StarCraft® II

[Showcase]A Clash of Kings (Continued Continued)

Posts: 74
Thread #3 Wooo! Let the "suggestions" commence!*

-Stark>>Don't change Stark's WC. Ulose misunderstood the books he claims to have read. Robb Stark is fighting a war to form an independent kingdom and get revenge and some family members back. He doesn't care who sits on the "Iron Throne" because his throne will be at Winterfell. That said, JT said he isn't going to change Stark's WCs so lets drop the discussion. You can go the route of AHalo and keep bringing it up and maybe in 3 months you'll get your change. However, I strongly encourage ignoring Ulose's Stark WC proposal. Don't respond to any more of his posts on the subject.

-Kill all the Kings WC>>I don't care for this one. I don't want to go all over the map hunting a King and his septa whether it be in the Eryrie, Iron Isles or hiding in the free cities or on Skagos...

-I personally don't think you need a dead King WC but IF IT HAS TO BE ADDED...and I get overruled like I always do...I suggest that in order for a faction with a King to win, their King must be alive? Balon, Jeoffery, Renly, Stannis and Robb are no longer going to be able to respawn if I understand JT's previous post in the previous thread.

-Dragon Quest-Fine, I'm onboard with this. How does it work? Is it still being tested?

*Remember there are no stupid suggestions just stupid people with suggestions ;D
Posts: 216

-I personally don't think you need a dead King WC but IF IT HAS TO BE ADDED...and I get overruled like I always do...I suggest that in order for a faction with a King to win, their King must be alive? Balon, Jeoffery, Renly, Stannis and Robb are no longer going to be able to respawn if I understand JT's previous post in the previous thread.

-Dragon Quest-Fine, I'm onboard with this. How does it work? Is it still being tested?

*Remember there are no stupid suggestions just stupid people with suggestions ;D


Now that would be awesome. Having to keep your hero alive. Again, I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but it would add more realism to the game.
Posts: 333
Im fine with the idea of making the King's have to survive but you do realize that alot of RQ's would be caused by this.

I was actually thinking of making the kill other King's a bonus objective for the factions with King's and giving the faction that kills another King a nice buff or maybe some sort of gift.
Posts: 216
Im fine with the idea of making the King's have to survive but you do realize that alot of RQ's would be caused by this.

I was actually thinking of making the kill other King's a bonus objective for the factions with King's and giving the faction that kills another King a nice buff or maybe some sort of gift.


Ooooooo! Me Gusta
Posts: 47
Obleron I am getting tired of your personal attacks at other posters because it is childish and rude. Andarielhalo and I had a good point involving the Cleganes and I believe it was fixed nicely so dont be an !@# about it by attacking him and instead either offer a different solution to the problem or make a stronger case for why this change should be removed.

Moving on. I greatly dislike the new Stark win condition because it neither fits the lore nor upholds its "intended" purpose for gameplay. This does nothing but indirectly make Stark a 4th competitor for the throne which sucks for him if Wldlings/Others break through.

My suggestion - if anything make it so Stark and Tully and maybe even Arryn have the option to break away from the rule of the Iron Throne and become their own independent nation. this could also hold true for Greyjoy which would be very interesting. Its optional so for the King of the Iron Throne to win he must destroy the upsurbers who claim independence and for the Upsurbers to win they must remain independent of the Iron Throne and hold their main territories.

Upsurbers- Stark and Tully, Arryn can possibly join Stark/Tully in their cause because they don't actually support anyone but family ties and past alliances puts their favor with Stark/Tully, and maybe even Greyjoy since they declared independence. Again they could win this way, or they could win with their previous win conditions.

Thoughts, Concerns and Suggestions?
Edited by Mojamba on 7/27/2012 12:39 PM PDT
Posts: 74
07/27/2012 12:36 PMPosted by Mojamba
Obleron I am getting tired of your personal attacks at other posters because it is childish and rude. Andarielhalo and I had a good point involving the Cleganes and I believe it was fixed nicely so dont be an !@# about it by attacking him and instead either offer a different solution to the problem or make a stronger case for why this change should be removed.


@Mojamba>>I disagree, your point involving the Cleganes was a bad point and the was a bad fix so I offered my solution of not changing it. JT made a decision to go with your suggestion and I respect that. I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say above so I'll say it again. Once JT says: "This isn't going to happen" to someone's suggestion then people should let it lie. Andarielhalo didn't let it lie when he first suggested the "Clegane fix" and it was shot down so he kept after it and eventually got some support from yourself and a few others and it was implemented. I actually have admiration for Andariel for keeping after his goal even as misguided as I think/thought it is/was. So rather than be a hypocryte and keep bringing up Halo's change I'll let it go. My sincerest apologies AHalo.

@Mojamba>>I will stand by my convictions that Ulose's idea for Stark is a horrendously bad idea BUT I won't be called names other than "noob" and "elitist" on the boards...so in the word of one drug addicted monsterous murdering !@#$%^ from Westeros: "SWORD!!!" I'll see you on the battle field you dirty wielder of curse words on the forum. (In game of course). ;D

07/27/2012 11:14 AMPosted by JTaylor
I was actually thinking of making the kill other King's a bonus objective for the factions with King's and giving the faction that kills another King a nice buff or maybe some sort of gift.


@JTaylor>>Bueno, mi gusta! Bravo! Cheers! Tons better idea than keeping my King alive. Off with my king's head as long as I can still win. :D
Posts: 47
That is just a horrendous statement where you say his belief was misguied. As far as I could tell I saw at a maximum 4 people who fought against changing the Cleganes so his "misguided statement" seemed to be alot more supported then your's.

He offered stats and information to back his claim up. You simply continued to say it was a bad idea with no hard backed evidence as to why leaving it the way it was was in the best interest of the game.

Nobody cares about your opinion nor did anybody care about his opinion. People cared about the argument and the evidence that was there to prove his side was more founded than yours. With the prestated changes and after playing a game as Lannister with some decent players I still won 5/10 but at least it wasnt me rolling over everybody with little opposition to do it. I find it much more enjoyable to play Renly now as well since I still have to use Brit's tactics in fighting Lannister but all in all me and 1 other ally can make ground against him little by little, and the same can occur against me still which supports the claim the game is more balanced now then it was. .2 to .35 on sandor makes him level on an even scale with gregor now which means between the two they are balanced between each other. The aforesaid experiment shows a 50% chance of win which means its balanced enar perfection. Want to disprove me go make a trial of your own with some others and get some actual evidence because your opinion is worthless without it.

And yes if you act in a childish manner with snide remarks and rude insults because you didnt get away then I will continue o call you immature and an !@# because that is exactly what you make yourself look like. your actions and words have consequences so you should get used to it.
Posts: 9
I have a legitimate question, does the poison from oberyn actually do 300 dmg as the description says or does it do more because it seems to me (very unscientific) that if you hero has about 1k left of health, the poison kills him.
Posts: 34
Some people were confused about the win condition.

I never said Stark needed to TAKE and HOLD KL...

New WC for Stark:
*Renly, Stannis or Lannister cannot hold the Iron Throne.


That's pretty much just a lenient version of "Stark must hold KL"

I seriously do not believe that Stark's win conditions should be so insanely at odds with Renly and Stannis. If you wanna go to lore; the whole point we even got to see Renly's death was because Robb sent his mother to try to negotiate an alliance between Renly and the South.

And not related to lore, it's only Robb Stark calling for separation from the rest of the kingdoms and only Stannis viciously opposing that idea. Neither hero respawns on this map. Why wouldn't their underlings unite in the face of an overwhelming enemy like the Cleganes?
Posts: 751
That is just a horrendous statement where you say his belief was misguied. As far as I could tell I saw at a maximum 4 people who fought against changing the Cleganes so his "misguided statement" seemed to be alot more supported then your's.

He offered stats and information to back his claim up. You simply continued to say it was a bad idea with no hard backed evidence as to why leaving it the way it was was in the best interest of the game.

Nobody cares about your opinion nor did anybody care about his opinion. People cared about the argument and the evidence that was there to prove his side was more founded than yours. With the prestated changes and after playing a game as Lannister with some decent players I still won 5/10 but at least it wasnt me rolling over everybody with little opposition to do it. I find it much more enjoyable to play Renly now as well since I still have to use Brit's tactics in fighting Lannister but all in all me and 1 other ally can make ground against him little by little, and the same can occur against me still which supports the claim the game is more balanced now then it was. .2 to .35 on sandor makes him level on an even scale with gregor now which means between the two they are balanced between each other. The aforesaid experiment shows a 50% chance of win which means its balanced enar perfection. Want to disprove me go make a trial of your own with some others and get some actual evidence because your opinion is worthless without it.

And yes if you act in a childish manner with snide remarks and rude insults because you didnt get away then I will continue o call you immature and an !@# because that is exactly what you make yourself look like. your actions and words have consequences so you should get used to it.


I am glad you believe in me. Thank you, I will continue to fight for this, and I am not going to let some !@#$%^- persuade me otherwise.
Posts: 751
Some people were confused about the win condition.

I never said Stark needed to TAKE and HOLD KL...

New WC for Stark:
*Renly, Stannis or Lannister cannot hold the Iron Throne.


