Ladder 2 Round 5 - Team Moves

[Lord_Xan]

First off, Red team players fall back as follows:

1) Mako and Gamos fall back to Ascendancy.

2) Flux, Dfens, Noman, TheProven and Boogeyman fall back to Ascendancy.

Red team now makes the following moves:

1) Bean, Sneaky and Lord_Xan attack Dawn.

2) Mako, Gizzlo, Minsc and Boo attack IslandHop.

3) Flux, Dfens, TheProven and Boogeyman attack Adara.

Gamos, Noman and Saderax therefore stay on Ascendancy.

Slight rules change
Nevets, I'm going back to your initial proposal regarding planets being attacked: The defending commander can choose how many players he wants to stay and defend. The rest he can either move somewhere else (this was in the rules before) or use to attack another elligible map (this is the new part).

To me this seems like to easiest solution to our problem. Hope it's ok with you?

[|sAvAgE|]

this seems very wack to me...how will blue ever move off of adara even though we've won the map? we win, red falls back to ascendancy& attacks adara again? stale mate? wtf?

cant remember if i mentioned this before somewhere, but i was thinking (now & a while back) that whichever teams wins a round, has to make his moves for the next round FIRST! otherwise its pretty impossible for blue (in this case) to make any sort of comeback.

since blue won the last round (we won majority of the games, so is this correct?) we get to make our moves first (for example we now attack ascendancy with whatever players and THEN red makes its moves) since its a "tactical" map, where will blue ever apply any "pressure" to red if red is always on the "offensive" ? the winning team tends to PUSH the other team, hence applying pressure. is this case, its like blue never even won the match on adara since red is just back there again.

all that i can see wrt round 4 is that we took over IslandHop, and retained Adara. not much of a chance to do anything now since red is just attacking again, and we're still where we were.

basically, i am of the opinion that the above red team moves should be made null & void since blue team is the one who's now pushing red back off it's (blue teams) territory (and claiming new in the case of IslandHop) and the "pressure" should be applied with blue attacking & red now defending. once blue has attacked (heres hoping nevets is on the ball :D) then we can see how red responds.

sorry if im repeating myself above here, its late & im kak tired...hope i got the jist of what i wated to say across, i'll try & post a more sensible post tomorrow when (if) i get some free time.

[Lord_Xan]

I get what you're saying, Savage. The rules are a bit messy and in hindsight I would've done a lot better if I had kept the two teams' attack and defense movements apart. Something to remember if we ever do this again, I suppose.

However, I feel the rule I outlined above addressed your problem sufficiently. With this rule "planet swaps" become possible. The good thing is that such a move comes with advantages and disadvantages, just like any tactical decision should. It is now entirely possible for Blue to take Adara and push forward towards Red's base.

Your approach has merit, but what happens in case of multiple battles? I guess one can set up all sorts of complex IF-THEN-ELSE scenarios, but as you know by now I'm fond of the simple solution.

[|sAvAgE|]

while the above mentioned change has merit, i dont think it is fair enough to be used. if red remains moving first, it can be seen as red is always on the offensive while blue on defense. lets just see if i can give an example here.

take IslandHop: blue won the map in round 4, but doesnt move forward to attack ascendancy because red is just back there attacking it (since having "move preference" for round 5). now, if in round 5, red happens to win IslandHop then blue falls back to torlan. Red then makes its round 6 moves before blue, and might decide to attack torlan thereby moving forward on the map, while blue can only sit idly by with shields up (and being pushed back). as long as blue wins, red is basically just staying where it is (but remains on the offensive due to having this "move prefrenece" in the next round i.e falls back one map, then jumps right back forward) while blue just sits waiting without the chance to continue its "offensive". if red then wins the next round (round 5) on torlan, they move forward and blue has to fall back (once again). i dont see how this is fair at all since this will never happen with blue team if each time we win a map, we have to defend it right away AGAIN in the next round.

the above rule change only allows the defending team to move different players to the same maps for a change of scenary. the same can be applied to ascendancy, andmy argument still stands that red will always be attacking, while blue will always be defending as things are standing now (rule wise) unless the "move preference" rule is somehow put in place or something...

[Shrimp]

I agree 100% with |sAvAgE| - I hadn't actually realised this before, but as he says, it's really impossible for Blue to ever advance, all they can do is defend the same maps over and over regardless of how many times they fend off Red's attacks. Red will just be back the next round and the cycle can be repeated for ever (unless Red win, blue must retreat and Red just keep advancing).

