WarMap

**SuRroundeD By 1** · 11-03-2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rokkman X

They wouldn't be the better army if they were sent in with those odds. Therefore they should not win. They may be more skilled but this is a level playing field with uneven playing field mechanics. One side should get actual advantages if the circumstances are just so, conversely the advantages should be taken away if careful consideration is taken to prevent such losses.
The way it is now, the battles are dice rolls on a risk board. If the skill gap is anything but minimal across the board there will be balance issues that arise.

Although I do agree that skill can be acquired. (Knowledge+Practice=Skill .)

If our wars were realistic you would be right; however, the way they are now and the way I prefer them to be, is completely skill based and not too effected by outside factors. Haha, I don't think I've ever played with you, but I'm the guy who complains and shouts when I miss out on a kill because of bloom (and it used to happen very often pre-TU). My point is, if we lose, it should be our fault, not because of an outside factor or because of something out of our control. A battle in FC (imo) should not be decided by numbers, but by skill, even though that's unrealistic.

Point is, you're right and your system works if you're trying to be realistic, but I don't think that is what this community should be about. This system doesn't work very well if we're trying to continue to stay competitive based.

**Rokkman X** · 11-03-2012, 06:46 PM

The community is a "War Simulation", we all play the part of soldiers in a theater of war (Kind of like reenactments). The best individual soldier or team doesn't always win. That's just the way it goes. Generals have oversights and missteps and it affects the outcome of battles and the morale of the troops. Battles should be decided by all of the factors being considered. If you want an MLG experience you may be in the wrong place.

**SuRroundeD By 1** · 11-03-2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Rokkman X

The community is a "War Simulation", we all play the part of soldiers in a theater of war (Kind of like reenactments). The best individual soldier or team doesn't always win. That's just the way it goes. Generals have oversights and missteps and it affects the outcome of battles and the morale of the troops. Battles should be decided by all of the factors being considered. If you want an MLG experience you may be in the wrong place.

This is the way FC has been since I joined. I'm also pretty sure that this is the way the community has been since its upbringing. I'm going to leave it at that.

**VerbotenDonkey** · 11-03-2012, 07:36 PM

We'll be trying to bring more War-Simulation in the future.

Keep your heads up, and always keep suggesting. It's VERY appreciated.

**GhostHammer** · 11-03-2012, 07:43 PM

I'll say it once, and if you don't absorb it the first time, go back to school and learn to read...

FC is about Fun. It is competitive ONLY at a fun level. It is a War-Sim. This means it is Simulating a War realistically as we can without there being imbalances in actual gameplay. This is not MLG, this is not a hardcore competitive community.

Take if from your War Director, that will NEVER change. Get used to it.

**SuRroundeD By 1** · 11-03-2012, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by GhostHammer

I'll say it once, and if you don't absorb it the first time, go back to school and learn to read...

FC is about Fun. It is competitive ONLY at a fun level. It is a War-Sim. This means it is Simulating a War realistically as we can without there being imbalances in actual gameplay. This is not MLG, this is not a hardcore competitive community.

Take if from your War Director, that will NEVER change. Get used to it.

Pretty sure that was directed towards me, so I'll explain.

I'm sure there are players who are laughing at me. I'm not a greatly advanced player, I like to think I'm good, but I'm nowhere near MLG. I like competitive game play, not because I'm a hardcore, MLG pro (hell, my favorite weapon in all the Halo's is the Assault Rifle, arguably the most non competitive, non MLG weapon in the entire series), but because I hate losing when it's not my fault, and competitive play usually ensures that I lose or win because I am either not as good or better than the other players.

I never said that FC should be MLG, I believe I stated somewhere in there that I thought FC should stay the same way it is now and has been. It's fun at its current level, and whether or not you believe it, it is competitive, and strives to be at some level . . . which is obvious when you look at maps forged by our own teams for the wars. Maps are usually symmetrical, and balanced (except for a few but I wont get into those) they are built with competitiveness in mind.

My main point with all of this is, I want to win a battle if we beat the other team fair and square, if we lose, I want it to be because they out maneuvered or out skilled me and my team. Believe it or not, some of my favorite games are my close losses to VbD. My team would lose because VbD was obviously a more skilled group than us, but the games were close, we would come within just a few points and that feeling of being 'right' there is amazing. But if we won, because they only won by 12-15 instead of 25-50, I'd feel cheated along with them.

While I feel like strategy used aside from the direct battles (moving around the warmap to take certain territories, buying perks to use against the other army or strengthen your position, etc) is important and should have small advantages, I don't think the advantage should be so large that it makes it too hard for one team to win, whether the odds are 1:100 or 1:5, I don't think that should effect the ability to win in game. If anything, I think we should go back to the previous system, where certain odds gave one army an automatic victory or two (I can't remember how many victories went for certain odds), because even if one army has a few victories in the bag, the rest of the games solely depend on each armies ability to fight on that map. The points to win and nothing in game should be adjusted.

I realize I'm not a large figure in this community, I realize I'm not the War Director (although if you were talking to me you didn't have to slam me bro . . . I never yelled at anyone or stepped on your puppy), but I'm saying that in my opinion that FC should stay the way it has been, and not significantly change to add a point of realism. A little bit is fine but there is a line that I believe shouldn't be crossed.

If I wanted to play realistically I would join the LARP (which I think looks interesting) but when it comes to battles, I completely and utterly believe that they should remain at a competitive edge. Although, I don't want to get chewed out again . . . so I'll take my leave with that and shut up.