September 15, 2019, 06:51:02 AM

Username
Password

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 9000 gc ruleset  (Read 4223 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bembelimen
Crossbowman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Who am I and how many?


View Profile WWW
« on: June 04, 2009, 10:56:51 PM »

Due the fact, that nobody want to make such rules, we should try to make them together.

First we have to decide, if we should make something like factions or more something like 3k/10+5k/15 (or perhaps both?)

The next step would be to decide, how we should split the races or give points. Feel free to post first thoughts.
Logged



"Sir we are surrounded!!!" "Excellent, then we can attack in any direction."
olly
Global Spokesperson
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1941



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2009, 11:16:32 PM »

I would like to see my Original simple Rule Set of

1) No more than 2 of same units (except Goblins etc)

2) No more than 1 Super Unit (Black Grail, Vampire(Mages), Artillary - 1 Mortor , 1 cannon etc and Elven Archers


All to be discussed and enhanced but also offers freedom to Buy Items and Armour Levels

which means Vampire/Mages and Pistoliers are Free to battle if last Unit, as opponent should have Anti Items.

I would make the Host always Deploy first and each Player should have 2 armies per Race,

1 Attack and 1 Defensive

and players should Ideally take turns Hosting on the same Map to allow maximum fairness, where possible.


Smiley
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 11:41:41 PM by olly » Logged

and back in Nuln, the ageing Graf Berhardt smiled his secret smile of pride whenever he heard the latest tales of his eldest son's ever growing chain of glorious victories -(sothr manual)
Ghabry
Developer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2009, 11:32:40 PM »

Mikademus had also some ideas about 9k some months ago:
Wiki-Article: 9k/30.
Logged

olly
Global Spokesperson
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1941



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2009, 11:43:42 PM »

Very True I forgot!

Especially since I have been reading all those Rule books and thinking I would like to see the use of Warhammer Rules

Core, Character and Rare etc that Mikademus' 9k Ruleset already implements.

Great Topic for Disucssions!


Smiley
Logged

and back in Nuln, the ageing Graf Berhardt smiled his secret smile of pride whenever he heard the latest tales of his eldest son's ever growing chain of glorious victories -(sothr manual)
alavet
Orc Shaman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2009, 04:03:12 PM »

i lieke mika system

if we be able to make a tourney on that it iwill be a great test

even though after few atches on 9k rules i didnt get very much fun, cause usually core of the game switching to the high level mage with less tactic involved. but maybe we may find decision how to go through it
Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
bembelimen
Crossbowman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Who am I and how many?


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 01:56:38 PM »

i lieke mika system

if we be able to make a tourney on that it iwill be a great test


Yep, it's a good base, but nothing more. Mikas rules need a totally rewrite, cause we have now a lot of new experiences about the strength of the regiments.

Perhaps we should also start to make the ruleset more mathematical, so that we can transfer it easily to another rulesets (see: Crusoe's post)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 05:38:53 PM by bembelimen » Logged



"Sir we are surrounded!!!" "Excellent, then we can attack in any direction."
mattimus
Night Goblin
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 06:15:08 PM »

I agree with the general thought, that the 9k/30 rule set listed is a good idea/base, but needs to be tweaked quite a bit to be made into a reliable ruleset.

Ie. 2pts for fire wizard level 1 *2 = 4pts for fire wizard level 2 doesnt quite work out like that fairly I think. Though was a simple solution to a difficult problem. A level 2 wizard can be ALOT more powerful, I would imagine with the exra item capability and spell. Trying to use it as a example that each units level increase wont be a universal multiplication every time.

I feel that its possible that the only way to do it is to create a points list for every unit's level as well as a point system for (armor?).

And a level 4 gobo (As a example of a weak unit) wouldnt be a core choice anymore. Though I heard that upgrading levels in DO doesnt improve online stats??... dont know about that.

Some thoughts,

Id love to see a strong rule set for 9k
Logged
bembelimen
Crossbowman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Who am I and how many?


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2009, 05:39:53 PM »

OK, let's collect the improvements for Mika's ruleset.
Logged



"Sir we are surrounded!!!" "Excellent, then we can attack in any direction."
Crusoe
Orc Boy
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2009, 01:29:50 AM »

my propositions are 27 points for 9k armies but are only porpositions, 30 points isnt so far so i believe its a good amount of points for 9k armies.

core, uniques, etc, are well defined and i think its a good classification as well the amount of troops relative to those terms.

i have been remarking this point cited by olly constantly:
I would make the Host always Deploy first and each Player should have 2 armies per Race,

1 Attack and 1 Defensive

and players should Ideally take turns Hosting on the same Map to allow maximum fairness, where possible.

