Risk 2.0 - Page 2

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Risk 2.0

  1. #16
    Du Edoc'sil Ash K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pallet Town, Kanto
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    I'm interested when this happens.

    However, I do have some questions (or maybe just one for now, I think I had more that I forgot).

    You mentioned that it's possible to have one member of one team end up in a battle against three members of another team and said it was best two out of three or something, but also said one person couldn't keep battling. How does that work?
    Unless they have to, one person cannot battle more than once in the same battle phase. So in the 1v3 situation, the solo person has to battle potentially all three, but those three on the other side can only battle once each.
    So in that case, it can actually be better to have a territory defended by just one strong battler than that same battler and others.
    In a relationship with KnittyDragon, been together over a year <3
    URPG Senior Referee, Approver, Chief (BW) Judge, Elite Four Member, Fortree City Gym Leader, Celestic Town Division Head, Kumquat Island Gym Leader
    AIM MewAlcadiesMew; PWN/PXR Ash K.
    Stats
    Wishlist
    [18:13] alaskapigeon1: and you have OCD that rivals monk's
    "When you can have anything you want by uttering a few words, the goal matters not, only the journey to it." -Rhunön the Elf (Eldest: Inheritance Book 2)

  2. #17
    the vibration pokemon Nitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,933
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.

    I GOT MONEY IN MY BANK ACCOUNT, FUCK A BANK ACCOUNT - SOULJA BOY

    [18:11] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) nitro, you in here?
    [18:11] Nitro: hello
    [18:12] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) knew there was another cool guy in here

    [URPG Chat]
    3:44:43 (silverxchrome) Nitro is attractive. Source: I'm a girl.

  3. #18
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    I'm interested when this happens.

    However, I do have some questions (or maybe just one for now, I think I had more that I forgot).

    You mentioned that it's possible to have one member of one team end up in a battle against three members of another team and said it was best two out of three or something, but also said one person couldn't keep battling. How does that work?
    Unless they have to, one person cannot battle more than once in the same battle phase. So in the 1v3 situation, the solo person has to battle potentially all three, but those three on the other side can only battle once each.
    So in that case, it can actually be better to have a territory defended by just one strong battler than that same battler and others.
    If that is a strategy a team wishes to use, then yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  4. #19
    Dex
    Dex is offline
    "Ruthless Cinnamon Roll!" Dex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    316

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Man, sounds like a lot of fun! Gotta go catch some more pokémon!

    Go home Kalos rivers, you're drunk.
    My URPG Stats

  5. #20
    the vibration pokemon Nitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,933
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    Last edited by Nitro; 23rd March 2013 at 09:34 AM.

    I GOT MONEY IN MY BANK ACCOUNT, FUCK A BANK ACCOUNT - SOULJA BOY

    [18:11] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) nitro, you in here?
    [18:11] Nitro: hello
    [18:12] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) knew there was another cool guy in here

    [URPG Chat]
    3:44:43 (silverxchrome) Nitro is attractive. Source: I'm a girl.

  6. #21
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    I understand what you are going to be saying, but it's not going to be hard to place people in categories. For instance, the top rating will be pretty much be for people who have beat an E4 Member, part of the E4, or somebody who is really good, but not part of it. (Somebody like Monbrey for example).

    The next tier would be those who are great battlers, but are a step below. People like you and WinterVines would be placed here.

    The next tier would be your average battler. Somebody like Morru or Princess.

    The last one would be for newcomers, like Bluetowel.

    It's not that complicated, but if people want more than just me to do the initially placing, then they can speak their minds. As for the reevaluation, anybody can post for reevaluation on another player. The player doesn't have to initiate it for themselves.
    Morru Magnum likes this.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  7. #22
    the vibration pokemon Nitro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,933
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    I understand what you are going to be saying, but it's not going to be hard to place people in categories. For instance, the top rating will be pretty much be for people who have beat an E4 Member, part of the E4, or somebody who is really good, but not part of it. (Somebody like Monbrey for example).

    The next tier would be those who are great battlers, but are a step below. People like you and WinterVines would be placed here.

    The next tier would be your average battler. Somebody like Morru or Princess.

    The last one would be for newcomers, like Bluetowel.

