Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 232

Thread: General New Game Discussion

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristocatt View Post
    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.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    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.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    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.
    Last edited by manonfire101; 05-26-2016 at 09:12 PM.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    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.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    I didn't say the defensive player should be favored. I actually don't want that at all. I said the game should be balanced and any luck introduced into it should be formulaic. I'm all for people being aggressively offensive.
    Okay. I'm not sure what you're asking for then by "balancing the game". IMO anyone who camps should be rolled over by the attacking player if they are of equal skill. Even formulaic luck is not really balanced within a game. Perhaps it evens out over the course of 20 games, but a dsm side block allowing for a 2nd burn is not all that "balanced" when you get your luck 10 games down the road with consecutive scout side blocks after you've already beaten your opponent. Formulaic luck is still random. If anything, set advantages are under your control, making that "luck" more balanced.

    But that is luck. If I ended up, by a 33% chance, in range of their Cleric with my GA... I was lucky. That's the inherent definition of luck. And as I said, that luck shouldn't exist in this game unless it's formulaic. But no less, it seems like we agree for the most part albeit minor technicalities.
    Naw man. The GA is a unit. He is not inherently lucky. You setting him same sides as your opponent is lucky. But after the nerf, even this wasn't a large advantage. It takes 2 units to block him from the cleric and 3 hits to kill him. Heck, putting your cleric 1 space off the corner means you only need a knight to block him off. Simple tweak of your set and the GA is essentially nullified. Or you may get lucky and have your set opposite sides. Or you could put your cleric in the center and not worry about the GA at all. I think Matt said it best.
    Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta.
    He's also right about the stagnation of sets towards the end of the game too. There should be more than 3-4 sets being used in tournament play. However, how much of this stagnation was due to the top players only using certain sets? I would agree that TAO was limiting in its design, but I don't think it was as limiting as we made it. Who knows though.

    Also, I will welcome a 1st turn mudquake against my free turtle every game. Shrubs to block off flank. Freeze mud. Now all you have to worry about is LOS. Your attack is imminent as soon as you kill the mud, and my opponent won't be able to get rid of the armor on your dragon without giving up a scout or two.

  6. #66

    Default

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

  7. #67

    Default

    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".

  8. #68

    Default

    WOLFPACK is tight AF

    Banner by Madamos
    Co-leader of The Dawg Pound - humpin legs since 2004

  9. #69

    Default

    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.

  10. #70

    Default

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Account Registration is now open || How to View General Discussion
    By Crabwalking Lord Mommy in forum TAO Tournaments & Game Challenge Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2020, 10:12 PM
  2. Standalone game versus an in-browser game
    By Gabe in forum New Game Development and Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-13-2016, 05:21 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •