Risk 2.0 - Page 3

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Risk 2.0

  1. #31
    silence and sound MuddyMudkip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    empty space
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    8
    Add MuddyMudkip on Facebook
    Follow MuddyMudkip on Tumblr Visit MuddyMudkip's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    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.
    What are the other variables/What's the criteria for the categories, if I may ask?
    ..::Active URPG Ranger::..
    A Poem I Wrote
    >>learning through the downs, living for the ups<<
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai-Mei View Post
    Stuff died. Apparently Typhlosion > Chandelure.

  2. #32
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by MuddyMudkip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    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.
    What are the other variables/What's the criteria for the categories, if I may ask?
    Amount of badges, gym records, battle history, things like that.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  3. #33
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    I might be missing something, but if (as Ash pointed out) it may be better to have one high Tier battler defending, then in what circumstance are low tier battlers of any use? I envisage a scenario in which the top tier battlers are used for defense with the occasional attack, and all the low tier battlers are put into attack squads. If this is the case, this game will be nothing but waves of not so good (read: comparatively shit) battlers thrown against the pros in the hope that one of them miiight break through.

    I think there should be some kind of clause where if the attacking force is made up of more than double the defenders, they automatically win. For example, if WTP is defending Celadon City under the current mode, he could hold out against myself, BlueTowel, and Smiles. However, with this new clause in effect, our team would automatically win. This would make it important for defenses to be shored up, because with the addition of another defender, another three attackers would be needed for the auto-win, and with three defenders, there'd be a total of seven needed (which I'm pretty sure would be close to a whole team).

    This would emphasise defending one's territory and sending out skilled battlers as opposed to keeping them in reserve for defense so they can hold off five or six not-as-skilled players at once.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

  4. #34
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    I might be missing something, but if (as Ash pointed out) it may be better to have one high Tier battler defending, then in what circumstance are low tier battlers of any use? I envisage a scenario in which the top tier battlers are used for defense with the occasional attack, and all the low tier battlers are put into attack squads. If this is the case, this game will be nothing but waves of not so good (read: comparatively shit) battlers thrown against the pros in the hope that one of them miiight break through.

    I think there should be some kind of clause where if the attacking force is made up of more than double the defenders, they automatically win. For example, if WTP is defending Celadon City under the current mode, he could hold out against myself, BlueTowel, and Smiles. However, with this new clause in effect, our team would automatically win. This would make it important for defenses to be shored up, because with the addition of another defender, another three attackers would be needed for the auto-win, and with three defenders, there'd be a total of seven needed (which I'm pretty sure would be close to a whole team).

    This would emphasise defending one's territory and sending out skilled battlers as opposed to keeping them in reserve for defense so they can hold off five or six not-as-skilled players at once.
    That might work early on, but as the game progresses and the territory of the winning teams expand, they will be forced to spread their defense thin, meaning with your rule they could be potentially forced back simply for not having the manpower. Besides, the obvious counter to this is sending your own top battler against him. It is up to the leader to use his or hers force effectively. Everything is not equal, you will have to plan your moves and how you plan to combat such things.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  5. #35
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Okay so my new question: how can low-tier battlers be used in any way except throwing them at high-tier battlers in the hope they might fluke a win? Speaking as a second-to-bottom tier, I don't anticipate with any excitement the idea that this game is going to be nothing but me getting my arse kicked by high-level battlers.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

  6. #36
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Okay so my new question: how can low-tier battlers be used in any way except throwing them at high-tier battlers in the hope they might fluke a win? Speaking as a second-to-bottom tier, I don't anticipate with any excitement the idea that this game is going to be nothing but me getting my arse kicked by high-level battlers.
    This is a tournament, and like any other, less battlers will be matched against stronger ones. Except unlike the traditional ones, this isn't one and you're done.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  7. #37
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Okay so my new question: how can low-tier battlers be used in any way except throwing them at high-tier battlers in the hope they might fluke a win? Speaking as a second-to-bottom tier, I don't anticipate with any excitement the idea that this game is going to be nothing but me getting my arse kicked by high-level battlers.
    This is a tournament, and like any other, less battlers will be matched against stronger ones. Except unlike the traditional ones, this isn't one and you're done.
    Yes, my point though is that I wouldn't even slightly enjoy a tournament where my matchup is as follows: vs WTP; vs Pidge; vs Ash K.; vs Roulette; vs WTP; vs WinterVines; vs Ash K.; vs Monbrey; vs WTP; vs Roulette. If people only battle those who are better than them, participation is going to wane very fast.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

