General New Game Discussion

[Aristocatt]

Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

That being said. Meta should not stagnate at one or two sets. It also should not be as influential as it was in TAO.

[Achilles]

Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

[Aristocatt]

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

I agree with you, and I realize I am being a bit pedantic, but I do believe the way that we approach and describe the concerns we have is important. I just want to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else when they discuss their gripes with the old game.

The freeturt was used in many games in tournament play at the end. Guide would squash people that weren't at a similar skill level to him by simply playing defensively. I had beaten prof 2 or 3 times in tournament play, but I don't think I ever beat guide once in tournament games or otherwise, and it was because his approach to the game against weaker players made it so hard edge out any kind of a serious advantage in a few moves.

[The Professor]

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

The stone golem isn't automatically irrelevant. Depending on sets and skill, you could still conceivably win said game. If you're playing a high level player, maybe not. But if said player also got the wrong side, then you have a massive advantage.

It sucks if you're on the wrong end of it, but I've always thought that's what makes this game great and fascinating. Making sets to counter one or many, and then able to create another to counter and counter again.

Also, if one player likes to try to play with set advantages, you could also use that in your favor beforehand. It's no different from sports. Just takes preparation.

Another reason why knowing who you're playing is important and why secondaries are a nuisance.

[|AFO|]

What do you all think of having a larger "no man's land"?

[manonfire101]

Sweet summer child... I played TAO for over a decade. As far as I know, X, Mel, and I are the only day one players for TAO.com still around. There were greys who were considerably better than both of them, and who dragged out games far longer.


Because blocking is formulaic, and it's equally awarded to both players. Myself and my opponent both operate within the context of the same law of probabilities with blocking. Setup luck, however, is completely and totally random. Whereas a block is decided by a mathematical algorithm that applies to everyone, setup advantage is completely and totally random.

Lastly - not sure why you thought you ripped my head off per that visitor message. I'm a laid back dude, we can argue all day and it's no big deal. This is a good thing, we're developing ideas in a Socratic sense. Same goes to AFO. No hard feelings here, we're just respectfully all disagreeing for a good cause.

No. Nobody dragged games out longer than Lemon and Eagle. Also, you don't know any greys who are considerably better than Lemon because there are none. Additionally, you may have started playing this game a few months earlier than I did, but I have probably played this game a lot more than you have.

Blocking is dictated by an algorithm, but that doesn't mean there can't be games where blocking luck is completely one-sided. Setup luck is not completely random, certain sets are better than others. Sets that are designed to give a player an advantage immediately are usually very flawed in other ways. That is, the player who puts a GA 3 tiles from the left wall is hoping their opponent's cleric is in the left corner. If the cleric isn't there then the player using a GA is at a disadvantage. You're just taking a risk. I actually liked this because it gave inferior players a chance to knock off better players. I don't really see it as being a lot different than an inferior player knocking off a superior player because of a dsm side block. You're also not taking into account that there is skill in creating a set that isn't prone to being countered. If you're looking for a strategy game with no randomness there's always chess.

I don't think the stone golem has ever been irrelevant. I always struggled playing against freeturtles. But that may have just been a fault in my own playing.

[Toledo]

What if there is terrain? Impassable objects on the board that limit where you can put units and where units can walk? This would allow flying units like a DT to be stronger since they could fly over terrain, meaning you could take some power from them in other areas (dmg/health/etc). If done properly, this could help address the issue of setup "luck".

[The Butcher]

WOLFPACK is tight AF

[Aristocatt]

I think that both increasing the size of no mans land and adding terrain are good ideas. In creasing no mans land by 1 or 2 rows would completely change the dynamic of the game.

[Achilles]

Hey guys. I'm at work and on my phone, so I can't respond in depth. I just want to throw it out there that I hope nobody takes this personally, and I very much so believe us respectfully butting heads is beneficial. I'll respond tonight.