|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 23, 2016 16:45:56 GMT
Two dices. Having to use TEN dices is quite frankly ridicoulous. you're right, the least I can roll is three Imagine rolling ten dices for one attack (shrugs) Ten dices for less OP ness < two/three dices with tight check and balance |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 23, 2016 16:46:00 GMT
A committee of players is biased, math is not nope, the GM will be unbiased as he has no side taken and we can add a few volunteers who can do this task (is they want to,that is) That sounds reasonable, as the GM should be above the Fray. I still think we should use Math |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 23, 2016 16:47:25 GMT
nope, the GM will be unbiased as he has no side taken and we can add a few volunteers who can do this task (is they want to,that is) That sounds reasonable, as the GM should be above the Fray. I still think we should use Math if math can help us then its good, but rolling a truckload of dices for accuracy of one attack is gonna make peeps run away from TWs (frankly) |
|
|
|
Post by Von Bismarck jr on Apr 23, 2016 16:47:46 GMT
Two dices. Having to use TEN dices is quite frankly ridicoulous. It's just 8 more buttons, and it allows for more accuracy. Its more accurate but it makes battles more time consuming. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 23, 2016 16:48:51 GMT
Two dices. Having to use TEN dices is quite frankly ridicoulous. It's just 8 more buttons, and it allows for more accuracy. Im not looking at it from the perspective of "Ugh, i'd have to push the dice button a whole 8 more times. Im too lazy to do that so i say no". That is not what I'm saying. While i didn't really make my point clear, here is my point: We already have an issue with trying to find posts in a TW that are like 20-30 pages back from the current page. If we make posts with 8 dices foe each battle, the pages would be ridiculously long and i feel as if some people wouldn't read through the whole page because it is so ridiculously long. Or (even worse) the pages would have less posts per each page, causing for even more pages to be created, thus adding onto the already exponential amount of pages to the regular TW, and thus making this issue even more apparent. Just the size of each person's turns are what bothers me. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 23, 2016 16:49:00 GMT
10 dice is a lot, I'll grant that.
2 dice and a formula is still a great improvement over what we have now
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 23, 2016 16:52:04 GMT
I also need to agree with Napoleon Bonaparte's points as well, A. Some people would probably want to leave the TW's if there are 8 dices needed for each battle. and B. The GM cannot even pick a country, let alone take a side, so they would be unbiased. And if they are biased, then shame on them because they'll make the TW less of a fun experience for everyone. Also, the GM should not be influenced by anyone who was biased towards one side such as last war. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 23, 2016 17:14:09 GMT
I also need to agree with Napoleon Bonaparte's points as well, A. Some people would probably want to leave the TW's if there are 8 dices needed for each battle. and B. The GM cannot even pick a country, let alone take a side, so they would be unbiased. And if they are biased, then shame on them because they'll make the TW less of a fun experience for everyone. Also, the GM should not be influenced by anyone who was biased towards one side such as last war. was I biased? Don't take this as offensive as I want to hear clearly from the person who introduced the concept here, as it'll make things open for improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 23, 2016 20:10:32 GMT
I also need to agree with Napoleon Bonaparte 's points as well, A. Some people would probably want to leave the TW's if there are 8 dices needed for each battle. and B. The GM cannot even pick a country, let alone take a side, so they would be unbiased. And if they are biased, then shame on them because they'll make the TW less of a fun experience for everyone. Also, the GM should not be influenced by anyone who was biased towards one side such as last war. was I biased? Don't take this as offensive as I want to hear clearly from the person who introduced the concept here, as it'll make things open for improvement. You weren't by yourself, but you were influenced way too much by someone who was biased (Talleyrand). As such, you made decisions that often favored NATO. That's why I included the bit at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 24, 2016 1:17:05 GMT
was I biased? Don't take this as offensive as I want to hear clearly from the person who introduced the concept here, as it'll make things open for improvement. You weren't by yourself, but you were influenced way too much by someone who was biased (Talleyrand). As such, you made decisions that often favored NATO. That's why I included the bit at the end. Personally I think we should extend that to forbidding whoever does the events and any other official assistant from running a country. And forbid any RP mod who is playing from using Mod powers in the TW without outside (GM/uninvolved Mod) approval |
|
|
|
Post by Von Bismarck jr on Apr 24, 2016 1:42:07 GMT
You weren't by yourself, but you were influenced way too much by someone who was biased (Talleyrand). As such, you made decisions that often favored NATO. That's why I included the bit at the end. Personally I think we should extend that to forbidding whoever does the events and any other official assistant from running a country. And forbid any RP mod who is playing from using Mod powers in the TW without outside (GM/uninvolved Mod) approval I approve of forbidding mod powers, but I'm kinda shaky about the GM thing. Some people I believe would be successfully unbiased as an assistant or GM while playing as a country, I try to be in wars. Plus, banning GMs and assistants would take out a chunk of our participants. I'm assuming official assistants includes map makers and maybe someone who makes the tech tree, if that person isn't already the GM. GM+chosen assistant(s)/mod(s) of war could be at least 2 people, 4 if mapmaker and tech-maker are included. And the GM should be able to enjoy his creation! |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 24, 2016 1:56:18 GMT
I agree with the maps and no assistants who are actively involved in the war. If no one will be your assistant who isn't in the war, then so be it. Neutral mappers are always good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Apr 24, 2016 3:23:48 GMT
NetherFreek's TW10 map was unbiased. Setup people can be involved, just not Events people or various kinds of enforcers
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 24, 2016 10:22:40 GMT
Von Bismarck jr, GM being actively involved is completely out of question in my opinion,
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Apr 24, 2016 10:43:10 GMT
Gm and event maker shouldnt pick a side
Mapmaker and techtree maker can pick a side (if gm agrees that the map isnt sided)
|
|
