LPetersson Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Not wanting to beat the proverbial dead horse too much, but 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 4 games like this really don't work well. It's just like playing one of those RTS computer games, like StarCraft, with three or more players. The forces that run into each other first will beat on each other and attrit each others' forces, while the one that gets left alone builds/maintains his or her combat power until he or she comes through and sweeps the other armies aside at the end of the game. If multiple players really want to be a part of the game, then instead of a free-for-all, make it a game of alliances with two clear sides pitted against one another. I also recommend not worrying too much about trying to justify the alliance, and just enjoy a more balanced game. Regards, Valerian As an aside to this, 3v3 games can work, but only if two players don't gang up on the third... 4v4 games would be much better as two teams of two players against each other... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1931507 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG Vrox Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 As an aside to this, 3v3 games can work, but only if two players don't gang up on the third... 4v4 games would be much better as two teams of two players against each other... That's the problem, who regulates who is targeting who? I can imagine going 4th and having half my army gone before I even get a turn. There is no balance nor should one person feel like they need to hold back or target someone else because a player loss 50% of their force last turn. In order to win you finish him off so he won't be a problem later in the game. LoneSniper It's a fun way to play when wanting to try something different with your buddies, but by no means should you measure your worth as a Wolf Lord by such a game. But hey, you still got some great advice that will carry your far in your next 1v1 games. ;) WG Vrox Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1931526 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decoy Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Just as a point of order, this was, to my knowledge, 1v1v1v1. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1931765 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haakon_Stormbrow Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 in a 1v1v1v1 game usually the players opposite each other feel less threatened and there for worry about the guy who's closest ie next to him/her on each side, which is why it can be more balanced, if you know the people your playing against and feel they will gang up on you then take 3 vindicators and wait for them to converge.... mmmmm death Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1931911 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Just as a point of order, this was, to my knowledge, 1v1v1v1. That is a better way to express it, although I think everyone understood how the game was being played. Nevertheless, 1v1v1v1 games really don't work that well. When you have four players it is much better to go with 1+1 v 1+1 (e.g. team versus team). Valerian Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1932353 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneSniperSG Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 I'll be sure and pitch that idea at our next conference. Seriously. It wasn't my choice, and I had nothing to do with the 1v1v1v1 choosing. I wasn't really paying attention at that moment, because I was building my list. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/164107-pop-goes-the-predator/page/2/#findComment-1932849 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.