Conquer Club

This idea is similar to the suggestion in this thread, and there have already been numerous topics about the 24 hour time limit which have all been rejected. My advice would be to find someone reliable on here and ask them to look after your account on the occassions that you will not be able to take your turns.

However, I am happy to see what support this particular suggestion may get from the rest of the community, as it is asking for the option when creating the game.

Cheers, JB

Add it as an option.

The other suggestions on this same general topic were asking to give extra time for weekends, holidays, etc. and required players to cast a vote mid game. All of the other suggestions were too much work.

This suggestion could work. I might never play a 48 hour turn game, but it could be great for players who don't get online as frequently as every 24 hours. Might even be nice for new players who seems to often miss a lot of turns.

Queen_Herpes wrote:Add it as an option.

The other suggestions on this same general topic were asking to give extra time for weekends, holidays, etc. and required players to cast a vote mid game. All of the other suggestions were too much work.

This suggestion could work. I might never play a 48 hour turn game, but it could be great for players who don't get online as frequently as every 24 hours. Might even be nice for new players who seems to often miss a lot of turns.

I agree this might work if it gets enough support as it would increase the casual gamer aspect off CC and it is designed as a casual gamer website.

On a different note this type of game shouldn't be available to ?'s if implemented as that would just add 6 days to games where ?'s joined who dont bother to ever come back and take their turns.

Hi. Just wanted to look at this suggestion again. it seems to have had some positive feedback. is there any way that maybe this could be put into effect? thanks.

You need more Support

As an option I think it would be nice. I'm all for extra options. I know I'd never play it myself, but I could see how it would be useful for other players. Personally I go nuts waiting for the 24 hour period and couldn't imagine potentially doubling the wait time for my turns to come up

I would never join a 48-hour game.

This would probably scare many New Recruits away, as they'd have to wait a long time for turns. And imagine an 6 player game with 3 NR's that Deadbeat. That's 18 days....

Well, then make it so that NR's cannot join the games, or maybe reduce the number of missed turns to kick to 2 in 48h games. Either way, this is a great idea and also would help in team games to increase communication

I think a package suggestion of 'variable time limits' might have a better chance of succeeding.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think a package suggestion of 'variable time limits' might have a better chance of succeeding.


--Andy

I agree with out top monkey.

Cheers, JB

Concise description: Make longer games available

• 24 hours (like now)
• 48 Hours (2 days)
• 72 hours (3 days)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• In clanwars, clans will have more time to discuss the tactics
• in SoC teachers will have more time to watch the game
• Players who really don't have much time can even play but they may slow the game down a lot, but if you don't like very slow games, just keep joining the 24h ones.

it's mostly for SoC and clans, but also a bit for the really casual players.

maybe also add some kind of feature that keeps track of the average time it takes for someone to complete the turn and put it on the profile and in the game itself. (and maybe award a medal for fast players or something)

Like the suggestion.

I'd like 12h games as well.

I like this but you need to separate it or something. Can you imagine some new guy accidentally entering one of my 72hour, no round limit, no spoils games and losing a spot for 8 months.

Just block the over 24 hours games for new members like team games are blocked for them.

2dimes wrote:I like this but you need to separate it or something. Can you imagine some new guy accidentally entering one of my 72hour, no round limit, no spoils games and losing a spot for 8 months.

CC Could allow it to where New Recruits can't play them; because new recruits can't play terminator or assassin games, or manual troops, etc. They can't have complex games. All CC needs to do is just add 72 hours or even 48 hours to the complex list.

Forza AZ wrote:Just block the over 24 hours games for new members like team games are blocked for them.

Lol... didn't see this till just now. But yeas, exactly like this^^

zimmah wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.

(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more )

You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.

me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.

The only 2 arguments I have to that is that people will accidentally join games they don't want to (they're own fault, but still a disadvantage) and that if there are games that are 48/72 hour turns, the games will stay active in the system longer and could take up too much information on servers because of more games being played at once.

Sticky.

chapcrap wrote:

zimmah wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.

(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more )

You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.

me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.

The only 2 arguments I have to that is that people will accidentally join games they don't want to (they're own fault, but still a disadvantage) and that if there are games that are 48/72 hour turns, the games will stay active in the system longer and could take up too much information on servers because of more games being played at once.

I think it's a strong idea, but your second argument there is a very important one to keep in mind, I think.

Woodruff wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

zimmah wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.

(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more )

You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.

me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.

The only 2 arguments I have to that is that people will accidentally join games they don't want to (they're own fault, but still a disadvantage) and that if there are games that are 48/72 hour turns, the games will stay active in the system longer and could take up too much information on servers because of more games being played at once.

I think it's a strong idea, but your second argument there is a very important one to keep in mind, I think.

And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.

TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.

noone forces you to join 72h games, it just offers more choice. and it's mainly useful for clans and teaching games because it allows more time to discuss. but even then there's also demand for longer/shorter games and the speed games have various lenghts now too, so why not the casuals?

zimmah wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.

noone forces you to join 72h games, it just offers more choice. and it's mainly useful for clans and teaching games because it allows more time to discuss. but even then there's also demand for longer/shorter games and the speed games have various lenghts now too, so why not the casuals?

Think about new players though. I know when I joined, I just joined random games without looking at settings. Lot of new players don't really tend to look at the settings they join.

Actually, I still do it.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

zimmah wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.

noone forces you to join 72h games, it just offers more choice. and it's mainly useful for clans and teaching games because it allows more time to discuss. but even then there's also demand for longer/shorter games and the speed games have various lenghts now too, so why not the casuals?

Think about new players though. I know when I joined, I just joined random games without looking at settings. Lot of new players don't really tend to look at the settings they join.

Actually, I still do it.

If only there were a way to restrict new players to a certain type of games....

I think it was a mistake to merge the 12-hour game suggestions with the 72-hour game suggestions.

It makes it really difficult for someone to guage how much support the ideas have.

I, for instance, am totally opposed to 12-hour games but I could support 72-games. Should I post "I agree" and inadvertantly end up with an option I think is really bad, or should I post "I disagree" and sabotage what I think is a good idea?

Dukasaur wrote:I think it was a mistake to merge the 12-hour game suggestions with the 72-hour game suggestions.

It makes it really difficult for someone to guage how much support the ideas have.

I, for instance, am totally opposed to 12-hour games but I could support 72-games. Should I post "I agree" and inadvertantly end up with an option I think is really bad, or should I post "I disagree" and sabotage what I think is a good idea?

While there are time preferences you would have, I think that the change, if implemented, could include all of those options. When there are multiple game options, I don't see a great reason to prohibit them unless they are just super bad, and none of these are. They are just personal preferences.