No score = no fun. How could you then compete with allies to get top score and what would SOing your allies units to boost your score do any good for?
kinda doesnt come around to me, since when does minority have the deceisive voice here?Even if the majority of people want it, it should still be taken away.
I understand the logic behind the idea that removing score would be a nice idea since then u can be in the blind and it can sort of be enjoyable as you dont really know what to expect, but in the long run the score is just too vital of a part of aoc.
In teamgames for me it in undoubtedly neccesairy, lets imagine a situation, you play an ordinary flank civ vikings, you just chill , make a few xbow, add some tcs and enjoy yourself hoping to go imp in some minutes. Then suddenly in front of your face there is 120 fully upgrades knights from a double slung pocket and you can say bye bye game. Well how could you ever know it was coming? The score.
in 1v1 maybe it is less vital since you dont need feedback from anyone else to estimate the situation you are in. Still, playing without score is just one big roulette. You shoot in the dark with your strategy and you have absolutely no clue what the result will be. You forward, you get repelled, you think you still got a chance because you dont see the score , but the reality is that you are so far behind that when you come for round 2 , you get hammered to the face.
Score is also a part of strategy, you can fool opponent into believing you are far ahead by grinding the score up intentionally ( heavy feudal, early castle scouting), when you drush, minimalize the scouting to keep score low, there are many other alternatives.
Anyway all of the arguments you gave are arguable andkinda doesnt come around to me, since when does minority have the deceisive voice here?Even if the majority of people want it, it should still be taken away.
The Architect: You played a very dangerous game.
The Oracle: Change always is.
That is how democracy in EU works dude! Come on. ops:Anyway all of the arguments you gave are arguable andkinda doesnt come around to me, since when does minority have the deceisive voice here?Even if the majority of people want it, it should still be taken away.
Fewer lobbies would be good, definitely not more 11.
I never got what that lobby was for anyway...Fewer lobbies would be good, definitely not more 11.
I originally wrote about this problem, but I'm trying to make my posts shorter. It's probably a waste of space since whatever I type you're going to disagree with, but if lobby space is really a problem...
Change RM Agincourt to no walls and no score and possibly balance patch by default.
Fewer lobbies would be good, definitely not more 11.
I originally wrote about this problem, but I'm trying to make my posts shorter. It's probably a waste of space since whatever I type you're going to disagree with, but if lobby space is really a problem...
Change RM Agincourt to no walls and no score and possibly balance patch by default.
This would be amazing. :DHide scores, hide civs in diplomacy, everyone chooses random civ and map is ES@unknown.. now lets play 11
+1
also hide identities of players, so they have no clue who they are playing against