Forum
we need bigger tables
|
moneymaker$$ wrote
at 8:48 PM, Sunday August 11, 2013 EDT
the table sizes have been reducing when lower than 7 people sit and most maps not are 27 and 23 land maps . the only thing that really makes a win at a really small table is a start and the games are taking no strategy .
|
|
SprintTx wrote
at 9:30 PM, Sunday August 11, 2013 EDT I agree. Hell, I'd like to see 50 land tables.
|
|
|
moneymaker$$ wrote
at 10:39 PM, Sunday August 11, 2013 EDT it should be if it is less than 30 lands and with 7 people it should grow to like 35 land
|
|
Dude111 wrote
at 10:55 PM, Sunday August 11, 2013 EDT agree 23 land maps are shit
|
|
integraI wrote
at 12:30 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT small maps are awesome, you're an idiot.
|
|
|
integraI wrote
at 12:31 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT 8v8 luckfest is not strategy.
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 12:32 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT big maps are for people who dont understand how to take appropriate risks in early rounds, imo.
small maps ftw. |
|
Slinus wrote
at 2:16 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT What int and monte said.
|
|
Caesar wrote
at 2:35 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT inty got my vote
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 10:16 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT Yeah any map less than 31 is fucking awful. Could you just give everyone more land and dice when less than 7 sit? Or would that get out of control?
|
|
TheBetterYodel wrote
at 11:39 AM, Monday August 12, 2013 EDT Small maps and big maps have different strategy that's all.
Having a mixture of maps would be best to allow more freedom of play. |