The Sinister Design Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: King of the Hill II  (Read 4344 times)

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2011, 10:09:00 PM »

It's been five posts. And I took your 42%. Which is fair.

I create a breed of quickly self reproducing toes with giant toenails that heal and reproduce just as quickly as you cut them. Then I send the flock against your (you didn't specify how many) 2 robotic toenail clippers which then flee because they are smart enough to know when they are going to be destroyed and have no chance of survival. Then I kick you, and sacrifice you under a full moon on the worlds tallest mountain and bring down a curse upon the constitution that cannot be undone so that all who follow it hypocritically (Ducky) will be destroyed. That said I did not follow it hypocritically because there was no rule against it.
Then I claim neutrality.
Buggy: 25%+42%=92%
Duskie: 8%
Logged

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2011, 10:22:48 PM »

Okay, there are so many problems with that. You can ask about my defenses if you're unclear, but just dictating them is not quite right.

Also, they are robotic, not robots; they are only automated. They have no capacity for knowledge or fear.

How have I followed the Constitution hypocritically?

Even if I had, you could only steal 50% of my Hill.

This is the fifth post of Duskling's neutrality.

There must be five attacks between your attacks on the same person, not five posts.

You have to have been militarily inactive for at least one page, or 15 posts, before you may claim neutrality.

I hereby motion to ignore that post. Seconds to the motion? (Duskling?)

Duck: 54.5%
Bug: 37.5%
Dusk: 8%
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 10:26:12 PM by Duckling »
Logged

Duskling

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2011, 10:27:38 PM »

Hmmm? Don't mind me, I'm neutral, and I don't like voting on decisions, not my style. Besides, I'm a bit busy admiring my sunflower to decide anything at the moment. :)
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 11:44:13 PM by Duskling »
Logged

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2011, 10:40:17 PM »

Does this ring a bell?
  • That I shall not have goings-on on my Hill portion that would take more than five years in one post5.
Buggy, I brush the dust off my bum, and get back on my Hill. Then, I time-travel to the point 5,000,000,000 years in the future when your star goes out. Then, I cover your civilization's heat shield with spray-on mirrors, and release a gigantic swarm of facultatively anaerobic beta fish cross-bred with pirhanas, and they start to attack their own reflections, i.e. your civ. After about a thousand years, they break through and eat all your people. Then, I use one of those grabber claw things to extract the Hill from your frozen base.
Logged

MikeW781

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2011, 07:16:54 AM »

This is three.

And Fyer, I believe it's

Quote
claims 50% of their opponent's Hill, and may not attack the Owner's Hill until at least five attacks later

so really, Mike shouldn't have any, as you took his bit immediately after the first attack, and it should be like

Duck: 54.5%
Bug: 37.5%
Mike: 0%
Dusk: 8%
No. Buggy stole your part of the hill because you violated the Constitution. Regardless, I motion to make two changes to the system
1. The bit about only being able to take half an opponents hill is silly, and will result in us eventually fighting over half-percents of the hill. I like the old system of just taking the whole hill with each attack. That worked fine, no reason to change it.

2. Next up, and more important, the rules about spacing attacks on one person are silly. It means that nobody can play if there are only one or two people involved at the time.
Logged
Currently tied with Zack for the title of Master of Light!

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2011, 07:30:38 AM »

I second that motion. Though I'm not planning on playing much here anymore.
Logged

Idozen Cair

  • Blue Cape
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
  • Formally known as the Grotesquery.
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2011, 08:21:55 AM »

Hm. I like this! But 1 thing: Who's having what defences now? I'm TOTALLY confused. ??? ??? ???
Logged
I doesn't care, do I?

Duskling

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2011, 02:30:16 PM »

I declare neutrality once more, I'd like to see how this turn out, for now, at least.
Logged

Steelfist

  • Guest
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2011, 02:55:07 PM »

Unfortunately, for a relaxed forum game there are simply too many rules. It leads to argument and confusion. I will, however, in memory of the original, try to prevent it crashing and burning as it ultimately will.

I intend to attack Duckling, and apologise in advance for breaking any of the myriad of rules.

I use an EMP and disable the 'cutters'. Stabbing you, I take half your hill, heal you and knock you out.


Not certain how much I have.
Logged

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2011, 02:56:12 PM »

Try playing King of Thine Hill. It's like king of the hill but with a moderated amount of rules. Not too many, not too few.
Logged

Steelfist

  • Guest
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2011, 09:43:48 AM »

Honestly, I think the only rule needed to prevent empires is no alliances. Everything other than that plain useless: It worked before, without all these rules, didn't it? All you need to do is correct one tiny thing.
Logged

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
    • View Profile
Re: King of the Hill II
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2011, 02:49:32 PM »

MY GOD (who may or may not exist and is made of car tires), Buggy! Where is there a provision for hill-stealing in response to accidentally breaking a rule??

There is none!

Duck: 27.2%
Steel: 27.3%
Mike: 0.
Bug: 37.5%
Dusk: 8%

Steelfist, the point isn't to prevent empires and alliances. The point is to have a structured game where it isn't just free-for-all. The rules of basketball are about that length, or longer.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 03:14:43 PM by Duckling »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]