That's pretty much just a lenient version of "Stark must hold KL"

I seriously do not believe that Stark's win conditions should be so insanely at odds with Renly and Stannis. If you wanna go to lore; the whole point we even got to see Renly's death was because Robb sent his mother to try to negotiate an alliance between Renly and the South.

And not related to lore, it's only Robb Stark calling for separation from the rest of the kingdoms and only Stannis viciously opposing that idea. Neither hero respawns on this map. Why wouldn't their underlings unite in the face of an overwhelming enemy like the Cleganes?


The main problem is actually outside the realm of lore. Like I said, this boils down to whether JT wants to make a necessary concession in the lore. Let's say he does not make this concession, the current evidence shows that a good number of games played boils down to a southern alliance versus northern alliance. This is boring. There are 2 factions vying for the throne and they make mega alliances and square off. Quite suddenly, the need for diplomacy is lost. Always keep in mind that lannister rarely takes more than one ally. When Stark bids for the throne, lannister can only take a maximum of one allies, because other allies are quickly snapped up. HOWEVER, diplomacy is NOT lost and oftentimes it is increased as the need for secret alliances is increased and as a result, the tendency for a faction to suddenly switch sides. With time however, backstabbing will DECREASE as people realize it is not a good way to gain friends, because backstabbed players will only want to see their betrayer's doom, and in a dynamic game of A Song of Ice and Fire, a grudge is not something one wants hanging over their head.
Posts: 34
I changed my mind.

Robb Stark says in one of the books that he will take the Iron Throne from the Lannisters... and then he is not sure what will happen. He says he will surrender it to one of the Baratheons if they agree to let the North secede.

But what if that does happen? Surely it wouldn't be so easy for Robb to just say "ok now u take it and I take half ur kingdom away lol bye"?

Stark WC should have them or Tully hold KL.

The consequences/results of this actually address my nonstop problem of the Cleganes.

The Cleganes are grotesquely powerful because they NEED to be, because they have to suffer being ganged up upon by an alliance of Stark, Tully, Arryn, Stannis, Martell, Renly, Greyjoy.

This is totally contrary to lore, where the other factions fight themselves as much, if not more often than they fight the Lannisters. The Baratheons never aid the Tullystarks, because they're busy fighting each other, and Stannis makes it very harshly clear that he won't abide Robb seceding the north.

Making Stark have to go after KL is actually part of lore (HOLDING it is not, but subject to What If?) and it allows for these many things:

- Breaks up mass alliances of one or more Baratheons with Tullystark
- Allows for a Clegane nerfing (so as they can sit back and let the other factions kill each other)
- Creates more end-game chaos so as to cut down on factions sitting on huge armies doing nothing or waiting for Others to feed their high-level heroes.

For the sake of the Wall and Stark's proximity to it, I say Tully should be allowed to hold KL for Stark.
Posts: 18
I think Stark should not be allowed to have lanni, renly, or stannis on the throne. Or maybe Stannis on the throne if Robb is dead. In this case, I don't think it hurts lore that much, but it certainly enhances gameplay. Stark can still ally greyjoy or arryn (which frankly, in the books, were more likely allies than stannis or renly), but the current mass alliances will mostly be broken up. I think this hurts stannis the most (who will have trouble finding allies outside of arryn), but maybe stannis could get a buff of some sort to balance it out.

Most importantly, this gives a potential reason for Tully to backstab Stark if Stark is losing, which is great for gameplay and lore. Heh.
Posts: 675
You all are getting it wrong. Robb wants the lannisters off the throne. HE does not care who !@#$ign takes it so long as the north and riverladns are able to cede. maybe he does fight both kings, but more lore-wise would be for the 2 baratheons to want stark dead or to take a tuully/stark castle or two. Instead of Robb bickering with baras, make baras hate robb. my 2 cents.

EDIT: I would be 100% ok with any of the suggested WC changes if not for the wall.
Edited by Hyperion on 7/27/2012 5:31 PM PDT
Posts: 333
Still refusing to change the Stark WC though id be willing to make Stannis, Renly, and Lannister want Robb Stark dead
Posts: 216
I changed my mind.
The Cleganes are grotesquely powerful because they NEED to be, because they have to suffer being ganged up upon by an alliance of Stark, Tully, Arryn, Stannis, Martell, Renly, Greyjoy.


*Warning: Rage Post*

Are you kidding me!?

Are you F'n kidding me?

You cry like a child for weeks until you get what you want and now you admit what myself and others have been saying all this time! SMFH

07/27/2012 04:35 PMPosted by AndarielHalo
Allows for a Clegane nerfing (so as they can sit back and let the other factions kill each other)


Again?! You want them nerfed again? Mother of GOD! Why won't you just let it go. Ugh.. I played you once and you were a horrible Tully and you !@#$%ed and moaned even worse than you played.

