FFH2 Multiplayer Games - Invitation and Information

[eerr]

What you'll ever consider doesn't matter particularly much here, does it? If the majority of us decide that scorched earth is a negative trait, then it will be, and you'll deal with it. You aren't the boss here, please get that into your head. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and if it was, you wouldn't be the head of it.

yea...
though still vote nay against scortched earth because it doesn't actually hurt you unless you go to war
and since when has everyone forgotten barbarian?
agnostic and barbarian will both hurt you for almost the entire game

 

[Sureshot]

barbarian lets you create infrastructure early on, its not a negative unless you want xp.

agnostic is a negative trait, though certain play styles can make the effects transparent (same as with scorched earth)

 

[eerr]

barbarian lets you create infrastructure early on, its not a negative unless you want xp.

agnostic is a negative trait, though certain play styles can make the effects transparent (same as with scorched earth)

but theres no way to avoid either the -10% penalty or the religious happycap/benefits
as the game progresses-you slowly dragged down, even if you established an early lead(assuming you haven't had a far far superior start)
thats why the grigori get free heros and orcs get undercosted units

 

[Sureshot]

and elohim leaders get defensive on top of 2 normal traits because they dont get special units til later? yes, theres all sorts of justifications we can use to try to make certain traits contenders for positive, negative, neutral, semi-negative, civ-specific and uber, but we're just sticking to those predefined by the devteam.

and agnostic and scorched earth are the negatives, both can be neutral with certain play styles, but they limit you (barbarian opens up possibilities, such as early infrastructure, so its not like the defined negatives), they offer no benefits, it works out nicely this way.

 

[Sureshot]

im up for a game at anytime tonight starting now

 

[Sureshot]

alright, game up at my hamachi ip for anyone who wants to play

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I might be up for a game tomorrow afternoon. At least by my time. Fourteen, maybe fifteen hours from now, if you look at the post time.

 

[Draconian]

yea...
though still vote nay against scortched earth because it doesn't actually hurt you unless you go to war

This is like saying "aggressive/raider are no good traits because they don't help you unless you go to war"
Scorched earth my be off when the other traits are defender/philosophical/etc but together with warmongering traits it's fine imo.

 

[Jono]

I'm just saying, when we considered it as a negative trait, everyone had it, seems to me like people consider Agnostic much worse a flaw. Considering (according to the 6th post) that the play type isn't defined, meaning that you don't have to found a religion to use it, Agnosting is much more of a flaw than being forced to raze a city (which is almost always either too far away, not good enough a city to capture or way too close to an enemy).

 

[BCalchet]

Agnostic basically removes (or at least severely cripples) a part of the game - religion.

Scorched Earth slightly weakens a different part - warfare, and more specifically, wars of conquest. In fact, seeing as how you can resettle good plots and/or use Summon Phoenix to rebuild razed cities, the only thing you really lose is the ability to gain wonders and holy cities by conquest. (And, I just realized, the ability to recapture lost cities... that's probably the most painful part.)


If I were to grade traits on some suitable scale, I'd put Agnostic at -9 and Scorched Earth at -3. (Financial at +7, Sprawling at +1, Aggressive at +4, Raiders at +5, etc, etc...)

Edit: Fixed the numbers.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, i definately can see how some people would rate them all differently, but i bet that changes from person to person. the main thing though, is that agnostic and scorched earth in no way help you. they are all bad, whether you minimize the badness or not, it is limiting you.

 

[Sureshot]

oh, theres a game up now if anyone wants to play say so

 

[BCalchet]

Ach, guess I missed it. Drop a message over hamachi if any other further game is about to start.

 

[Sureshot]

we are starting a new game in a few minutes, just having a quick lunch

 

[BCalchet]

Just got an idea for an interesting (?) game type for use with somewhere around 4-6 players - Somewhat resembles (optional) rules for certain card games, as well as the 'assassin' (I think) game mode of Rise of Nations.

Played on an inland sea map, every player is forced to be at war with the player in front of them, clockwise, and may not enter the borders of anyone else. (As far as players across the sea go, they can be traded with as much as one likes.) If a player dies, the person attacking him/her moves on to the next victim, and in the end, we'll hopefully have two super-powers facing off. (Or one super-power finally getting to the person who should have been attacking it for the whole game...)

I have no idea if it'd work in civ and/or be fun, but I figured I might as well toss it out there.

 

[Sureshot]

that could be fun

personally i want to try one where each person starts with a single unit of their choice and has to be the last person alive

might be fun to pick a ranger just so you can convert animals.. or magnadine to convert barbarians.. or a shade so no one could find you lol

 

[Silverkiss]

Or Meshabber of Dis to crush everyone lol

 

[BCalchet]

*picks Loki*

 

[eerr]

yes, theres all sorts of justifications we can use to try to make certain traits contenders for positive, negative, neutral, semi-negative, civ-specific and uber, but we're just sticking to those predefined by the devteam.

speak for yourself : O

 

[Sureshot]

if anyone wants to play let me know