    It's not that complicated, but if people want more than just me to do the initially placing, then they can speak their minds. As for the reevaluation, anybody can post for reevaluation on another player. The player doesn't have to initiate it for themselves.
    Part of me thinks its fine and wants to let it rest, but the other me wants to point out that Monbrey, as he has said many times in the past, is only an average battler, whereas you could make an argument for Crow as a stronger battler too (I would believe she's stronger than Monbrey, at least). Again that's purely perspective, and so having more than one helps. But it could end up being fine, so I'll leave it to you.
    Princess Crow likes this.

    I GOT MONEY IN MY BANK ACCOUNT, FUCK A BANK ACCOUNT - SOULJA BOY

    [18:11] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) nitro, you in here?
    [18:11] Nitro: hello
    [18:12] [Ranger Alliance]: (webdragoon1337) knew there was another cool guy in here

    [URPG Chat]
    3:44:43 (silverxchrome) Nitro is attractive. Source: I'm a girl.

  8. #23
    pikachu in a highchair We Taste Pies...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    pikachu in a highchair
    Posts
    3,342

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Compromise: Have WTP rank everybody. He is both plural and knowledgeable.

  9. #24
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    I understand what you are going to be saying, but it's not going to be hard to place people in categories. For instance, the top rating will be pretty much be for people who have beat an E4 Member, part of the E4, or somebody who is really good, but not part of it. (Somebody like Monbrey for example).

    The next tier would be those who are great battlers, but are a step below. People like you and WinterVines would be placed here.

    The next tier would be your average battler. Somebody like Morru or Princess.

    The last one would be for newcomers, like Bluetowel.

    It's not that complicated, but if people want more than just me to do the initially placing, then they can speak their minds. As for the reevaluation, anybody can post for reevaluation on another player. The player doesn't have to initiate it for themselves.
    Part of me thinks its fine and wants to let it rest, but the other me wants to point out that Monbrey, as he has said many times in the past, is only an average battler, whereas you could make an argument for Crow as a stronger battler too (I would believe she's stronger than Monbrey, at least). Again that's purely perspective, and so having more than one helps. But it could end up being fine, so I'll leave it to you.
    The problem with doing it with more than one person is simply time. I would take awhile to get those people together and then agree. This why I am of the opinion to have the organizer(myself) do the ranking then let people adjust how they see fit. It allows for people to get their input in, but doing it in a timely matter.

    I do see your point, but I feel the approach I am using is the middle ground between accuracy and speed.

    Also, this will be starting sometime late April or early May.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  10. #25
    Registered User Elamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,067
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    4. What happens to a team that loses a defending battle? For example, Yellow has a member on Vermillion City. Green attacks Vermillion City and wins the battle. Is the yellow member "dead" (as in removed from the board)? Or are they moved to another owned territory?

    Moved to the nearest owned territory.
    Okay how about this then.

    The priority of the turn is: Green, Red, Blue, Yellow.

    Green team attacks Vermillion City which has a Yellow player on it, and as in the scenario above, wins the battle. Yellow moves to the nearest territory, for our purposes we'll say it's Lavender Town. Now in the same turn, Red was also attacking Lavender Town, which previously had no players on it. Does Red now have to battle against the Yellow player now on that territory? Or does the movement happen after all attacks are over? ( I think it should be the latter due to the reliance on time of the former's scenario)

    URPG

  11. #26
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Elamite View Post
    4. What happens to a team that loses a defending battle? For example, Yellow has a member on Vermillion City. Green attacks Vermillion City and wins the battle. Is the yellow member "dead" (as in removed from the board)? Or are they moved to another owned territory?

    Moved to the nearest owned territory.
    Okay how about this then.

    The priority of the turn is: Green, Red, Blue, Yellow.

    Green team attacks Vermillion City which has a Yellow player on it, and as in the scenario above, wins the battle. Yellow moves to the nearest territory, for our purposes we'll say it's Lavender Town. Now in the same turn, Red was also attacking Lavender Town, which previously had no players on it. Does Red now have to battle against the Yellow player now on that territory? Or does the movement happen after all attacks are over? ( I think it should be the latter due to the reliance on time of the former's scenario)
    It would be the latter, because in a technical sense all moves are supposed to be done at the same time. The priority just gives the organizer a method to solve movement ties.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  12. #27
    Du Edoc'sil Ash K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pallet Town, Kanto
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    I understand what you are going to be saying, but it's not going to be hard to place people in categories. For instance, the top rating will be pretty much be for people who have beat an E4 Member, part of the E4, or somebody who is really good, but not part of it. (Somebody like Monbrey for example).