In the same post you say that the Cleganes NEED to be powerful and then you say that you're planning on more nerfs.

I forget who I was talking about this with, probably Moj, but this is exactly what I was afraid would happen. Someone who is a ^-*!ty player makes a big enough stink and cries enough that he finally gets his way. This is exactly what I talk about my fear that the game may become too noob friendly.

I know JT wouldn't ruin the game by catering to the squeaky, annoying, unrelenting wheels, but come on son.. come on son!

That being said, I agree with the rest of your post.

Oh, and this time please don't tell me to be a nice boy, Moj. Bah!

Mojamba

That is just a horrendous statement where you say his belief was misguied. As far as I could tell I saw at a maximum 4 people who fought against changing the Cleganes so his "misguided statement" seemed to be alot more supported then your's.

He offered stats and information to back his claim up. You simply continued to say it was a bad idea with no hard backed evidence as to why leaving it the way it was was in the best interest of the game.

Nobody cares about your opinion nor did anybody care about his opinion. People cared about the argument and the evidence that was there to prove his side was more founded than yours. With the prestated changes and after playing a game as Lannister with some decent players I still won 5/10 but at least it wasnt me rolling over everybody with little opposition to do it. I find it much more enjoyable to play Renly now as well since I still have to use Brit's tactics in fighting Lannister but all in all me and 1 other ally can make ground against him little by little, and the same can occur against me still which supports the claim the game is more balanced now then it was. .2 to .35 on sandor makes him level on an even scale with gregor now which means between the two they are balanced between each other. The aforesaid experiment shows a 50% chance of win which means its balanced enar perfection. Want to disprove me go make a trial of your own with some others and get some actual evidence because your opinion is worthless without it.


"The aforesaid experiment shows a 50% chance of win..."

I'm not trying to be rude, but your experiment is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. But, I suppose I can play that game. Here is my experiment:

After a couple of months playing Lannister, I won the majority of games where I was the better skilled player and I lost the majority of games where I was outplayed or out numbered. This is still the case.
Posts: 34
You all are getting it wrong. Robb wants the lannisters off the throne. HE does not care who !@#$ign takes it so long as the north and riverladns are able to cede. maybe he does fight both kings, but more lore-wise would be for the 2 baratheons to want stark dead or to take a tuully/stark castle or two. Instead of Robb bickering with baras, make baras hate robb. my 2 cents.

EDIT: I would be 100% ok with any of the suggested WC changes if not for the wall.


If you read the books or watched the show at all, you'd realize both Stannis and Renly explicitly said NO to the North and Riverlands seceding. That is the whole point of Stark holding KL as a requisite. It's terribly naive of Robb to think he can oust the Lannisters, then just give the throne to whoever comes asking for it first. This isn't the old Rebellion; Stannis and/or Renly are not soul mates with Robb the way Robert was with Eddard. As soon as they !@# touches the throne, they're arreswting Robb and forcing the North and hte Riverlands back into union.

And to Britannicus

u mad? trollface.png

Yah, I know wha tI said, but putting it all together it makes sense...

Cleganes are/were OP

I realized they were OP because everyone keeps attacking Lannister at once

If everyone is NOT attacking Lannister all at once, Cleganes do not need to be OP

Make it so Tullystark will never ally the Baratheons, and you have a situation not only far more accurate to the books, but more conducive to allowing Lannister some rest and chance to fight their enemies one at a time. Just like in books/series

ALSO

New idea I initially thought of as a joke, then realized how perfect it was...

Make the Other units into the Stone Zealots.

Obviously not as strong as Gregor Clegane is, but make them a unit with splash damage, and they will become horrifying demons like they're supposed to be.
Edited by AndarielHalo on 7/27/2012 6:58 PM PDT
Posts: 14
Whereas in history the Starks are proclaiming the north as a independent kingdom and that both Lannisters as Baratheons - Renly and Stannis oppose it, I think that a new WC should be added to the Lannisters, Renly and Stannis.
  - The Starks can not finish the game controlling all the northern cities
This would also serve to avoid mass alliences.
Edited by DrTerminus on 7/27/2012 6:56 PM PDT
Posts: 216
And to Britannicus

u mad? trollface.png

Cleganes are/were OP


Yes.

You're wrong.

I agree with all of your other ideas.
Posts: 47
lol ulosethegame I was supporting andarielhalo's earlier point not you. I think you make a good point and provide some decent evidence but I don't agree with it at all it just makes Stark lose more often then he already does imo. If you truly believe in it keep fighting if you can prove a stornger case each time, but if not I would stop.
Edited by Mojamba on 7/27/2012 7:28 PM PDT
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]