Sweet, my first time being ignored by an overly pretentious wanker.KLOBBER wrote:A rambling mind considers intelligent posts to ramble due to lack of intelligence to comprehend them. Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.
Moderator: Community Team
Sweet, my first time being ignored by an overly pretentious wanker.KLOBBER wrote:A rambling mind considers intelligent posts to ramble due to lack of intelligence to comprehend them. Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.
Your personal lack of vision and logic notwithstanding, it will add variety to the strategy available ON THE SITE (as I stated above). Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)Thezzaruz wrote:It won't add additional strategies to the existing games but rather create separate games with a single dominant (and IMO boring) strategy. I can't see it bringing any added value to the site and hence I don't think that the site managers should spend any time on it.KLOBBER wrote:You are right, it will promote defensive strategy, as an ADDITIONAL OPTION. This means that total number of strategy options available on the site will be increased, which can only be a good thing for those with the intelligence to comprehend additional strategy.
Obviously you are of a different opinion.
obviously Lack should implement this immediately. then he could advertise this site as an online risk-like game where players don't take risks. that should appeal to intelligent people the world over.KLOBBER wrote:Had you the intelligence to comprehend this option correctly, you would understand that additional options would increase popularity of the site by attracting people more open-minded and intelligent than yourself.
In short, you are wrong.
I'm fairly surprised by the number of people that have come out against this idea without presenting any substantial arguments to support their gut, one sentence, "this won't work", "this is dumb", reaction. It's probably a matter of self confidence; if you're taking the time to post an opinion, have the balls to back it up! otherwise keep quiet.TeeGee wrote:Am I reading this wrong or does the OP want to take the skill out of the game and just leave it up to the dice to decides who wins?
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I am reading this idea
Obviously I didn't refer to "existing" as "already started games" but rather as "available types of games", would have thought that you with your vastly superior intelligence would have figured that out quite easily.KLOBBER wrote: Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)
Obviously, if you want people to understand your meaning the first time, you need to learn how to communicate in English. In the context you used it, "existing games" means "already started games."Thezzaruz wrote:Obviously I didn't refer to "existing" as "already started games" but rather as "available types of games", would have thought that you with your vastly superior intelligence would have figured that out quite easily.KLOBBER wrote: Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)
Does anyone know which high school klobber goes to? Somebody should build them a library.KLOBBER wrote:This is cut-and-dry, direct logic, lost only on the very dullest of brains.
Word is lack's not big on changing the fundamentals of the game, although I hear he wants to know how 5v3, 7v4 or 7v5 dice would work out (turns out it's just a bigger advantage for the attacker, approaching 1/6 defense wins, and I bet you can figure out why). If you want to play a different game, you can play in a different place. There's no chess here, there's no scrabble here, there's no equalized dice here.docdurdee wrote:Everything in these forum posts boils down to the fact that the dice are the engine of the game, and ADDITIONAL engines can be constructed to increase the diversity of game play; in fact I posted a new suggestion to this forum that makes this idea more general.
I'm beginning to understand the "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely) behind this member's posts: There is to be no absolutely no change whatsoever on this site, ever, for better or worse, from this day forward. If you don't like it, then leave.BaldAdonis wrote:Word is lack's not big on changing the fundamentals of the game, although I hear he wants to know how 5v3, 7v4 or 7v5 dice would work out (turns out it's just a bigger advantage for the attacker, approaching 1/6 defense wins, and I bet you can figure out why). If you want to play a different game, you can play in a different place. There's no chess here, there's no scrabble here, there's no equalized dice here.docdurdee wrote:Everything in these forum posts boils down to the fact that the dice are the engine of the game, and ADDITIONAL engines can be constructed to increase the diversity of game play; in fact I posted a new suggestion to this forum that makes this idea more general.
You even took me off ignore to see what I wrote! You're making great strides.KLOBBER wrote:I'm happy to say that I'm not that narrow-minded.


yeti_c wrote:I think "No Dice" is a much better idea than "Equalised Dice"...
C.