[sneaky]

Interesting points was also wondering why Red was always making first moves. Why not just alternate advance moves on a weekly basis between the two teams regardless of win or loose?

[Cataphract]

Or set a maximum of 2 battles per map. Last winner holds it.

[|sAvAgE|]

no, this is supose to be a "tactical" ladder. the team that wins the round should be given preference to move first, because then both teams have something to work for besides map ownership. you win the entire round, u get the 1-up on the other team and get to move first in the next round. i suppose deciding who wins the whole orund could become dodgy if there are 2 games in a round and one game goes to red, the other to blue; but then thats why we have points assigned to each map (planet) played. the points "system" could also put a new twist here though, for example a team could win 2/3 games, and still have less points than the other team who only won 1, but then this would give teams more "drive" to work harder for the higher value maps.

either way, something has to be done otherwise this whole ladder is going to b biased to one team, and i for one dont see the point of continuing like this. :(

simplel put: you fight, you win, you push on!

[Lord_Xan]

First things first - whatever we decide doesn't affect the 4 rounds played so far. Everyone ok with that?

Secondly, sounds like the best solution will be to split the team movements up. The downside is that we'll have to have mid-week battles then. If everyone is happy with this, I suggest we adopt it from Round 5 onwards.

[fatman]

Agreed, up to round 4 stays as is.

Me thinks all will agree that what was won was won fairly.

What aount savs suggestion regarding who is allowed to move first?

Perhaps if you have defended a map successfully, you have first right to attack from that map? My very limited understanding 2c worth, but like in risk, if you survived the attack you can attack where you were attacked from...

[Lord_Xan]

What aount savs suggestion regarding who is allowed to move first?

That won't be necessary. If we adopt the Risk approach each team will get the opportunity to attack AND defend in a round.

So you will have:

1) Red moving/attacking and Blue defending
2) Blue moving/attacking and Red defending

[Nevets]

MY 2c,

I agree with savage.... the team that wins the round over all takes the first move, should there be more than one fight the bigger battle takes the move.

EG :

8 vs 8 = Red wins

3 vs 3 = blue wins

Red Team Moves

5 vs 5 = red team wins

5 vs 4 = blue team wins

Red Team Moves

5 vs 5 = Red wins ( 4 - 0 )

5 vs 5 = Blue Wins ( 4 - 2 )

Red Team Moves

and so on, we could even get to a position where we need to work out the individual points from each player to see which team moves.

_________________


Current method will NOT work......

unless my maths is really really bad i will never leave less people defending a planet than the guys attacking, just will not work. Therefore because RED occupy ascend. You can send MAX players to all my linking maps. STALEMATE

UNLESS, we have a straight challange for the home base in which case BLUE will give you a damn good run for your money. If you would like to try i'm game....:)

Xan, I don't think we need to have mid week fights. If blue wins the round we go first if you succesfully defend you attack first next round.

That's my vote !!!!!

I think we can learn alot from this one and then ladder three will be really cool.... :)

[Nevets]

Xan,


you got 11 peeps on ascendancy 10 max army.

But don't stress because you can just move the guy back and then move him forward to asc.

Just thought i'd try act smart :)

[Lord_Xan]

Nevets, are you therefore opposed to the movements split thing? I really can't see a reason why that won't work. And it'll be a lot simpler than messing around with points to determine who gets to go first in a round.

With the split you can defend Adara and then attack Ascendancy in the same round!

Thanks for pointing out my Ascendancy error. I'll fix it as soon as we've agreed how to resolve the attack/defend problem.

[Bean]

Sounds good.

From rules of risk: Then players take turns initiating battles. Each battle can have three parts: (1) deploying armies; (2) attacking the opposition;(3) fortifying the territories held.

We don't get extra peeps per round as you do in risk - but it will be much better if the battles/moves are completed by each side.

[|sAvAgE|]

up to round 4 nothing changes. im all for that :P

a suggestion i would like to make (since i think im thinking more "straight" now) is as follows:

each map has been assigned points (this we can see on the tactical map) and in order to win a round (and hence be the 1st team to move in the next round) you need to end up with more points than the opposing team at teh end of a round. ROUND points reset each round, while team points tally up (obviously). like i said in my previous post, it is entirely possible for a team to win 2/3 games (if there were 3 games played in a specific round in total) and still LOSE the round, which in a way applies "pressure" to players to play better in ALL their games. the winner of the round then gets to move first on the next round.

i dont expect this solution to be the ONLY one, so hopefully others here can give us suggestions and/or even combine them into one to work out a way around this current issue. i do see that adding this it of "pressure" to players can make things really exciting, since we will now be fighting for a "cause" and not just battling on a map to win & kla.

[Nevets]

Nevets, are you therefore opposed to the movements split thing? I really can't see a reason why that won't work. And it'll be a lot simpler than messing around with points to determine who gets to go first in a round.

With the split you can defend Adara and then attack Ascendancy in the same round!



Naa no problem with that, bean must just realise that i'll be at his place midweek too :) Yea that sounds cool at least i can attack you and try gain territory .. :)

lets base round five on this, if we win all our battles it works if not back to the drawing board

What would be the best day for a midweek battle or do we just do it all on sunday. we could just play your moves first then mine. anyday is cool for me.

[<A>BioGizzard]

i agree with savage...

u win round u move first
we win round we move first

the way it is now we'll never be able to have a descant comeback, well just stay on our side of the war running from map to map like idiots, trying to keep red from taking it. where's the fun in that?

i'm not gonna spend another 10 weeks defending, just to end up losing a the battles in the end in anycase...

[Lord_Xan]

I'll try and get up a final verdict for this sometime tonight.

[~MA~[peterpan]]

i agree with savage...

u win round u move first
we win round we move first

the way it is now we'll never be able to have a descant comeback, well just stay on our side of the war running from map to map like idiots, trying to keep red from taking it. where's the fun in that?

i'm not gonna spend another 10 weeks defending, just to end up losing a the battles in the end in anycase...

Agreed

[<A>BioGizzard]

is the ladder paused?
halloo!!...anybody here?....Echo!Echo! Echo!Echo!

[Lord_Xan]

Oooh, I've been a bit lazy. Here is the promised post:

From Round 5 onwards we are splitting up the team movements/attacks/defends. I haven't decided yet how we're going to fit this into a week, but the order now goes as follows:

1) Team 1 declares their movements and attacks.
2) Team 2 gets to defend. If they are victorious, Team 1 needs to declare their fallback positions. If Team 2 loses its them that must declare their fallback positions.
3) Team 2 declares their movements and attacks.
4) Team 1 gets to defend. If they are victorious, Team 2 needs to declare their fallback positions. If Team 1 loses its them that must declare their fallback positions.
5) Next round commences.

Who gets to go first in a round is decided by the number of victories - the team with the most goes first. In the event of a tie I will toss an unbiased dice on my unbiased floor to determine the order (1-3 = Red, 4-6 = Blue).

Given that Blue won both of their matches in Round 4, they should move first in Round 5. Red Team's moves listed above are therefore void.

That should cover everything. Questions?

[|sAvAgE|]

er...so am i on team 1 or 2? :D

[Nevets]

1) Team 1 declares their movements and attacks.
2) Team 2 gets to defend. If they are victorious, Team 1 needs to declare their fallback positions. If Team 2 loses its them that must declare their fallback positions.
3) Team 2 declares their movements and attacks.
4) Team 1 gets to defend. If they are victorious, Team 2 needs to declare their fallback positions. If Team 1 loses its them that must declare their fallback positions.
5) Next round commences.


Given that Blue won both of their matches in Round 4, they should move first in Round 5. Red Team's moves listed above are therefore void.

That should cover everything. Questions?


Xan, This sounds cool.

We would have to have 2 match dates, I recomend we have Wed & Sun 22:00. If we make it a standard time we will eliminate confusion. We would need to see a result before the second team can make its moves.

Monday = First team's moves [ According to you thats me then ]

Thursday = Second team's moves [ U ]

Due to thelong weekend we might only be able to start Mon 15th.

What u say ?

[Lord_Xan]

Nevets, the two matches per week sounds like the right idea. I wouldn't want to skip another week though. That would make 3 idle weeks so far. :(

[Nevets]

Xan,


I don't mind when we start, I know that a few guys on my team are away. I would prefer to start next week, if all my players confirm they are fine for wed we are good to go:)


1. Sam; Raliator; Slayed_alive attack Primeval

2. Nev; Shrimp; Rommel; Dojee: Bio; Savage - Fat Cat - PP on Ascendancy..:).... That's a whole lotta pp, ROFL. Please check your numbers as you have 11 on ascendancy { penalty 5 points transfered to Blue .... lol ]

BLUE TEAM - PLEASE CONFIRM - THIS WOULD BE FOR WED 22:00 THE 10th

1. Nevets
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.


Thanks 1 Million :)

[<A>BioGizzard]

BLUE TEAM - PLEASE CONFIRM - THIS WOULD BE FOR WED 22:00 THE 10th

1. Nevets
2. Ivan_1
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[|sAvAgE|]

we could always just start the round this coming weekend, and have it end next wednesday? why does the round HAVE to start on a wednesday? :)

either, im in for wednesday.