...im completely agree and in my opinion this should be added to Mika's rules.

im not agree whit the items points table, in 9k games the items point table should be more specific, maybe the table that i did could be usefull this time, at least like an base idea.
Logged

Flak
Super Moderator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


Jake Nielsen


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2009, 11:49:47 AM »

I like Mika's idea in general and most of what you guys say seems very reasonable, its hard to set the points for high level troops because how much better are they really.

Maybe archers need to have their own class instead of Core, i think maybe the Core class will put too many bowmen into the armies at the expense of infantry, a tendency we saw in Factions.


Only thing that i dont like is the 1 attack and 1 defense army
What defines an attack army and a defense army?

Humans will use elven bowmen and mortars in big numbers, orcs will use lobbers

Undead bowmen and artillery are vastly outclassed by the humans and orcs, the best defense of undead is offense.
This is a nice idea in theory but it then becomes a question of enterperation as to what is a defensive army and an offensive one.
How do you make a defensive army if only 1 artillery and bowmen is allowed anyway? they will be more or less like the offensive armies anyway.

In my mind a tournament ruleset should be one of equal oppotunity for all players, best achived by a simple non restraining ruleset.

If you like very specific rules and defensive/offensive scenarios then i recommend Conquest where these things happen automaticly as part of the game play


I am very glad to see all the debate here  Smiley, may i also encourage everyone to join the June tournament and try these rules that will be forged from this debate in the test of battle Cool
Logged

"There is only one way out of hell, thats through it" -- General Patton

"Just because a mage wears the Black Robes, does not make him evil." -- Raislin Magere

"Evil Turns upon it self" -- Paladine
olly
Global Spokesperson
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1941



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2009, 02:46:30 PM »

Although in Favour of Mikademus' Ruleset, I can elaborate.

"Only thing that i dont like is the 1 attack and 1 defense army
 What defines an attack army and a defense army?"

You do..The Player
As a way of balancing Unbalanced Maps, such as Blighted Towers, Loren Lake, when the Host, inherits the more defensive Position. I feel as the Opponent I should attack and therefore be WISER to bring in a more offensive army, as next round I will be hosting(in his position) and will probably use my more defensive army, although I will be free to attack if I so desire.

The Host shouldn't be expected to give up their Natural defensive position,
on unbalanced Maps, especially if the opponent sets his troops as far back as possible and takes in a defensive Army of say Artillary pieces then it becomes a stand off, of out of range artillary pieces and no i havent suffered from this a great deal it just defines better game play and avoids any potential, while i am Publishing my Simple Rule set and ammending The Gentlemen's Agreement.  


There are of course individual instances that can be proved for and against this but in our 1 Round Tournaments, we have 1 army per race,so it must be an all rounder amry, as U dont know if it is to be used in defense or attack,(unless u choose your Races to be defense or attack) then facing the host in his defensive position seems unfair. Although we do use the most balanced maps, this applies for normal Battles when we play and use all maps and hopefully to allow more Maps in Tournament Variations.


"How do you make a defensive army if only 1 artillery and bowmen is allowed anyway? they will be more or less like the offensive armies anyway."

Upto the Player but 1 Cannon, 1 Mortor, 1 Elven Archer, 2 Imperial Bowmen ,2 Crossbowmen, if you are that way inclined and it is upto the player(advisable) if they want to Select and bring in a more Offensive Army( less out of range Artillary and more Hand to Hand Units or Cavarly -what ever the Player's, personal choice is), if they know they are likely to have to Attack the Host in his Natural Defensive Position. Unless you want to deploy your troops as far back as possible and wait until he becomes bored and Gives up his Natural Defensive Position to come and attack you instead.


"Humans will use elven bowmen and mortars in big numbers, orcs will use lobbers"

Thats exactly what I am trying to avoid, having to Attack the Host's Troops that are sat on their Hill waiting for me to March towards them, into his Multiple Mortors/Lobbers/Elven Archers.If you ever played Rome Total War Series Online Multiplayer its a real problem when having equal amounts of Units- Sun Tzu).  


"In my mind a tournament ruleset should be one of equal opportunity for all players, best achived by a simple non restraining ruleset"
      

The only restraints for new members to remember are-

1) Only 2 units of Same type allowed -Except weak Goblins etc

2) Only 1 Super Unit of Same type allowed-1BGK,1Cannon,1Mortor,1ElvenArcher

Then ammendments to Gentlemens Rules to avoid stand offs and balance maps
that surely offer more Freedom to pick a more Suitable Army.



