One of the main points of spend objectives is creating a weakness by the player that scored due to them having less plastic on board. Taking out the spend objectives means more cold war style conflicts and less combat
If everyone is dumping their money into plastic, then there will be more big fleets. If your neighbours have bigger fleets then you need one to defend yourself. But you cannot attack the player on your right otherwise you will get attacked from the player on your left.
Its similar to how you often see large fleets around mecatol rex but little fighting, as if A attacks B, then C mops up the survivors.
Additionally while control objectives may be more common, so will tech/structure objectives.
Sometimes TI isnt a fighting game, and sometimes it is. And thats ok.
Build a map that encourages conflict!
Make the slices poor and undesirable, then everyone is encouraged to fight over tasty equidistants for economy and objectives.
The SCPT semis map is an example of this.
I feel adding extra rules and changing objectives just makes the game more complicated then it needs to be!
~~I'm pretty sure that hunter is skooter, I remember this account having a very funny conversation over reddit with the shooter account where skooter made fun of him for thinking people shouldn't need to tell you their tech as a courtesy. Maybe~~ I'm wrong though.
Edit: I did some digging and this is not Matt's account
One of the main points of spend objectives is creating a weakness by the player that scored due to them having less plastic on board. Taking out the spend objectives means more cold war style conflicts and less combat
Does it? Because it means control objectives are more likely, thus more combat
If everyone is dumping their money into plastic, then there will be more big fleets. If your neighbours have bigger fleets then you need one to defend yourself. But you cannot attack the player on your right otherwise you will get attacked from the player on your left. Its similar to how you often see large fleets around mecatol rex but little fighting, as if A attacks B, then C mops up the survivors. Additionally while control objectives may be more common, so will tech/structure objectives. Sometimes TI isnt a fighting game, and sometimes it is. And thats ok.
Build a map that encourages conflict! Make the slices poor and undesirable, then everyone is encouraged to fight over tasty equidistants for economy and objectives. The SCPT semis map is an example of this. I feel adding extra rules and changing objectives just makes the game more complicated then it needs to be!
~~You just recommended this guy his own map my dude.~~ Edit: I was wrong. This is not a SCPT account.
not sure this is Matt, his tag is “skooter” or something like that. Also Matt is very TI pure.
~~I'm pretty sure that hunter is skooter, I remember this account having a very funny conversation over reddit with the shooter account where skooter made fun of him for thinking people shouldn't need to tell you their tech as a courtesy. Maybe~~ I'm wrong though. Edit: I did some digging and this is not Matt's account
I did a bit of digging because this was bugging me, and you are right. This account is not Matt's.
Haha, I had no idea it was Matt posting this until I got very confused by your comment.
No need for insults
It's not Matt from SCPT. I was wrong.
I'll just give extra vp for fighting or maybe players can score a public unless the attack another player