    The next tier would be those who are great battlers, but are a step below. People like you and WinterVines would be placed here.

    The next tier would be your average battler. Somebody like Morru or Princess.

    The last one would be for newcomers, like Bluetowel.

    It's not that complicated, but if people want more than just me to do the initially placing, then they can speak their minds. As for the reevaluation, anybody can post for reevaluation on another player. The player doesn't have to initiate it for themselves.
    mfw your example of a tier 2 person (WinterVines) has beaten me at her gym repeatedly and your examples of tier 3 people (Morru Magnum and Princess Crow) have both beaten my gym :x
    Morru Magnum likes this.
    In a relationship with KnittyDragon, been together over a year <3
    URPG Senior Referee, Approver, Chief (BW) Judge, Elite Four Member, Fortree City Gym Leader, Celestic Town Division Head, Kumquat Island Gym Leader
    AIM MewAlcadiesMew; PWN/PXR Ash K.
    Stats
    Wishlist
    [18:13] alaskapigeon1: and you have OCD that rivals monk's
    "When you can have anything you want by uttering a few words, the goal matters not, only the journey to it." -Rhunön the Elf (Eldest: Inheritance Book 2)

  13. #28
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
    In regards to teams, can we do ranking by committee? It's not anything against your personal judgment, but I just feel better to have something so important to the game determined by more than any one person, no matter who that person is.
    You must not have read everything, I put in a mechanism so that a person can be reevaluated. Also, by adding more people it just takes longer and is more drawn out.
    Nah, this is different, which is why I brought it up. Reevaluation and more accurate evaluation from the start are different things, in that reevaluation is a redo of something, while more accurate evaluation from the start leads to better results across the board - especially important for those that are shy or modest or something and wouldn't have asked for a reevaluation otherwise.

    But you do make a good point in that it'd take longer. My suggestion is to take a few active and trustworthy people, and once the sign-ups finish, ask them to rank all participants. Give them like a day or maybe two, (which I think is okay to spare?) and average out the ranks, leaving behind the votes of anyone that doesn't get them in in time. I think that works fine, but ultimately, you're running the thing. If it's a hassle you don't want to deal with, well, it was only a suggestion anyway.
    I understand what you are going to be saying, but it's not going to be hard to place people in categories. For instance, the top rating will be pretty much be for people who have beat an E4 Member, part of the E4, or somebody who is really good, but not part of it. (Somebody like Monbrey for example).

    The next tier would be those who are great battlers, but are a step below. People like you and WinterVines would be placed here.

    The next tier would be your average battler. Somebody like Morru or Princess.

    The last one would be for newcomers, like Bluetowel.

    It's not that complicated, but if people want more than just me to do the initially placing, then they can speak their minds. As for the reevaluation, anybody can post for reevaluation on another player. The player doesn't have to initiate it for themselves.
    mfw your example of a tier 2 person (WinterVines) has beaten me at her gym repeatedly and your examples of tier 3 people (Morru Magnum and Princess Crow) have both beaten my gym :x
    You can beat a person's gym and still not be as good as they are. When I was young, only a year or so into my career, I nearly beat Mike's gym twice. I lost by dice rolls. Does that mean I was good as him if I won? No, it means I was able to beat him in a battle. You can't just look at that as an indicator, need more than one variable.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  14. #29
    Unregistered User CommBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,784
    Follow CommBA On Twitter Add CommBA on Facebook

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    mfw your example of a tier 2 person (WinterVines) has beaten me at her gym repeatedly and your examples of tier 3 people (Morru Magnum and Princess Crow) have both beaten my gym :x
    Then this is pretty obvious. Ash must be Tier 4.

    While I'm just joking with this, it brings a probably rare point. If we feel like you ranked someone in a lower tier and can post to get them in a higher tier, are we allowed to do the reverse? Like, say that Person A isn't that good and should be one more tier lower.

  15. #30
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by CommBA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    mfw your example of a tier 2 person (WinterVines) has beaten me at her gym repeatedly and your examples of tier 3 people (Morru Magnum and Princess Crow) have both beaten my gym :x
    Then this is pretty obvious. Ash must be Tier 4.

    While I'm just joking with this, it brings a probably rare point. If we feel like you ranked someone in a lower tier and can post to get them in a higher tier, are we allowed to do the reverse? Like, say that Person A isn't that good and should be one more tier lower.
    Chances are nobody will need demoted, but if there is that chance, then anyone just PM me.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •