| Massive Assault http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/ |
|
| Repeat games w/same set-up http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=22120 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rextrent [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Repeat games w/same set-up |
How dificult would it be to allow for this option?: Ability to play the same allocation of allies repeatedly, as a SAVED SCENARIO. Players could then try different strategies and tactics, playing both sides. This would add infinite interest and play. Why not?! 
|
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What you are suggesting is playing a game knowing where all secret allies are, along with playing both sides. It is an interesting concept but i do not think it would have much appeal unless the games were played as "non-rating" because the "secret allies" concept really is what makes MA the interesting challange that it is. Also, while it does not offer the same option you seek where players can switch sides and play the same layout, if games are played with "very high" concentration of allies, all countries are taken so both sides know who controls what. |
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This game also could use the option to choose allies, similar to the old Risk game setup option, each player choosing one ally until the given number is reached. I am really amazed at the inability to imagine the infinite possibilities which this idea would provide. The possibilities for more enjoyment and utility are plain as day. I enjoy the game for what it is, but to have the "secret allies" replaced by "known allies" would be entertaining and bring a different set of strategies to the game. Great thinkers, like Storm, would be challenged and players who are not so good at guessing secrets could play on a more level field. What harm does this option have? What is the problem with more options? How could this be "bad"? Think outside the box, pleeeze. |
|
| Author: | ravermeister [ Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would be willing to pay for "Optional Upgrades" such as this.. I know I purchased a lifetime membership - but unless you feed the cow you get no milk (no offense to any cows or farmers). I do not expect a lifetime (I am intending to live to 100) of upgrades for free - I know some will resist - and complain - and scream that they should get everything for free - but I am a realist and am willing to continue to contribute for the improvement to the game (within reason). |
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the positive response! I will be glad to show them the money. Consider this: there could also be some setpiece allied countries that would become very popular, and the game would then resemble a very interesting version of chess. While there will still be standard MAN2 play, there can be MassiveAssaultChess going on in Non-ranking play. This feature could become very popular, especially for players who just want to experience the great graphics, beautiful maps, game dynamics without the stress of hidden allies. |
|
| Author: | timm [ Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think this should be implemented on the website. It just needs a fairly simple webpage and a script to create the custom non-rating games. You could have manual SA choice or random with an uneven balance. We could have uneven balance games against the AI like we had in Domination. This, the custom tournament feature and maybe some other things could be packaged for an optional extra fee. I'd pay. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|