  8. #38
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Okay so my new question: how can low-tier battlers be used in any way except throwing them at high-tier battlers in the hope they might fluke a win? Speaking as a second-to-bottom tier, I don't anticipate with any excitement the idea that this game is going to be nothing but me getting my arse kicked by high-level battlers.
    This is a tournament, and like any other, less battlers will be matched against stronger ones. Except unlike the traditional ones, this isn't one and you're done.
    Yes, my point though is that I wouldn't even slightly enjoy a tournament where my matchup is as follows: vs WTP; vs Pidge; vs Ash K.; vs Roulette; vs WTP; vs WinterVines; vs Ash K.; vs Monbrey; vs WTP; vs Roulette. If people only battle those who are better than them, participation is going to wane very fast.
    If that is the case, then your Captain needs to make better choices.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  9. #39
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Okay so my new question: how can low-tier battlers be used in any way except throwing them at high-tier battlers in the hope they might fluke a win? Speaking as a second-to-bottom tier, I don't anticipate with any excitement the idea that this game is going to be nothing but me getting my arse kicked by high-level battlers.
    This is a tournament, and like any other, less battlers will be matched against stronger ones. Except unlike the traditional ones, this isn't one and you're done.
    Yes, my point though is that I wouldn't even slightly enjoy a tournament where my matchup is as follows: vs WTP; vs Pidge; vs Ash K.; vs Roulette; vs WTP; vs WinterVines; vs Ash K.; vs Monbrey; vs WTP; vs Roulette. If people only battle those who are better than them, participation is going to wane very fast.
    Heh, You overstate my activity. Anyway, perhaps in the situation you mentioned above, I contiguously battle you, Smiles, and BlueTowel? Say, its a 4v4 battle. You each get 4, I only get 4 total. If I beat one of you, my pokemon are in the same shape as they were at the conclusion of the previous battle. Although a win for me would not be IMPOSSIBLE, it would be much more difficult (MUCH, MUCH more difficult) as the number of people opposing me increased. If that seems a bit extreme, maybe add 2 additional pokemon per additional person, so I would end up having to defeat 8 pokemon total to still win? Or maybe, this idea is just awful. WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE?

  10. #40
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Heh, You overstate my activity. Anyway, perhaps in the situation you mentioned above, I contiguously battle you, Smiles, and BlueTowel? Say, its a 4v4 battle. You each get 4, I only get 4 total. If I beat one of you, my pokemon are in the same shape as they were at the conclusion of the previous battle. Although a win for me would not be IMPOSSIBLE, it would be much more difficult (MUCH, MUCH more difficult) as the number of people opposing me increased. If that seems a bit extreme, maybe add 2 additional pokemon per additional person, so I would end up having to defeat 8 pokemon total to still win? Or maybe, this idea is just awful. WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE?
    Oh hang on, I missed the part where your Pokemon carry over their health + status effects between matches. If that's a thing then I completely approve of this but restate my lack of belief that people are active enough to do this.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

  11. #41
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Heh, You overstate my activity. Anyway, perhaps in the situation you mentioned above, I contiguously battle you, Smiles, and BlueTowel? Say, its a 4v4 battle. You each get 4, I only get 4 total. If I beat one of you, my pokemon are in the same shape as they were at the conclusion of the previous battle. Although a win for me would not be IMPOSSIBLE, it would be much more difficult (MUCH, MUCH more difficult) as the number of people opposing me increased. If that seems a bit extreme, maybe add 2 additional pokemon per additional person, so I would end up having to defeat 8 pokemon total to still win? Or maybe, this idea is just awful. WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE?
    Oh hang on, I missed the part where your Pokemon carry over their health + status effects between matches. If that's a thing then I completely approve of this but restate my lack of belief that people are active enough to do this.
    I don't believe that was part of the rules, I was just suggesting it. I haven't even read the rules to this...

  12. #42
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Heh, You overstate my activity. Anyway, perhaps in the situation you mentioned above, I contiguously battle you, Smiles, and BlueTowel? Say, its a 4v4 battle. You each get 4, I only get 4 total. If I beat one of you, my pokemon are in the same shape as they were at the conclusion of the previous battle. Although a win for me would not be IMPOSSIBLE, it would be much more difficult (MUCH, MUCH more difficult) as the number of people opposing me increased. If that seems a bit extreme, maybe add 2 additional pokemon per additional person, so I would end up having to defeat 8 pokemon total to still win? Or maybe, this idea is just awful. WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE?
    Oh hang on, I missed the part where your Pokemon carry over their health + status effects between matches. If that's a thing then I completely approve of this but restate my lack of belief that people are active enough to do this.
    I don't believe that was part of the rules, I was just suggesting it. I haven't even read the rules to this...
    Oh, okay.

    I hereby request this be added to the rules. It emphasizes defense and allows multiple lesser battlers to have a chance of overcoming the pros.
    GliscorMan likes this.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

  13. #43
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    Heh, You overstate my activity. Anyway, perhaps in the situation you mentioned above, I contiguously battle you, Smiles, and BlueTowel? Say, its a 4v4 battle. You each get 4, I only get 4 total. If I beat one of you, my pokemon are in the same shape as they were at the conclusion of the previous battle. Although a win for me would not be IMPOSSIBLE, it would be much more difficult (MUCH, MUCH more difficult) as the number of people opposing me increased. If that seems a bit extreme, maybe add 2 additional pokemon per additional person, so I would end up having to defeat 8 pokemon total to still win? Or maybe, this idea is just awful. WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE?
    Oh hang on, I missed the part where your Pokemon carry over their health + status effects between matches. If that's a thing then I completely approve of this but restate my lack of belief that people are active enough to do this.
    I don't believe that was part of the rules, I was just suggesting it. I haven't even read the rules to this...
    Oh, okay.

    I hereby request this be added to the rules. It emphasizes defense and allows multiple lesser battlers to have a chance of overcoming the pros.
    Interesting. Let me think on it.
    ChainReaction01 likes this.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  14. #44
    I eat Frogs AmericanTreeFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,403

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Alright. Here's what I'm thinking. This would only apply for situations where the attacking team has three or more attackers than the defenders, who number two or less. Otherwise, it will remain the same.

    1) This only applies to the defender(s).
    2) Health carries over, status do not.
    3) At the end of each battle, any Pokémon KOed, will be revived at 20% health.
    3) At the end of each battle, for every number of attackers that the defender still has to face, the defender's Pokémon's health will be increased by 10% for each one.
    Ex.) WTP has to defend against four battlers. He defeats the first one and his Pokémon are at: A] 62% | B] 23% | C] 45% | D] 0%
    Following the rules above, since WTP has three attackers left to face, each of his Pokémon will gain 30%. So the new totals will look like this:
    A] 92% | B] 53% | C] 75% | D] 50%

    Thoughts?
    @ChainReaction01
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  15. #45
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,525

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    Alright. Here's what I'm thinking. This would only apply for situations where the attacking team has three or more attackers than the defenders, who number two or less. Otherwise, it will remain the same.

    1) This only applies to the defender(s).
    2) Health carries over, status do not.
    3) At the end of each battle, any Pokémon KOed, will be revived at 20% health.
    3) At the end of each battle, for every number of attackers that the defender still has to face, the defender's Pokémon's health will be increased by 10% for each one.
    Ex.) WTP has to defend against four battlers. He defeats the first one and his Pokémon are at: A] 62% | B] 23% | C] 45% | D] 0%
    Following the rules above, since WTP has three attackers left to face, each of his Pokémon will gain 30%. So the new totals will look like this:
    A] 92% | B] 53% | C] 75% | D] 50%

    Thoughts?
    @ChainReaction01
    So how would the battles work if WTP was defending against three attackers? That's only two more attackers than defenders, so these rules wouldn't apply.
    URPG Stats
    SCROLL OF CHAINS
    Ranger Chapter | Referee Chapter | Grader Chapter | Judge Chapter
    ~No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having any.~

    "ALLAREFRED" WinterVines 7:15 pm
    nightgowns aren't for sleeping silly

Page 3 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
  •