Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

User avatar
realfakealex
Lieutenant
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon 18 Feb 2013 11:59
Location: Kerbin
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby realfakealex » Wed 9 Sep 2015 14:32

If you are winning in economy why should you start spending more points to keep the lead when you'll be wasting it?

It still would promote the cheapest spammiest play there is.

User avatar
[DAY]Topspin2005
General
Posts: 5134
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 15:13
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby [DAY]Topspin2005 » Wed 9 Sep 2015 16:12

Could we please change the ranked gamemode into a complete new gamemode? I only say "CIRCLES!!!" :twisted: :roll: :lol:

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby Crotou » Wed 9 Sep 2015 16:13

[DAY]Topspin2005 wrote:Could we please change the ranked gamemode into a complete new gamemode? I only say "CIRCLES!!!" :twisted: :roll: :lol:


It would be horribad!
Image

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby orcbuster » Wed 9 Sep 2015 16:18

-1

And as per usual, not a single coherrent argument to back up a suggestion.
Image
Viker for ingen!

brroleg
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 07:05
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby brroleg » Wed 9 Sep 2015 17:22

Economy will bring something new to Ranked. Some diversity. Fights will not be all over single zone, like with conquest. Cause its not that big deal if you own 1 less zone than opponent, as long as you manage your deployment points economy better.

captaincarnage
Major
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 23:50
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby captaincarnage » Wed 9 Sep 2015 17:34

brroleg wrote:Economy will bring something new to Ranked. Some diversity. Fights will not be all over single zone, like with conquest. Cause its not that big deal if you own 1 less zone than opponent, as long as you manage your deployment points economy better.


Nope, still -1, some of us actually enjoy conquest despite its imperfections, I wish i could say the same about economy.
I hope your buratino's die screaming.

brroleg
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 07:05
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby brroleg » Wed 9 Sep 2015 17:37

You are so conservative :|

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby chykka » Thu 10 Sep 2015 00:31

realfakealex wrote:If you are winning in economy why should you start spending more points to keep the lead when you'll be wasting it?

It still would promote the cheapest spammiest play there is.


Actually that's the beauty, you forced too make the choice. Being a head of income or behind either means you over defend and maybe tie, or you push more depending on how many more points / units you have comming in. Or if you feel safe enough you can stop deploying, bit your opennent will see this and depending on your opener they could and will be in a better position to push as you slow deployments. Why taking losses means you are still getting hurt as more than likely you will want to replace the units lost.

Being behind means if you don't contest high point sectors or have commanders in your own means you won't be able to keep up.

Economy would change importance for sectors on several maps. Like nuclear winter for example. Instead of the match revolving around the +2 on conquest the middle sector actually is easier to contest but worth the most points at 5 I think.

By not deploying units is as if they would have been useful, when deploying them you should be using them, idle units don't help your cause in economy.

If they get killed with little too no gain it would have been better to not even deploy them. But same time if you are trading even with units but you maintain income lead, it is possible to take more ground and further secure or prevent opponent from gettin offensive.

Economy can snow ball, where in destruction with a point limit. At a certain point you do not need more units and the snow ball can be stopped with a stale mate. At least I notice this in Ee some players will not deploy more as it's just more to potentially lose if the game goes on long enough.
Image

Lonfield
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu 25 Oct 2012 18:54
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby Lonfield » Thu 10 Sep 2015 21:12

orcbuster wrote:-1

And as per usual, not a single coherrent argument to back up a suggestion.



Sadly most of the time the ammount of arguments are ignored so, why bother getting them?.

By the way i agree with you, economy is not the key for ranked. In fact conquest is the most balanced.
Bans Bans Bans and Lock Lock Lock!!
Screaming for a better game since 2012

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Swap conquest to economy in Ranked

Postby orcbuster » Thu 10 Sep 2015 21:25

Lonfield wrote:
orcbuster wrote:-1

And as per usual, not a single coherrent argument to back up a suggestion.



Sadly most of the time the ammount of arguments are ignored so, why bother getting them?.

By the way i agree with you, economy is not the key for ranked. In fact conquest is the most balanced.


To Have an argument one needs to present a case to argue over first. This thread had no argument, simply a statement and thats it.
Image
Viker for ingen!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 46 guests