<> OCEANIC CAMPAIGN I: OFFICIAL THREAD <>
- Thread starter The Adjudicator
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yeah, and KoS is going 1-0 in that department. Azraine got banned. 
In case you can't tell, this is not meant to be serious.
superhit1000
Knight
Dojo successfully repelled the Rawr barbarian invasion, score was 10-1 Dojo wins.
Yahwade
Veteran
spree
Regular
ACC1 said:
Attack will be defended. You didn't state the hex but judging by the map I guess you meant hex I10 and Sunday 23rd (17th was on Monday). 8.30pm is fine. We will try to muster 20 but may be a little short - will try our best tho.
We will defend with Swadia.
After the defense we would like to counter attack at J7 straight afterwards. Please advise your defending faction asap and we will revert with our attacking faction within 24 hours of your advice. We also request no Khergs.
Can we have no Nords too? 
Gumpy
Master Knight
I'm not really sure I agree with banning factions outright, as I think there are a lot of missed opportunites to be had. But I think special caution should be taken by the clans to avoid certain combinations, like nords on port assault or khergit on open plains.
Take the first game SPL had with KEEN as an example, using Nords we won by one round - not six - and they were using Vaegirs, IMO one of the weakest factions. Had they been using Rhodoks or Swadians the result may have been completely different. Nords at least are one of the funnest factions to play as or against. Perhaps not khergits, I'll agree.
In short, I'd rather negotiation between combatants before the match than an outright decision to ban something, written in the rules.
edit: yah, I was just quoting you because yours was the first post I could find that mentioned it.
Take the first game SPL had with KEEN as an example, using Nords we won by one round - not six - and they were using Vaegirs, IMO one of the weakest factions. Had they been using Rhodoks or Swadians the result may have been completely different. Nords at least are one of the funnest factions to play as or against. Perhaps not khergits, I'll agree.
In short, I'd rather negotiation between combatants before the match than an outright decision to ban something, written in the rules.
I think this is a legitimate tactic, if a little annoying. Same with MoTF. Extending the rounds would be a good solution (and the first-to - I think we've proven in many a game that it's just too damned short. I would rather 9 or 10).HTAPAWASO said:
edit: yah, I was just quoting you because yours was the first post I could find that mentioned it.
It's awful, and dumb. The whole group v. group thing only came about because you formed clans. What fun is there in attacking individuals? It's much easier to paste your complaints over an entire group and stand behind the one you're a part of. In my opinion there are only a few individuals in the entire oceanic community who deserve any animosity whatsoever, not this "arrogant KoS" vs "crybaby Dojo" nonsense.HTAPAWASO said:
Gumpy said:
Well so far the poll agrees with you and so do I.
I wasn't complaining about the tactic itself (which I have mixed feelings about) but the fact several people on the opposing side tried to call us out for it... after they had done the same thing several times in the same game. Which was sort of my point with the whole double-standards thing.
Gutteridge
Recruit
gogo Dojo!
The Adjudicator
Veteran
The Rawr clan are granted another irrefusable attack under the Barbarian Invasion rules. This comes into effect on the 21st of May.
Laszlo said:
Fight and Destroy and simply say no destroying the objects.
superhit1000
Knight
The Adjudicator said:
Why's that?
The Adjudicator
Veteran
Clans who do not possess territory will be granted irrefusable attacks to allow them a fair chance to start a kingdom.superhit1000 said:
*Edit*
Also, slight update on Barbarian Invasion irrefusable attack rules: attackers and defenders can agree on their own victory conditions if they don't wish to do first to 10. But first to 10 is the default if there is no agreement otherwise.
Laszlo said:
So, say a team headshots one unlucky bastard from halfway across the map, then they can just turtle it up and win?
But then I guess MoTF would arrive.
I think it could work, but is a poor idea because it would not be reflected on the scoreboard, and on the occasion there is a proper stand-off a team that suffers a very small amount of bad luck and loses one member could lose the whole round.
Plus there will be the typical:
"nono we had FIVE people alive at the end of last round!"
"No you didn't, you had THREE and we had FOUR!"
etc. etc.
Better than that would be simply to say the defender wins if it's a draw, but that poses many problems too.
I think for now just extend the timer and then see if more things need changing afterwards.
Just make me the supreme arbiter of moral truth and I'll decide who should win and who should be thrown into the cave of contempt.