"If you like very specific rules and defensive/offensive scenarios then i recommend Conquest where these things happen automaticly as part of the game play"


Its sadly dictated by the maps.

http://forum.dark-omen.org/maps/loren-lake-deployment-zones-t172.0.html


Hopefully that demonstrates that instead of changing Deployment zones we can simply "Advise" players to have 2 armies per Race saved, for them to choose from, depending on the Map that they ideally take turns Hosting on.  
In practice, playing on the more unbalanced Maps, what would happen when the Host always wins, even when players take turns Hosting in the Defensive Position, so always 1-1 what happens next? Rome Total War Series made Historic Battles where sides were unequal to compensate. However, to get to this extreme we would have played all Maps, using 2 armies per Race and through Experience, noted the maps and when faced with the decision to never use them or to create alternate ideas/concepts,such as Scenarios, I personally think there will only be a few Extremely unbalanced Maps, when using the "2 Armies" which is why I created the idea.


In simple terms, when in the Lobby and you see the HOST pick his Map you have the ability to select a more appropriate army. The other Extreme to this is that we would know which Map and Race we Face and create an army, based on this intelligence but Time restraints make this impracticle.

As I prefer to see all members playing non Tournament Battles using Tournament Rules,for perfect Practice and Balancing, we either keep playing on the most balanced Maps or enjoy the vast majority of other Maps by being prepared to take in a more suitable army.  


Smiley

« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 02:55:58 PM by olly » Logged

and back in Nuln, the ageing Graf Berhardt smiled his secret smile of pride whenever he heard the latest tales of his eldest son's ever growing chain of glorious victories -(sothr manual)
Mikademus
Developer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 546



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2009, 09:39:00 PM »

I'm glad to see debate on a 9K ruleset, it is about time to upgrade to that. I also fully acknowledge that my suggested ruleset was always only meant as that, a suggestion. It has afaik never been tested in MP battles, and as alavet says, it must be thoroughly revised and updated with the experience gained from tournaments to be useful.

Disregarding unit base costs, which should be updated with the experiences from the 3K and 5K rulesets, as I see it there are two problems with my ruleset as it is.

Firstly, unit levels. I don't think that there is a problem with ordinary troops; they can have any level and a cost multiplier will make high-level units relatively rare. Rather, character models (read Wizards) may need to be kept at lvl 1 or some other artificial rule must control them. Additional rules for wizards will likely not be taken favourably by some players, though.

Secondly, archers. As has been said, archers are core units, but that also opens up for all-archer armies. So there should probably be a 3-unit limit to archers or something. Or a rule that every missile (archer and artillery) unit must be supported by one (or two?) melee units.

The main strength with the suggested 9K ruleset, however, is the core/rare/unique/character unit type division. I think that should make for an excellent tool to create natural and balanced armies .
Logged


tovertrut
Mummy
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 113



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2009, 02:15:03 AM »

about the wizard thing:
i understand in 5k a high rank wizard would be devestating.
but in 9k i think a rank1 wizard may not so powerful as to wreck any decent destruction on the battlefield.id rather see a the wizard limited to rank 2,maybe with only 1 item allowed(this ofcourse is just my thought on it)
Logged
alavet
Orc Shaman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2009, 06:30:21 AM »

well as for Mika rules they good but now i looked at it more precisely and see that numbers differs from 5/15 ruleset but came from3k; which should be fixed (like wraights, bgk, treeman, mortair etc)

also Flak has his own version for the ruleset where he uses little more complicated system.
after few tests i might underiline some of major problems which we'll face:
1) vampire seems to be very powerfull since he moving damn fast. from other hand if he'd be killed (which is based on a luck factor a lot) then army w/o him will suffer a lot.
my lvl2 vampire with 2 artifacts costs 10pts by Flak system which is worth 3 very good regiments. 10 pts seems little low, but after vamprie dies its seems way too much :-)
i don't know how to fix it; maybe here will be a decision: increase mage artifacts in cost by 1 pts or make second mage item be +1 pts in cost...

also this showed how good actually banner of antimagic is.

2) teleport + lvl2 mage creates very effective combination of flying death. i suggest to price teleport for 2 mana points every time, no matter if you have wand of jet. i know its hard to manage cause u dont know how much mana opponent has, but its like a gentle rule.

otherwise for 3 mana with wand of jet u will be able to:
-teleport to the back of enemy army
-push your ossiris staff and kill at least 3 units at any regiment or maybe even kill enemy mage
-cast your usual spell like a burning ray killing other 2-3 units or mage
-teleport back

so its 6 units for the cost of like 2 rounds (or 1 lucky one)

3) either option 1 or option 2 should be applicable i think, not both. as i said overpricing from 10pts vampire will be a big problem for UD.

4) 9k rules seems to bee too low for creating really good strong experienced armies. i think we need to open up limits in future.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 06:37:08 AM by alavet » Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: