2006/Y8 Altador World Cup (Split 8)

Message

Crimsonmon · #31 Post by **Crimsonmon** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:07 am

Damn it, I've been automatically switched teams now also. I don't want to be Darigan.

Shishu · #32 Post by **Shishu** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:35 pm

Well, apperntly nobody else is seeming to have troiuble actually playing, but I sure am. How the heck do you get your players to move all at once like the opposing team's???

neneno · #33 Post by **neneno** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:37 pm

Shishu wrote:Well, apperntly nobody else is seeming to have troiuble actually playing, but I sure am. How the heck do you get your players to move all at once like the opposing team's???

you can't x];! You can press the "shift" button on your keyboard which will move all of your players to starting position, but other than that, you gotta move'em one at a time (as far as I know).

You can try going to youtube.com and find a clip of someone else playing that might help you 8D!

purplefrog97 · #34 Post by **purplefrog97** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:26 pm

I don't think they can move all at once freely. I think they have two positions,
offense and defense. When they have the ball, they go to offense, when you
have the ball they go to defense.

New set! I made it!

natuhlee · #35 Post by **natuhlee** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:04 pm

I have my own concerns for scoring, too. I joined Haunted Woods, cause that silly little quiz told me to, but realistically, I'm expecting Altador to have the most enrollment!

So, say (and this is entirely diminished for the purpose of my situation), Haunted Woods has 5 people playing, and they get 100 wins each. That's 500 wins for HW. But, Altador has 100 people playing, and they only get 10 wins each. Their 1000 tromps our 500, but we were more dedicated and hard working.

Then, suppose by some freak of nature, you have Altador vs. Kreludor (which they say is the smallest team), you've got 5,000 players vs. just over 250. How can that even compare??

AND, people who get a goal then pass their ball off to their goalie, who just holds it until time. They wind up with a victory of 1-0, because they're being lazy, but in the long run, would that pay off?

flyinglizard · #36 Post by **flyinglizard** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:12 pm

people have started thinking that the number of goals you make counts, so that you cant do that

Raza · #37 Post by **Raza** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:59 pm

I figure they'll probably have a losers' league too, so people don't get kicked out of play for having joined the wrong team.

As for counting scores, I expect they'll go with averages. The problem is the not-so-dedicated or newbie players. If you go with sums, having lots of people doing only minor playing will be a huge advantage over smaller teams who never stood a chance then. If you go with averages, whether for goals or games, having a lot of casual and newbie players on your side is a huge drawback and may lose the rest the game. Heck, if you average goals, someone who thinks theyre helping their team by racking in a few close victories may in fact be sabotaging them.

Still, with averages, most teams except for the few most uber-popular ones will stand a fair chance. With totals, the winner will almost inevitably come from the biggest two or three, or there might even be just one contender if they're sufficiently larger than the next biggest.

john_d0e · #38 Post by **john_d0e** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:00 pm

honestly they should have assigned the teams for the cup themselves (like the sorting hat of harry potter).. this should avoid the biases on team population... not that i dont like it this way...

does anyone think the "level of difficulty" in the next round will increase? say a more "active" opponent goal keeper? "playoffs" time anyone?

lastly.. i really think it is better to change the picture every time you score once in a while... im sick of seeing that same pic over and over again!!!

:lol:

itzipg · #39 Post by **itzipg** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:06 pm

I wouldn't mind that they increase the difficulty, but I think there are many players who are having a hard time to score a goal at the current level, so I don't think they will make it harder.

And I totally agree about the scoring pic. I want to see the rest of my team! :cry:

Raza · #40 Post by **Raza** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:14 pm

itzipg wrote:I wouldn't mind that they increase the difficulty, but I think there are many players who are having a hard time to score a goal at the current level, so I don't think they will make it harder.

And I totally agree about the scoring pic. I want to see the rest of my team!

And then there are people who rack in one max-score game after another.

I expect that if they can find a functional way to increase difficulty (I'd be opposed to dumb solutions like simply making the opposing team members faster/stronger/etc, but additional AI would work), they will. It'd really make little sense to have the cup consist of an infinite amound of plays of the exact same game.

Matterbug · #41 Post by **Matterbug** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:15 pm

Yeah, I hope they increase the difficulty level too. It's going to get boring if you have to use the same strategy and play every level.

Underdogpuff · #42 Post by **Underdogpuff** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:19 pm

Raza wrote:I figure they'll probably have a losers' league too, so people don't get kicked out of play for having joined the wrong team.

Actually according to the article being pass around once you lose you can join another team that is still in the tournment so there is no reason to have another seprate bracket.

I agree that more people = an advanage. But why do you think Maraqua won the war? It was because more people like to be the good guy vs the bad guy. I'm guessing depending on the scores for the first round based on scores and wins they are going to decide if it's better to average or total. I really hope they don't factor in loses that much since people are able to not send losses. It's hard to tell how to be fair with a whole bunch of different groups of players and the different skill levels every player. I'm sure Neopets will find a fair way to do it or it be the Krawk vs. Maraqua war all over again (or was it the war before that?).

Raza · #43 Post by **Raza** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:30 pm

Underdogpuff wrote:Actually according to the article being pass around once you lose you can join another team that is still in the tournment so there is no reason to have another seprate bracket.

I agree that more people = an advanage. But why do you think Maraqua won the war? It was because more people like to be the good guy vs the bad guy. I'm guessing depending on the scores for the first round based on scores and wins they are going to decide if it's better to average or total. I really hope they don't factor in loses that much since people are able to not send losses. It's hard to tell how to be fair with a whole bunch of different groups of players and the different skill levels every player. I'm sure Neopets will find a fair way to do it or it be the Krawk vs. Maraqua war all over again (or was it the war before that?).

What is this article?

And Maraqua won the war cause the good guys needed to win for it to match their plotline. They needed to introduce the new Maraqua map.

Besides, in past 'good vs bad' wars the badguys have done well enough, Darigan specifically.

moihaha · #44 Post by **moihaha** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:46 pm

Raza wrote:Besides, in past 'good vs bad' wars the badguys have done well enough, Darigan specifically.

Well, Darigan was not really "bad", at least in the first war, they where stolen in the first place and only tried to get back their orb to resume a normal life (or something like that). I could never really consider them as entirely bad guys.

And on topic, I hope they don't rely to much on the number of goals scored, I have'nt scored a 9 for days!!! I really hate that center defender!!!!!

Wind · #45 Post by **Wind** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:56 pm

I've just 15 wins so far, but it's repetitive and boring after a while. I wish we had a way to compare scores and see how we're doing, it would add a bit of challenge.