Timinator, luck on 3vs2 doesn't make a big difference in 4v4s. And 20x5 wastelands is just insane. Also, automatic distribution sucks. So does full distribution, rather than random warlords. Honestly, did you put ANY thought into this template?
autodistribution should not be a factor, aren't we trying to get the best player a membership? if it is auto distribution it is really giving it to the luckiest team
i like battle isles iv, but i find it abit too scattered, its easy for one of the players to fall off the radar and finish an important bonus in a remote area and easily win the game out of it. so there is a lot of win by lucky pickings related to it imho, either in auto or manual.
thats why i think rise of rome makes more sense. in rise of rome once you played the map a couple of times you notice you have some clear places where atleast one of you must deploy, usually its england and partha, and the other 2 have to manage the center and south to make sure no one finishes a big bonus. its very important to have high skills on 1vs1 battles of england and partha, and even more important to do team work to back each other up fast enough.
i like battle isles iv, but i find it abit too scattered, its easy for one of the players to fall off the radar and finish an important bonus in a remote area and easily win the game out of it. so there is a lot of win by lucky pickings related to it imho, either in auto or manual.
this is true in 2v2, maybe 3v3, but shouldn't be too common in a 4v4, especially with wastelands restricting the options
Lion laugh. 3v2 need 100%? 4v2 = 98% with 16% luck. 98% not enough? Luck of 75% you no know how to adjust essential attack to get nearer to 100% success rate? If you try do everything on cheap, you should miss sometimes.
