Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Rugby Video Games & Apps
Rugby World Cup 2011 Game
Quick question about stadiums and teams
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ranger" data-source="post: 388481" data-attributes="member: 40555"><p>Actually, it is a simulator. NOT an arcade game (like street fighter). </p><p>My personal opinion is that there should be a points system online to decide who is on top in the leaderboard. So instead of simply having a win/loss ratio you would have a points tally.</p><p>Each team would have a points value (so say, NZ 94, Canada 71 etc) </p><p>-If you choose NZ and play against Canada, you would gain very few points for winning</p><p>-If you choose Canada and play against NZ, you would gain a shitload of points for winning</p><p>-If you choose NZ and lose to Canada, you lose a shitload of points</p><p>-vice versa..</p><p></p><p>The amount of points an opponent has accumulated should also come into the equation (So if you beat the guy who has never lost in 20 encounters with Canada against NZ, you're rolling in points. If you beat a guy on his first game with NZ then thats less impressive)</p><p></p><p>This way it allows for the stats of the teams to reflect real life (All Blacks rated better than every team put together because im one eyed and what have you) but it also encourages players to not pick NZ every time. </p><p></p><p>Hopefully there would be a fairly even spread of teams represented as the skilled players would choose the lesser teams in an attempt to climb the leaderboard, and the n00b players would choose the top teir teams to get some wins on the board and get used to the game. In theory that should even the playing field out so every player online is a challenge. </p><p></p><p>Also, i hope that there are only a very few stadiums in the game. Theres a pleasant moment when you see a stadium you recognise and think "thats quaint.." but then i immediatly cease to care for the next few years of owning the game. I care about the action, not how many seats are in the 2 dimentional grandstand in the distance. It just seems like a fair bit of time and effort that would be more wisely spent on other aspects of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ranger, post: 388481, member: 40555"] Actually, it is a simulator. NOT an arcade game (like street fighter). My personal opinion is that there should be a points system online to decide who is on top in the leaderboard. So instead of simply having a win/loss ratio you would have a points tally. Each team would have a points value (so say, NZ 94, Canada 71 etc) -If you choose NZ and play against Canada, you would gain very few points for winning -If you choose Canada and play against NZ, you would gain a shitload of points for winning -If you choose NZ and lose to Canada, you lose a shitload of points -vice versa.. The amount of points an opponent has accumulated should also come into the equation (So if you beat the guy who has never lost in 20 encounters with Canada against NZ, you're rolling in points. If you beat a guy on his first game with NZ then thats less impressive) This way it allows for the stats of the teams to reflect real life (All Blacks rated better than every team put together because im one eyed and what have you) but it also encourages players to not pick NZ every time. Hopefully there would be a fairly even spread of teams represented as the skilled players would choose the lesser teams in an attempt to climb the leaderboard, and the n00b players would choose the top teir teams to get some wins on the board and get used to the game. In theory that should even the playing field out so every player online is a challenge. Also, i hope that there are only a very few stadiums in the game. Theres a pleasant moment when you see a stadium you recognise and think "thats quaint.." but then i immediatly cease to care for the next few years of owning the game. I care about the action, not how many seats are in the 2 dimentional grandstand in the distance. It just seems like a fair bit of time and effort that would be more wisely spent on other aspects of the game. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Rugby Video Games & Apps
Rugby World Cup 2011 Game
Quick question about stadiums and teams
Top