1. Nevets
2. Ivan_1
3. |sAvAgE|
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[~MA~[peterpan]]

1. Nevets
2. Ivan_1
3. |sAvAgE|
4. Peterspam
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[Shrimp]

1. Nevets
2. Ivan_1
3. |sAvAgE|
4. Peterspam
5. <A>Shrimp
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[gizzlo]

ok so when are we going to play ons?

[Nevets]

we could always just start the round this coming weekend, and have it end next wednesday? why does the round HAVE to start on a wednesday? :)



This could work :) , As we only got 5 guys so far

[Cataphract]

I'm in. Just let me know.

[sneaky]

What? if everybody else is playing then im playing too.

What gizzlo said.

[fatman]

I'm in 2..

[Nevets]

guys,


Sundays the day !!!

Sunday 14th 22:00

Xan, just confirm with your guys :)

EVERYBODY IS FIGHTING

[Shrimp]

EVERYBODY IS KUNG-FU FIGHTING

[<A>Nom@n]

those guys were fast as lightning (but red was faster)

[dojee]

This has my blessing.

You may proceed.

[Gamos]

Ok, now after all the decisions are made, can anyone tell me where I am, and when I play?

[|sAvAgE|]

Ok, now after all the decisions are made, can anyone tell me where I am, and when I play?red team has not made its moves yet, afaik.

[sneaky]

Thats coz the next attack is a stealth attack, your just gonna pich up Monday morning and go WTF?!?!?!?! when you notice you have all moved a planet back.

[<A>BioGizzard]

EVERYBODY IS KUNG-FU FIGHTING
G!!!thx, now i have that song stuck in my head....

[Nevets]

Guys,


Not to sure about red, but everybody in blue has ONS booked for sunday 22:00.

Gamos, you are playing on Sunday and atleast you will have team mates...... i hope :)

This is going to be the war of the worlds !!!!!

:)

[bl@d3]

Soz guys, I need to withdraw from the ladder, I'm capped and it's difficult to view this site and check whats happening when.

Soz for the inconvenience :(

Unless someone can email or post on zagamers and let me know when to play :)

[Nevets]

blade,


I'll keep u up to date :)

[Lord_Xan]

Red is ready to go for Sunday 22:00 (well, hopefully).

Just to refresh, after Blue's victories in Round 4 Red fell back as follows:

1) Mako and Gamos fall back to Ascendancy.

2) Flux, Dfens, Noman and TheProven fall back to Ascendancy.

3) Boogeyman falls back to Crossfire.

[Lord_Xan]

After the defeat on Ascendancy, Red falls back as follows:

1) Flux, Dfens, Gizzlo and Gamos fall back to Crossfire.

2) Mako, TheProven and Noman fall back to Frostbite.

3) Saderax, Minsc and Boo fall back to Aridoom.

Remember that when falling back you can't keep more players in a map than it allows, even if you plan on attacking from that map. Since this isn't the case anywhere for Red, all players are free to attack as part of Red's final moves.

Red's final moves for Round 5 are therefore:

1) Flux, Mako, Gizzlo, Dfens, Gamos, Noman, Boogeyman and TheProven attack Ascendancy.

2) Lord_Xan, Sneaky and Bean attack Dawn.

Nevets, please note that you must move Sam, Raliator and Slayed_Alive into fallback positions. After the above battles have been finalised Round 5 will be over.

[|sAvAgE|]

before i get told im being sour, does anybody else see the problem here (again) ?

[Gamos]

You won, and now have the potential to not have made a dent?

This will take place tonight yes?

EDIT:

I have read through the problems of the system, and wonder if not only 1 team per round should move (and fight). So round 6 for instance will only be blue team moving and fighting, while red can only defend. Round 7 will be red moving/fighting where blue can only defend.
Seems like a much simpler system to me...

[Lord_Xan]

before i get told im being sour, does anybody else see the problem here (again) ?

I wasn't too sure myself if I was doing the right thing. I'm not so sure anymore what we agreed on (the posts are all over the place).

