pandasecret wrote:We can have two possible victory conditions for Checkmate: (1) The person with most targets eliminated wins or (2) last person alive wins.
I will ask a friend to randomize all those participating in a list and have him PM you your target. (He does not play Subterfuge so he will be using my account).
Otherwise if thekorfballer doesn't want to play Checkmate, he can do that if he agrees

Play the first version. Seroiusly, if you play the second, some people might not attack at all. You stated something about the fun in the twist to the game right? Well not everyone would sacrifice a win for fun you know... In fact, you also misunderstood my induction from the 1 to 10 labelling for the players. I'll put it in another way. Suppose you have 3 players. If you don't attack your next player, he'll be able to attack the person that's supposed to be attacking you with everything he has. Meaning you'll be able to sit around and build up your forces so that when (and if) the person you're supposed to be attacking eliminates the person that's supposed to be attacking you, you now have a LOT of resources and the other will have just used all his on eliminating the person that's supposed to be attacking you. On the other hand, if you play the first version (most eleminations = win) then if you just sit around defending you definitely WON'T win. So I'd encourage the first version. Also since I won't be playing I could help set up the initial cycle of targets.

Okay, I've put up the participation list and Checkmate will be the gamemode. Links will be sent out and there are 3 more seats available as tw2000 and thekorfballer have opted out due to restrictions.

pandasecret wrote:Okay, I've put up the participation list and Checkmate will be the gamemode. Links will be sent out and there are 3 more seats available as tw2000 and thekorfballer have opted out due to restrictions.

So the suggestion Road Kiehl came with, gifting your queen to the one who eliminated you, is not allowed? That's not a huge problem right..?
Anyway, if it is and I am not allowed to take part, I am okay assigning people their targets!

thekorfballer wrote:So the suggestion Road Kiehl came with, gifting your queen to the one who eliminated you, is not allowed? That's not a huge problem right..?
Anyway, if it is and I am not allowed to take part, I am okay assigning people their targets!

We could amend that, just need one or two more person who's okay with that and I'll change it

pandasecret wrote:

thekorfballer wrote:So the suggestion Road Kiehl came with, gifting your queen to the one who eliminated you, is not allowed? That's not a huge problem right..?
Anyway, if it is and I am not allowed to take part, I am okay assigning people their targets!

We could amend that, just need one or two more person who's okay with that and I'll change it

Wait a minute. I would actually force queen gifting to the person who eliminated you for the simple reason that it would encourage players to fight the next person. You'd think 'if I kill 2 people I can get 2 princesses.' which would be an advantage, yes, but a deserved advantage for eliminating the next player.
Also its going to be whoever eliminates the most people right? I think tiebreak should be who survives the longest just in case 2 people end up killing 3 people or whatever...

pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:So if, in the cycle, you are assigned between 2 very good players, you'll probably be instantly destroyed.

But if the player you're supposed to target is a very good player, he may realize another good player is coming up, so he may gift units to the person fighting that player or strike a deal with you to act as a buffer zone; which you can potentially use as leverage when making a deal. Also, don't underestimate yourself! If at all, it would be as if it were a normal team-up against you.

Umm.... how is he supposed to know who's coming up next?

pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:Also, if you assume the role of the next person, then what do you get for eliminating that person? You'd better just leave him alone so you don't waste your precious drillers attacking him when you need them to defend yourself.

Well, it IS a game-mode after all, so the satisfaction of completing an objective is there! (Why, after all, must we build mines? Aren't we better off using drillers to fight than to drill mines, if it weren't for a preset rule that mining=winning? In this case, elimination of most targets=winning!)

Like I said before, not all people would sacrifice a win just for some fun.

pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:If no-one else thinks of this strategy, not attacking the next person actually has advantages for yourself. If the cycle starts with you, labeled at 1, and goes around in a circle, with the person attacking you at 10, the even numbered people will would be able to use everything they have to attack and all the odd numbered people will find that they'll have to use everything to defend themselves (unless they're very good).

Everyone is assigned their targets at the same time; so it doesn't matter if you're number 1 or 7, as everyone will have the same chances and times to attack their target.

Like I said, you misunderstood. Just scrap this idea and read the 3 player version of this somewhere above (although it is somewhat different).

pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:That means that you'll have everything you need to defend yourself, and you won't lose unless someone gets a pirate nav assassin combo. On the other hand, if everyone realises this strategy, there won't be any attacking going on at all.

This is a potential strategy, but where's the fun in that? Why turtle up?

There might not be that much fun, but there are higher chances of winning (unless you define win = most players killed, which is what I strongly suggest)... Like I said before, not all players would sacrifice a win just for some fun...

pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:So, I'm only playing if we're playing Lockdown, Blind game, or Blast off

fair enough, but it is a community game-mode afterall.

Well yeah...

The game is FINALLY over!!!

Heres a little recap:

Everyone was eliminated except me and V3xt. We both had crazy sentries and if it ever was going to end V3xt most likely would have been the winner. At this point the game was crashing 4/5 times i tried to open it so i game up with a plan for a subterfuge record. I would drill as many mines as i could, V would take them and then he would drill as much as possibly. We hopped for highest Np/day and it ended at 210/day.

I elimated 1 player
Vext got rid of 2-3
Chariot 1
and im not sure about the rest.

nojo34 wrote:The game is FINALLY over!!!

Heres a little recap:

Everyone was eliminated except me and V3xt. We both had crazy sentries and if it ever was going to end V3xt most likely would have been the winner. At this point the game was crashing 4/5 times i tried to open it so i game up with a plan for a subterfuge record. I would drill as many mines as i could, V would take them and then he would drill as much as possibly. We hopped for highest Np/day and it ended at 210/day.

I elimated 1 player
Vext got rid of 2-3
Chariot 1
and im not sure about the rest.

One month of battling must have been pretty tiring! Gratz on making it through.
I assume the top players are a bit winded after that, so I will leave a little break before starting the next ESG (if people still want them).

Panda, games with new rule variations are my favorite thing to play. A break would be nice. Maybe 2/3 days. Open up the voting on Sunday and start the game Monday?

If we do decide to play another round...

Everstone (a Pokemon reference)
Game is played as normal, mining or domination or anon, but you are never allowed to promote and specs. You are allowed to hire promotable ones, but never promote them. I've been seeing a lot of posts about how unbalanced specs are, and it seems like the majority of them are about promoted specs (which makes sense, seeing as they are much more powerful). Other than that, game is the same.