| A Call for an Injunction | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 29 2008, 06:16 AM (305 Views) | |
| Acheron | Sep 30 2008, 09:11 PM Post #11 |
|
It's tough because on the one hand you want a really fun strategy game that has clearly defined and fair rules which you can understand in order to play the game as well as you can. On the other hand, we all (perhaps I shouldn't say all) got into this game because we love SOIAF and the RP aspect was interesting. This isn't just one more version of RISK after all. I would be interested to know if anyone would be down for a board like this where the focus itself was on the RPG. For example, there would be a general setting such as the wall, an army, one of the great cities, and a somewhat focused plot like the wildlings attacking, a series of battles, playing the game of thrones, which would be guided by a moderater. Players would make characters (perhaps with full statistics, I have the GOT RPG around here somewhere), interact with each other and make the story happen. Of course, we'd need to figure out how to actually accomplish all this but I think it would be a fun idea Even if that wouldn't work out, it would be great if we could have a more developed and interactive RP aspect in the next season. It's tough to see how we could make it fit into the "In Game" aspect but it would add a lot to the whole experience. Like Gunslinger said, the actual technical/strategy aspect of the next season is ready to go. However, as can see we have a lot of ideas for new RP stuff but not much that's been developed. What do you guys want to see happen? Do you only care about the strategy part of the game, would you want a whole other section for an RPG, do you have ideas for what you would want with a hybrid of the two? Since there is a small but loyal following of Gunz's project, it makes sense that we all figure out what would be the most fun for all of us. Even though we go through stretches of very limited conversation, I feel like I have gotten to know quite a few of you and I like our little community. It would be sweet if we could take this whole idea to the next level |
 |
 
|
| Acheron | Sep 30 2008, 09:22 PM Post #12 |
|
As a reply to the original intent of this topic, I had changed the whole idea of what Besieging would mean in the next season. I noticed in season 1 that the rule was waaaay too easy to get around. In season 4 you can only besiege a capital (and only with 500+ men. I mean come on, you cannot hold a fortress hostage with 100 farmers holding pitchforks). Unit prices in that capital are doubled and units moved into the city to defend it are outside the walls because the besieging army is blocking the way. This is sort of a model of the original siege of Riverrun and the battle of the whispering wood... The city was besieged by an army and the defenders were split between the Tully's inside the castle and the Starks outside of it. I think besieging makes a lot more sense now, especially in conjunction with the other new rules. In my opinion the new rules are more complicated but with far less loopholes. This was done mostly because my tactic in the first two seasons was to find the loopholes and exploit them... cough cough iron bank cough cough, and I think it would be better to HAVE to play fair |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 1 2008, 05:48 AM Post #13 |
|
My favorite part is the military strategy portion of the game, mostly because it's what I feel I'm good at. I have tried to incorporate as much story and role playing into them as possible, even when it is unnesscessary. (See my post where I calimed victory at the bloody gate.) So at the veryleast I would prefer a hybrid, and would probably not be interested in an individual battle, or a wilding attack (unless I got to roleplay as the wildings, which is actually my plan for next year, starting as the 4th Mance of his Name in Queenscrown). I think that the Alliances allowed in this season (after they are officially made), significantly dismiss any real need for diplomacy. The only real problem that we face is that in ASOIAF, we are allowed to be somewhat omniscient and see what is going on in several areas. It seems like it would be tough to roleplay if all of the players knew what was going on at all times. This might just be due to my limited role playing experience though. Just my thoughts for now. I'm sure I'll have more later. |
|
|
|
| Cenedil | Oct 1 2008, 05:53 AM Post #14 |
|
Speak of the Devil and he shows. Nice to hear from you two again and as for the idea, Acheron I wouldn't mind it at all. Ill see what we can do about waking up the board, and maybe if we can keep the out of character boards active enough, people will feel encourage to join and chat while they wait. Anywho, you two don't go disappearing for too long. It's nice and encouraging to hear about what is happening on the new GoT.
Edited by Cenedil, Oct 1 2008, 05:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Acheron | Oct 1 2008, 06:41 PM Post #15 |
|
Yea, I like talking/thinking about it too. We wrote the rules in a flurry and it's been a while since that happened so it got me excited to look over them again. I think the strategy is going to be fun. Just out of curiosity, how much longer do you think this season will run for? There are only a few players left but full victory takes a while. It would be interesting to see a season finish completely. |
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 1 2008, 08:30 PM Post #16 |
Lord of Harrenhal
|
I think that the blend of strategy and roleplaying is definately what makes this game so unique (and awesome), and for the game to continue both must be preserved and improved. The strategy side just needs refining, and from the sounds of things, you two seem to have done just that. As for the rping side, I have a few ideas that could help develop it. Perhaps some sort of reward or incentive for roleplaying outside of battles. Maybe on a weekly or monthly basis we could have a sort of contest where all the players vote upon whose out-of-battle roleplaying post was best. The reward could be something like the swords of legends mentioned above. The Tourney that we had last season was an interesting and provided a fun respite from the battles, and I think that should continue next season as well. I was planning to do one this season, but we really didn't have the players. Perhaps a melee instead of or along with the joust this time. Another thing that I noticed last season was the quality of roleplaying in the Grand Council thread (still floating around here). Further meetings like that between the warlords would do alot to spice up the roleplaying side. As for predictions for how long this season will go on, I really can't say. It could really go either way right now, and all hinges on a couple of critical battles (East Bridge, Sunspear, etc.) I for one plan to see it all the way through, and I'm pretty sure everyone else is in for the long haul as well. |
|
|
|
| Cenedil | Oct 2 2008, 05:46 AM Post #17 |
|
I would also like contests where everyone selects a champion, but instead of paper, rock, scissors, I would like to see a more structured fight. We could could have a section, like the battlefield and have 2 judge the battles based on roleplay, strategy, and fairness. If they disagree a third judge will be selected. If this does go through, I would like to see some well thought out arenas to encourage strategy. Also I would like to see some kind of ammendment to the automatic victory over a missing general. Not entirely sure how I would like to see it changed, but it does irk me to no end when I see 1 men at arms take a city with walls. I can't blame them for doing it, but when players choose capitals they are usually in strategic spots. This alows them easily defendable city in a spot that can help defend an entire region. |
|
|
|
| Acheron | Oct 2 2008, 07:05 AM Post #18 |
|
I had thought of that last point Cenedil. If you take a regular city that another player has fought for, the automatic win is still good after 3 days. But if you attack a vacant capital, after 3 days the player is considered out of the game and you are attacking an npc city. So capitals can't be taken without battles... either you fight a player for the walls/extra income ,or you fight an npc for a regular city. In addition, I added a rule that players who havent been active AT ALL for two weeks without any notice will automatically suffer empire collapse and all their cities return to npc. I think this is fair, we don't want a bunch of people making an empire, leaving the game, and keeping a bunch of lame duck capitals around forever. If someone does play for a while and win a few cities, I do think that they should be up for grabs because they are within his territory and until his empire collapses anyone can take the risk that he isn't at home. But I always thought that getting free walled cities was BS and you can't do it anymore |
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 2 2008, 08:11 AM Post #19 |
|
Lord of Harrenhal
|
I agree that it should be more in depth than just Paper-Rock-Scissors, but it will defeat the point if we make it exactly like the battles. I do like the changes in Vacant Capital capture. |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 2 2008, 08:39 AM Post #20 |
|
Agreed on the vacant capitals. While Turncloak and I have definitely taken advantage of it in this round, it is definitley a loophole. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · In-Game News · Next Topic » |
5:23 PM Dec 6
