Instead of the manny/pacquio analogy, since I dont think the majority of warlighters like boxing, ill try a different analogy.

I would equate having neutral territories with anything but 0 to having sex with a condom. It just gets in the way, makes the plowing take longer, and makes for a lot less enjoyable experience for both parties.

I would also say that having anything thicker than light fog is like having sex with the lights off. Why would I want to hide something that I want to see?

Chris I'm sensing some hostility from you.

The whole point of this discussion was to get another person's point of view on why they prefer certain settings. And while I can see why you like having neutral armies, I don't think it's productive or necessary to tell another player that they'll never get good if they don't play with your settings. If you must know, I spent a long time playing with the default settings, and did well. but once I realized how much faster the game would move by taking away things like neutral armies, my enjoyment of the game increased significantly. Some of us prefer games that can end in a matter of days, not weeks

Basically, there's no need to belittle other people for having different preferences than you.

"my settings"? Those are on all but 1 ladder template.

Not hostile, blunt. Perhaps I went too far (your clan drama makes me more apt to get touchy with you). But, here is my problem. You did not accept the fact that neutral armies adds strategic value and simply say "well, I prefer not to have that added decision making". If you did, we could move on and just accept that we prefer different formats. Instead, you argued that it does nothing but slow games down, which is not true. That is why I said your ability to get good (whether you care about that or not) will be stunted. Because you don't seem to understand why those neutral armies are there at all...not whether you want them or not.

For example, I prefer straight round. But I do understand why some like weighted random because it allows 3v2 attacks to fail %20 of the time. Just because I prefer another setting doesn't mean I ignore the reason why it is used commonly.

@chris i just want to make clear that we dont start any of this drama, it follows us around like that demon from paranormal activity.

FUCKING KEK

>we don't start drama
>hurr durr my profile pic is safe from getting me banned

^
Case and point

You create your own drama, don't put the blame on others

The only setting I really just don't like at all is "no split". Does anyone like it?

I also don't like to play on huge maps. To me it doesn't seem like there is more strategy to those games, just more clicking.

Agree 100% with blortis. 0% with lawlz

Edited 3/18/2015 20:17:31

Pooncrew.... your profile picture...

KEK

Completely agree with Lawlz this time.

You guys are offended by sandwiches now?

@Blortis

I absolutely love no split mode!

It is very interesting and strategic in my view.. Forming huge stacks is pointless(unless your opponent has one and it is critical that you hold a region). So you must deploy giving considerable thought to how you want your deployment to affect the game at least 4-5 turns ahead.

I don't like big maps though. In agreement with your view there.

As ChrisCMU said, there's nothing wrong with liking the gameplay of 0 neutrals, but arguing that it requires the same strategy is where you anyone who is any good will disagree.

People play and enjoy all sorts of games that are far less strategic than Warlight.

Checkers is less strategic than Chess but that doesn't make it worse (or better).

Pooncrew, your clan is thought of as troll drama generators because you do things like make pointless juvenile sexual analogies in a thread your own clanmate started where they claimed they were looking to start a serious discussion on settings.

With regards to straight rounding versus weighted rounding, I think I would prefer straight rounding but I do worry expansion might be too easy and predictable on ME.

I've wondered if something like weighted rounding for attacks versus neutrals, but straight for attacks versus enemies might be good. I'm sure we've all seen matches swing on something like a 13v8 attack failing and that always feels arbitrary.

75% luck. (or other high luck games)

Requires more skill as there is more option/possibilities.

Hated as it also means that, well, Luck is a factor. (Which means less skill, if you want to make that argument.)

+ No game is the same
+ More like realty (no-one has control over death tally)
+ Closer to classic risk, were you roll dices.

- Well... luck and all the things that comes with it.

its called manipulating people. Ever thought about this? That clans that play diplo manipulate each other more

as to why diplo is better

I like having luck in my games too. Some players complain about it, but the unpredictable is a part of life and there's no such thing as a sure thing. I like having to hedge my bets and plan for the possibility of bad luck.

Now if I could just take this moment to spam this forum with a game I'm trying to fill...

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8273426

LD, Multi-attack, no cards, unusual but awesome map, dense fog, 2-day boot with 50% banking for 20 turns because some folks have lives, no luck, auto-distribution.

There's gotta be something in there for everyone to hate.

*Clicked Mister 's profile*
*Bio*

"Old fart that likes to play war games on his phone. This is all just practice for world domination, which I'll achieve once I save up enough money for laser sharks. "

@Mister
attack failing in luck games is not a phenomena we do not expect to happen
for example in 16% luck straight round games you can expect an attack of 3 to go fail but 4 will always succeed
how much you should delpoy depends on the importance of the territory and the available armies you have for doing other stuff in the game
also your opponent's moves are unpredictable and not the luck,it can be expected/unexpected but you know it is there
thie reason why i prefer 0 luck straight round games is that you cannot say i was unlucky so i lost
almomst all noobs do that->why complain about getting unlucky when you don't like to play 0 luck games?? you also do not have to worry about your valid attacks going fail so you can concentrate more on the game and your strategy in 0 luck games

Why do people dislike the multi-attack option?

I don't see a lot of multi-attack games.

(My own experience is that it can lead to a lot weird "nuclear weapon" scenarios, but appropriate settings can counter-balance that and lead to really interesting and varied tactical play.)