Should we rather scrap the double moves per round (like Gamos suggests) while keeping the "whoever wins goes first" rule?

Sorry for any mix-ups. I haven't been able to put the required time into the ladder as of late. :(

[<A>BioGizzard]

bring dit boetman....looks like we playing tug of planet...errr war, huh?

btw can we please make sure "players must be ready" is on this time and not a warm up round...
it was a bit dodgey when red was surprised on sunday....

[Nevets]

Red's final moves for Round 5 are therefore:

1) Flux, Mako, Gizzlo, Dfens, Gamos, Noman, Boogeyman and TheProven attack Ascendancy.

2) Lord_Xan, Sneaky and Bean attack Dawn.

Nevets, please note that you must move Sam, Raliator and Slayed_Alive into fallback positions. After the above battles have been finalised Round 5 will be over.



Cool,

Blue we need to defend here, 9 Blue vs 8 Red tonight. If we defend successfully we can continue on our mission and capture Red :)

There for the following blue players will be playing :

1. Slayed, Ral, Sam, Bot 1, Bot 2, vs Xan, Bean, sneaky [ This is A must win 5 vs 3, please ensure we all there ]

2. PP, cat, fat, Shrimp, Savage, Nevets, Bio, Rommel, Dojee vs the rest.

I repeat if we successfully defend we can press forward therefore unlocking the red's rope around my neck :)

XAN, sam, ral and the rest are not moving anywhere unless u defeat us :)

[|sAvAgE|]

shot :) lets just run it & see how it goes. i was just thinking too far ahead early, without looking right in front of me :/ tonight, its on!

[dojee]

ITS ON!!

...about the moves -sequence, structure etc. lets consider this game 'under development' and keep fine-tuning it. like this way now and the 'winner moves first' if theres still probs?

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

so are we gonna carry on attacking Ascendancy forever?

cos tonight was NOT fun, hows about some better team decisions aswell, so we dont contantly end up with lopsided teams, in which case blue is allmost ALLWAYS guaranteed to win.

this is not meant to offend anyone
and it isnt aimed at anyone, but i am just not enjoying this ladder as much as i did the first

sorry, but thats one mans opinion

[|sAvAgE|]

flux! :) read up on the last 2/3 threads and see what was being discussed here and make suggestions. this "tug o' war" issue was discussed in a previous thread, as well as being mentioned above in this one. anyways, as it is now (with blue winning ascendancy so far) it works out for the better in that red moves further back & blue moves off ascendancy and forward into "enemy territory". i must mention though, if red had to win ascendancy we still would've been in said "tug o' war" :) this is just an example anyway.

oh well, looks liek fun times ahead if i try & predetermine red & blue moves, things should be getting hairy soon :) i think i see reds plans too (if there are any, otherwise forget what i said) :)

[~MA~[peterpan]]

And am i the only one that thinks the sgs servers are either overloaded with other game services or something theriosuly wrong here....

Last nights game was not enjoyable for me (and others) because of lag, bad bad PL. I know some people have some "issues" playing on the MA server (for some reason), but I for one vote we try 1 game on there. We have nothing to loose at this point, thats for damn sure..........

or on main sgs server (if it is not the same box)...

[|sAvAgE|]

right, so im looking @ the tactical map as it is now and i see this possible "situation" popping up in the future:

bean, sneaky, xan are currently on dawn (going by last nights win) and looking @ nevet's round 6 moves blue is attacking dawn again. IF blue wins this attack (and the second one, if we are sticking to the double moves per round) red falls back to primeval and then if in round 7 blue wins on primeval (once again, both if we're still on double moves per round) where does red move to then? you obviously cant attack ascendancy since you arent able to "fall back" onto it from primeval (same thing for attacking trying to attack primeval again, there is NO question about this as far as im concerned). what happens then? i mean, this is if blue still controls ascendancy at that time, if its owned by red then i see no problem with this.

possible solutions? look @ how onslaught itself is played. once a "linking node" (the primeval middel node) is lots, all succeeding nodes become "obsolete" until that link is re-established. i think somehting similar should be implemented here, in that if ascendancy is lost by a team, and that team has any players beyond that point then they should all fall back to "their half" of the map.

anything else, gladly accepted. :)

[Lord_Xan]

The Red Team players that attacked Ascendancy fall back to the planets they attacked from. Savage's newest map update reflects this.


so are we gonna carry on attacking Ascendancy forever?

I realise Ascendancy is getting to be a bit old hat by now. I think I made the planet a bit too valuable when I set up the tactical map. That said, it looks like the war has shifted into Red's half of the map - we should be seeing action on a few new maps now.


hows about some better team decisions aswell

I'm trying my best, but I have no way of knowing who's going to show up for battles. It's each player's responsibility to come and check here to see if and when they play - I'm not going to babysit them.

Round 6 will hopefully give a fresh angle to the war. Keep me up to date with your thoughts, Flux. The point is for you guys to have fun. The moment that stops it's time to rethink things and look at alternative approaches. :)

"]
And am i the only one that thinks the sgs servers are either overloaded with other game services or something theriosuly wrong here....

The servers have been giving me grief on and off for a while now. I'm on ISDN though, so I don't know how much that counts for anything.

MA's server gives me a higher ping, which makes large battles quite trying. As a result I'm not too keen to play there. If everyone else is happy though, I'll give it a shot.


i think somehting similar should be implemented here, in that if ascendancy is lost by a team, and that team has any players beyond that point then they should all fall back to "their half" of the map.

I wouldn't like that. I see no reason why a team should be forced to give up a map simply because all routes to it are occupied by the opposing team. How does this unbalance things?

[|sAvAgE|]

The Red Team players that attacked Ascendancy fall back to the planets they attacked from. Savage's newest map update reflects this.lol, are you ok with this? i just used the last fallbacks to check something on my own which is why i didnt post a link to it :)

I wouldn't like that. I see no reason why a team should be forced to give up a map simply because all routes to it are occupied by the opposing team. How does this unbalance things?its not necesarily an issue of balance. all im saying is that, what if we (blue) manage to push the 3-man team all the way back to primeval (and we still own ascendancy) what happens then? u cant stay & "defend" a map you dont own (if we win primeval) and you cant attack ascendancy because you have no maps "linking to it" after primeval (looking @ blue dominating crossfire, aridoom & frostbite). if this happens, hypothetically speaking, then i would like to know what happens to the 3-man team. u cant sit in limbo, so u have to be "tossed" somewhere, or maybe red gets penalised for having players "behind enemy lines" and now being "discovered & booted" or something once they have been pushed "beyond" primeval.

it doesnt necessarily unbalance things, like i said above, but it could cause a whole mess later on looking @ blue & reds current positions on the map. suggestions people, thats what we need. keep it, change it, i dont care, what?

[Lord_Xan]

i would like to know what happens to the 3-man team

Under such circumstances I think it would be ok to move them to the closest (ito number of "jumps") friendly planet with enough free space. How does that sound?


or maybe red gets penalised for having players "behind enemy lines"

Nay, that would be way too harsh! I don't want to punish people for winning battles. :(

[<A>BioGizzard]

Man this it getting confusing
what's gonna happen if u keep winning with your three peeps.
does that mean that all this fighting was pointless? as u'll beat
us with a three man team in the end ....

[|sAvAgE|]

Nay, that would be way too harsh! I don't want to punish people for winning battles. :(lol, no man. only once red gets pushed off of primeval (in this case) since they have no other place to go, they could fall back to arctic/lose 5-10 points/have the players sit out bla bla bla

[Lord_Xan]

does that mean that all this fighting was pointless?

I can't help it if you guys can't defend against 3 people. :p

Savage, punishing a team for their strategy/victories is exactly what you'll end up doing if you penalise them in the fallback scenario you described. What's the use of trying to flank if it's going to cost you in the end? The ineffectiveness of a commander's strategy should be punishment enough.

[Nevets]

Guys,


my 2c [ This ladder 2 is a learning curve for us all, Ladder 3 will be the real test :) ]

1. i agree with savage in the xan , sneaky , bean situation. U guys have no supplies all your links are broken. Mabye an idea is u 3 have a dis-advantge placed on u. 50 eg: 50% health.

2. I don't mind the other side too - while you guys are ther i am on my way to ur home planet, as long as my 6 can beat your 3 u stuck :)

3. if we beat u twice - meaning you lose primeval, i suggest you fall back to your home planet :)

4. one common thing i have notice is that if the team lets u down u lose :)

KK

[Lord_Xan]

Guys, I am really not prepared to penalise a team with points or health or whatever just because they have people behind enemy lines. The "penalties" for such a situation are already there:

* it's going to cost points to teleport them out (if they have no route home)
* them puttering around doing nothing means there're X less people to help defend elsewhere

Falling back to the home planet is something I might consider.