteria that does matter in determining whether or not to ban something.'
It's a good thing you are not in charge of the Olympic Drug Testing, the Geneva Convention, or the Marquess of Queensbury Rules (just to name a few). The ends do not always justifies the means.
|
|
|
Post by Crusader_878 on Feb 21, 2010 11:00:52 GMT -5
Both sides can use an equal number of mages. It's not a broken strategy. That's all the criteria that matter when determining whether or not to ban something. I agree with BM. Both sides can pick as many mages (up to 8) as they want. For example: I used my warrior in this last clan battle, but the spartans/LeGlon at one point had so many mages that I had no choice but to switch to mage. There were so many firewalls that my warrior couldn't move for crying out loud! lol.
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Feb 21, 2010 11:11:56 GMT -5
all that will result is everyone going mage, and that's not much fun Hey how about an 8 vs 8 mage battle then? HTDM in the Shire Gandalfs vs Sarumans?
|
|
|
Post by viking56 on Feb 21, 2010 12:43:23 GMT -5
would it be fair if both clans voted on a mage limit before they had a fight? tho it might be 8 to 8 vote, i think 4 mages is plenty to play most modes
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 12:48:20 GMT -5
no it would not be fair. In a tournament everyone has to follow the same rules precisely to ensure fairness for all participants.
|
|
|
Post by chewie02 on Feb 21, 2010 13:13:26 GMT -5
no it would not be fair. In a tournament everyone has to follow the same rules precisely to ensure fairness for all participants. Could you elaborate on the fairness of it? If it's decided upon by the two teams, how does it become unfair to the other teams competing? It doesn't impact the other rounds, and doesn't seem unfair to me.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 13:24:04 GMT -5
Because if you're not playing with the same ruleset then you have people playing different games, essentially.
You want the same playing field for every team. That's why things are standardized in sports. You have 10 foot high and an 18 inch rim on all official basketball courts. Every football field is 100 yards. And in any given sports league the rules are uniform; you don't have teams negotiating rules before every game.
|
|
|
Post by chewie02 on Feb 21, 2010 13:45:25 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, but just for the sake of argument, based on what you said, wouldn't we have to play the same levels,and use the same number of each class to get the most even playing field?-I'm not saying i want to do this, i'm just enjoying the debate of it.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 13:49:51 GMT -5
everyone has the same pool of playable maps. Although you are right that different permutations will occur.
However, what you're suggesting with mages is closer to saying that if two clans agree then they should be allowed to play banned stages.
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Feb 21, 2010 13:53:34 GMT -5
so how is having a no mage limit fair? If per say Clan A starts with 3 mages, Clan B starts with 4, then the Clan A is like well hey they have 4!!! So they'll counteract with adding 2 more! Clan B is like WTF?!! Adds two and raises another mage. In the end there will be in all likelihood 6 to 8 mages on each side. Now I realize that eventually having the equal amount of mages can be fair, but until that number is reached there is a lot of game play & will be uneven. The game can be won or lost in that time. Or Clan A and Clan B start off with the same amount of mages, Clan B is losing so they all switch to mages, Clan A is feeling confident because they have a substantial lead and stay with the same number of mages. (Now its a combination of failure to adapt your strategy to fit the situation, and probably stubborn or 'honourable' determination to not Madge spam, and can cost you the game). It just seems that a heck of a lot of chaos will be the result by not having a mage cap in the first place.
'Because if you're not playing with the same ruleset then you have people playing different games, essentially."
Having the same number of mages established in the rules is having the same playing field, and keeping the game uniform.
As well to prevent home court advantage then the battles should be fought in the same map but played again with good & evil to switch.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Feb 21, 2010 14:02:52 GMT -5
you're operating under the assumption that more mages gives you an advantage. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I would never field a team with more than 4 mages personally, and not because I think mages are cheap, but because I think more than 4 mages makes your team weaker. And if the other team wants to opt for a weaker team then that's fine with me.
It's like positions in basketball. Sure, having big men is a valuable asset. Many of the great teams throughout nba history have had great players at the pivot. But you don't see any team playing 5 6-11 to 7-2 centers next to each other. And then you do have teams which choose to play with nontraditional lineups (usually going small). And that's their choice too. All that stays the same is that there are 5 players on the court.
|
|