|
Post by Dubber on Nov 16, 2007 8:47:47 GMT -5
What would be your preferred melee styles for the league? How would you score the individual players or would you only score the team?
Would you prefer 2v2, 3v3, 2v3, 1v2, etc *and why* -- what strengths and weaknesses do you see in each? which spellbook do you find works better/worse and why?
Discuss...
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Nov 16, 2007 9:11:35 GMT -5
I think 2v2 has the most depth, as 3v3 allows too much abuse...how is 1v2 even fair? lol
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 16, 2007 9:25:54 GMT -5
Here's the thing I find.
First team to get the first kill wins.
1v2, 2v3 is instant death.
3v3 makes for an awful amount of luck. ie, you targeted the right person at the right time with everything and now it's 2v3.
2v2 is fantastic fun though in my opinion. Though there is always the thing where the "lesser" player tends to defer their own judgement to the "greater"... which seems to take the fun out of it.
I reckon if there we solid teams, then that would take some of that out of it... I mean, who wants to play with someone who is constantly telling them what to do?
Outside of that though, I reckon scores should be per individual... But I guess that would depend on how often you changed partners...
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 16, 2007 9:35:45 GMT -5
A suggestion for a League: Let's not mess with team battles at least for few first months. Just common score for all players of a clan IMHO is enough for the beginning.
A suggestion that doesn't has anything to do with the League =) Maybe we could have a (unofficial?) 2v2 tournament when 1v1 tourney ends? That could found some constant teams for the future...
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 16, 2007 10:04:51 GMT -5
There will be a way for melee to be a part of the league, however, it will never be an important part of it, or a required part. It won't factor into the scoreboard, for example. I think this is impossible simply due to the length of time it takes to play one melee battle. It takes forever. Team battles can take even longer if communication outside the battle is allowed.
There was a 2v2 tournament last year, won by Maven and Freesoul.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Nov 16, 2007 10:12:42 GMT -5
Also things we might want to consider in 2v2, is the "Telepathy"
Do we accept Out of Tourney planning between members?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Nov 16, 2007 13:14:55 GMT -5
They have to be allowed to coordinate; firstly, if they're not, some unscrupulous players might do it anyway. And also, of lesser importance, it's hard to act as a team if you don't know what your teammate will be doing. You should confirm your moves with each other via message before you submit them.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Nov 16, 2007 13:29:54 GMT -5
Yeah I know, but it makes some intersting play when only communication is inplay. Just like when you're playing some card games (or a lot of cool board games).
But for the firstly, it's still a honour question
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Nov 16, 2007 13:34:46 GMT -5
I think that the only way to have a fair match without doubt of cheating, you'd have to allow communication.
However, I'd enjoy some matches that do not allow communication... that way, some of your skill involves knowing how your partner plays and planning accordingly. This puts more skill on the strength of the team, instead of the strength of the individuals.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Nov 16, 2007 13:53:54 GMT -5
This reminds me of a variant I'd like to see implemented, one that doesn't seem very difficult to code. I wish you could play blind, without ever being able to see your opponent's gestures. Targeting still works normally, of course. But it adds a whole new element of depth to the game. Expand it to 2v2 melee with no communication, and all of a sudden you have a very interesting format.
Edit: FoD would probably have to be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 16, 2007 15:51:07 GMT -5
A very interesting idea, but unfortunately, I think it would blow chunks. Counterspells become so ineffective that the game goes full tilt offensive, and because disruptions end up being unpredictably hit-or-miss, I find it hard to see the game being more than just a crapshoot.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 17, 2007 13:12:24 GMT -5
To me, 3v3 is the much more difficult (and therefore more interesting) game. Granted the "kill one of your opponents fast" strategy makes sense; but how does a team decide which opponent to rub out first?
Do you whack the strategist? Do you whack the strongest individual player? What other considerations come into play?
Plus, the opponents will assume the "kill one" strategy they employ will also be directed back at them -- encouraging strong defenses. The trick is dealing enough judicious damage while strongly defending your mates.
Not being the strictest logician in this bunch, I have no data or suggested lines for "best" and "worst" play choices in a 3v3. I'd be interested in seeing some theorizing on just how good or bad different options would be. My guess would be two offense hands and four defense hands would be a best practice.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 17, 2007 13:18:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 17, 2007 14:38:58 GMT -5
Yes, nahualli. Note that "nahualli" is not the same thing is "nahual", though the words are related. It might make more sense if you read down to the relevant definition.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 17, 2007 16:57:23 GMT -5
I thought the best strategy was to have three hands offensive, and three hands throwing para...
|
|