Risk 2.0 - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 63

Thread: Risk 2.0

  1. #46

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    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.
    The rules in the first post would apply here.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  2. #47
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,543

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    The rules in the first post would apply here.
    Hmmm, my brain isn't working at 100% capacity right now, but I think that would work okay. It would emphasise leaving people behind to defend important points while also encouraging taking large attack parties. You truly are a scholar, sir.
    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

  3. #48

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by ChainReaction01 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanTreeFrog View Post
    The rules in the first post would apply here.
    Hmmm, my brain isn't working at 100% capacity right now, but I think that would work okay. It would emphasise leaving people behind to defend important points while also encouraging taking large attack parties. You truly are a scholar, sir.
    That is the idea. Trying to balance everything out.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  4. #49
    pikachu in a highchair We Taste Pies...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    pikachu in a highchair
    Posts
    3,384

    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
    I am amused by my constant use as the exemplar.

  5. #50
    CAPS KidBeano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    England
    Posts
    967
    Blog Entries
    3

    Visit KidBeano's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Possibly a little trivial, but how would PP factor in to the whole "carried-over" thing?
    MORE CAPS

    ~The Artist Formerly Known As PichuBoy~

  6. #51

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by KidBeano View Post
    Possibly a little trivial, but how would PP factor in to the whole "carried-over" thing?
    That wouldn't carry over. Too much time to track and it would severely cripple the defender.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  7. #52

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    I can easily see how this suggested system works for one defender, but you said it also applies if there's two, how in the name of Arceus would that work?

    It could be interesting to try and make it a single battle that uses X Pokémon from each battler on a team, but unless you make it so they have different numbers on the field at once it could be hard to determine who takes control of the battle on a side with multiple participants. Also could make it hard to have everyone online at once. It would be a logical way to do it that definitely benefits a team to have additional attackers/defenders, even if they're not the best battlers.
    URPG Official, Senior Referee, Chief Judge, Elite Four Member, Johto LO, Mistralton City Gym Leader, Celestic Town Division Head, Kumquat Island Gym Leader
    AIM MewAshMew; PWN/PXR/SPC Ash K., PE2K Alcadies
    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)
    "You might think it’s to help you be a better battler. Really it’s just to make your battles less painful for the poor referee that has to face-palm every turn." - Monbrey

  8. #53
    Angry about Outer Heavens ChainReaction01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,543

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash K. View Post
    I can easily see how this suggested system works for one defender, but you said it also applies if there's two, how in the name of Arceus would that work?

    It could be interesting to try and make it a single battle that uses X Pokémon from each battler on a team, but unless you make it so they have different numbers on the field at once it could be hard to determine who takes control of the battle on a side with multiple participants. Also could make it hard to have everyone online at once. It would be a logical way to do it that definitely benefits a team to have additional attackers/defenders, even if they're not the best battlers.
    WTP + Ash K defending from Chainy, Monbrey, WinterVines, Siless, and EmBreon, let's say 4v4 battles.

    WTP v Chainy results in WTP losing two Pokemon and Chainy being defeated.
    WTP v Monbrey results in WTP losing one more Pokemon and Monbrey being defeated.
    WTP v WinterVines results in Winter losing one Pokemon but defeating WTP.
    Ash K v WinterVines results in Winter starting the battle with three Pokemon (because she lost one to WTP). Ash defeats her but loses two Pokemon in the process.
    Ash K v Siless results in Ash losing one Pokemon and Siless being defeated.
    Ash K v EmBreon results in EmBreon defeating Ash's one remaining Pokemon. Attackers win.

    That's just my interpretation of how it would work.
    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

  9. #54
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    I think a no-healing between the battles would be the best, with fainted Pokemon being revived at 20-50% HP, for between the battles of a round.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  10. #55
    Gangnam Style Taither's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    420

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Would there be any way of healing some of your Pokemon? I think if we do a long-term game, we should have at the end of every X week period(where points and stuff are tallied to total out what is owned by which team, etc.) Everyone should get healed depending on activity and performance in that period. Nothing too game-breaking, but maybe ~20% to all Pokemon. Something to help out someone who is running ragged with Pokemon with less than 40% HP left and can't really achieve much or be much use.

    I'm just suggesting this because I know with how we all like to alliance with each other and play political assholes in FFAs, that it wouldn't be a game that ended in a week or so. Give the people who join in more incentive to be tactical and build up 2-3 (or more) large empires to duke it out. Maybe have one territory have a Pokemon center-like ability where it heals your Pokemon but takes you out of the action for a certain period of time? That might work, also. Just so it's not all the more efficient battlers ganging and taking over everything in one fell swoop without the smaller groups being smacked around like rag dolls with only 20% hp left on their teams.

  11. #56

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Taither View Post
    Would there be any way of healing some of your Pokemon? I think if we do a long-term game, we should have at the end of every X week period(where points and stuff are tallied to total out what is owned by which team, etc.) Everyone should get healed depending on activity and performance in that period. Nothing too game-breaking, but maybe ~20% to all Pokemon. Something to help out someone who is running ragged with Pokemon with less than 40% HP left and can't really achieve much or be much use.

    I'm just suggesting this because I know with how we all like to alliance with each other and play political assholes in FFAs, that it wouldn't be a game that ended in a week or so. Give the people who join in more incentive to be tactical and build up 2-3 (or more) large empires to duke it out. Maybe have one territory have a Pokemon center-like ability where it heals your Pokemon but takes you out of the action for a certain period of time? That might work, also. Just so it's not all the more efficient battlers ganging and taking over everything in one fell swoop without the smaller groups being smacked around like rag dolls with only 20% hp left on their teams.
    I think they mean no healing on one invasion, but having it so your Pokémon didn't heal but you were allowed to swap to other Pokémon for the next invasion could be interesting, would let people use more of their Pokémon they might not normally use, but could cause people with fewer Pokémon to be at a disadvantage if they all fainted. Maybe make it so that once X% of your Pokémon fainted they all got restored, making people like Bee, who has about 229 Pokémon, probably never get to heal them but still have plenty to use, while newer members might fight two battles and then get healed. As I said though, I don't think that was the original idea.
    URPG Official, Senior Referee, Chief Judge, Elite Four Member, Johto LO, Mistralton City Gym Leader, Celestic Town Division Head, Kumquat Island Gym Leader
    AIM MewAshMew; PWN/PXR/SPC Ash K., PE2K Alcadies
    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)
    "You might think it’s to help you be a better battler. Really it’s just to make your battles less painful for the poor referee that has to face-palm every turn." - Monbrey

  12. #57
    pikachu in a highchair We Taste Pies...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    pikachu in a highchair
    Posts
    3,384

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    I ask, not because I'm impatient but I don't wish to miss this, is this still happening this summer, and if so, when?

  13. #58

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by We Taste Pies... View Post
    I ask, not because I'm impatient but I don't wish to miss this, is this still happening this summer, and if so, when?
    If everything is done, and people have no reservations about everything discussed so far, then I plan to launch the signups and formal rules next month. If by chance I'm not able to run it because of internet stability, then somebody else can. So I was thinking signups would start June 9th and would last for two weeks. I'm pretty much open to do it whenever people want in done though.
    League of Legends SN: ATF Crysis



  14. #59

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    Having had a look this idea appears pretty awesome, and the only real problem seems to be battling. So here's a thought:

    Instead of doing one on one battles, an FFA could be done, with a few special rules: namely that a Pokémon could only be attacked twice per turn or some similar number. The obvious problem with this is that an enormous advantage would be placed on the team with more Pokemon, probably the attackers. This could be balanced by having a city garrison, made up of "residents" of the city, who would be relatively weak Pokemon without any EMs. The closest trainer of the faction owning the town/city could then control this garrison, along with his own party if he was actually residing in the city.

    Example: Vultan and Tychiel attack Viridian City, which is owned by my faction. There is not a trainer present, but I am the closest trainer, in Pallet Town, so I take command of the garrison, which is mostly composed of Ground-types, as Viridian is home to a Ground-Type gym. Together the attackers have 8 Pokémon, and there are six in the garrison. Thus it is 8v6, as I can't use my own team. They wipe out the garrison at the expense of two of their own Pokémon who are revived at, say, 20%, along with all the garrison, who are now under their control.

    I'd also suggest two other additions:

    The first would be some form of Diplomacy, both Formal and Informal. So you could Formally go into an alliance with another team, and maybe combine forces to attack a common enemy. The informal aspect would consist of deals done behind your ally's and team's back, such as, for instance, taking bribes, purposely mucking up a battle or even betraying your team mid-battle.

    The second aspect would be some sort of income system. Every city would give a fixed income, which could be used to buy EMs or Abilities for your own party (which would only last throughout the competion), for the garrison, or maybe even for buying mercenaries to temporarily join your forces for an assault. Some percentage of this money could also be gained by players after their defeat or victory, and could also be used, for instance, for ransoms.

  15. #60
    URPG Moderator Monbrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,509
    Trophies

    Default Re: Risk 2.0

    That actually did run. Quite a while ago, which is why this thread hasn't been posted in for over a year.

    And it was a total disaster.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •