Staggered Gameplay

[skychaser]

No Spies, the next turn only starts after the actual turn ends. after all players are given a chance the ones who didn't play are still in the round so the round won't advance and thus they are not given "second chances".

No, spiesr is right.

If player 8 is the only player left, 6 hours into his turn, player 1 can go, the player 2, etc. Essentially, there could be a situation where everyone is a couple of rounds ahead of player 8 if they are all online and he is not. Of course, he would then get multiple turns in a row...

Madness?!?

This is not madness. THIS IS STAGGERED!!!!

[chapcrap]

No Spies, the next turn only starts after the actual turn ends. after all players are given a chance the ones who didn't play are still in the round so the round won't advance and thus they are not given "second chances".

No, spiesr is right.

If player 8 is the only player left, 6 hours into his turn, player 1 can go, the player 2, etc. Essentially, there could be a situation where everyone is a couple of rounds ahead of player 8 if they are all online and he is not. Of course, he would then get multiple turns in a row...

they could only get in front like you say if only a few players were left. any more than 3 and his 24 hours would expire.

Yeah, on his first turn... He would still have the others and then get the deferred troops too.

So, the issue is whether or not that's how the setup should be or should Round 1 have to finish before Round 2 starts? Or should there be another method?

[mc05025]

Hmm, that seems funny and intresting.

Lets check the complicated 3 players situation

Round 1
time =0, Player 1's turn starts
if time = 360 mins or Player 1 ends turn, Player 2's turn starts (B)
if time = (B) + 360 mins or Player 2 ends turn, Player 3's turn starts (C)
if time = (C) + 360 mins or Player 3 ends turn, Round 2 starts, Player 1's turn starts (D) (that is if round 1 is not the round limit)

Lets assume player 1 hasn't yet take his 1st turn
Two clocks should run for him. 1 for his firts round and 1 for his second round which is ok.
That means player 1 can take his 1st turn during the second round

If there is round limit on round 1 it should be formula to say that:
When all players ends turn the new round starts (and the game is over)

Obviously player 1 should take first his round 1 turn and then he is allowd to take his round 2 turn.

Lets assume the situation that player 1 is offline for 24.00 hours and the others are online

round 1 start.
after 6 hours player 2 start and end turn.
Player 3 can take and end his turn instantly

round 2 starts
Now player 1 can see 2 clocks
After 6 hours (so total of 12 hours) , player 2 starts his 2nd turn
Again player 3 take his turn immidiatly

round 3 starts
Player 1 can see 3 clocks running now
After 6 hours (so total of 18 hours), player 2 starts his 3nd turn
Again player 3 take his turn immidiatly

round 4 starts
Player 1 can see 4 clocks running now
After 6 hours (so total of 24 hours) player 1 miss his 1st turn, and player 2 starts his 4nd turn
Again player 3 take his turn immidiatly

lets assume round 4 is round limit

Instead of round 5 starting nothing happens waiting for palyer 1 to take his 4th round.
When player 1 take his turn (or get elliminated or miss all his turns or/and kicked out for violating the rules)
round 5 starts.
the game is over

So the maximum of the rounds that a player can take is 4 in a row.

[skychaser]

But i think this way the system could be highly abusable.

Unless we put a limit for objectives. The player can play as many turns as he avoid. But the objectives are invalid for such sequential turns.

[mc05025]

Well if really low rank players are playing, yes. But it is not that difficult not to let an other player to play 2 times in a row. It is not like freestyle that you have to wait till the last sec. At this style you will have to wait something like 12 or 18 hours to make sure someone will not take a double turn.

The other solution is not to make it sircular i.e. the next turn starts only if all players has taken their turns. This is much more simple but there is a problem that the last player's gameplay is different from the 1st's one because the last one can not wait for the next player to play before him. So the position will be much more important and maybe playing first is going to be an advandage (an extra advantage)

[skychaser]

Yep. I guess that could do then.

[skychaser]

I mean, it may be a fail, may not be a fail. But if it's a fail then it should be made in a way that everyone could use it to be fair.

[chapcrap]

Will you update the OP to the latest version of whatever you want to propose? It helps when people come to the thread.

[skychaser]

Let's get to a consensus about the mode so we update it. I guess.

I'm stuck here but will do. If you want to do feel free to do so too.

[chapcrap]

Let's get to a consensus about the mode so we update it. I guess.

I'm stuck here but will do. If you want to do feel free to do so too.

Just whenever a consensus is reached...

[greenoaks]

i would prefer a rolling mode with brakes applied to stop anyone moving more than 1 turn ahead.

that way every player no matter what position knows the next player may click begin turn 6 hours into theirs and other players may follow.

[koontz1973]

i would prefer a rolling mode with brakes applied to stop anyone moving more than 1 turn ahead.

that way every player no matter what position knows the next player may click begin turn 6 hours into theirs and other players may follow.

This would work but stifle the idea. How about a two round limit before the breaks are added. It might become strategic to not play a round and to have two rounds to play back to back. Mainly in maps with winning and losing conditions.

[DoomYoshi]

Replace the word "strategic" with "farmtastic" and I agree completely koontz.

[skychaser]

It's one of the things we need a consensus about before updating the op post.

I think. Once the game starts it can go without interruption. However. If a guy have a turn he didnt play due so people being too fast it may be buffered and his turn may become active after someone have finished his turn.
I mean.
If player 1 didnt, play, everyone else played and 24 hours didn't progress so now he's got 2 turns to play. He plays the first one so he's got another turn as everyone is already at 2nd turn.
In this case he's got a turn to play. However at the end of his play the game checks if he have a turn left and let him at waiting time.
The waiting time lasts for 6 hours so if 6 hours are passed his turn is open again. Nothing else is changed. If someone finishes his turn he can play too.
(Thats only one of the options. Lol).


Another option is having him to play immediately.

Yet another option is having him play after someone started his turn. Same as freestyle and farmtastic as the second option.

Another one would be the turns locked and so. But it's bad since the last ones to play could have a lot of disadvantages. So we turned it down already.

But I may say, even if it's a little bit farmtastic it's still not THAT abusable, it could happen but I don't think it will Always happen.

[greenoaks]

Replace the word "strategic" with "farmtastic" and I agree completely koontz.

i was thinking the same. great word DY.

[DoomYoshi]

If we block this option for less than 4-player games, that is a possible solution. Let's collect possible solutions and make a poll?

[greenoaks]

If we block this option for less than 4-player games, that is a possible solution. Let's collect possible solutions and make a poll?

that would be pointless. all games eventually reduce to <4 player games.

a system that works for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 player games if the only way this would be considerable.

that is why i recommend you can start your turn after 6 hours but regardless of how many players are left you can't move more than 1 turn ahead of anyone.
Good point.

[skychaser]

Making a pool it's fine.

I have another option.

One can play more than one turn. But he have to wait for 30 minutes.

That way in objective maps someone will have to stop him, sacrifice a turn and it will add even more stategy.

This way he would wait 30 minutes, the game may even end into his turn and the next.

[skychaser]

I agree that any system must be agnostic to the number of players.

[Metsfanmax]

Alright. I like this idea, and there's a lot of potential. It seems to me that the outstanding objection relates to how rounds are counted. This is of course mostly only relevant for Round Limit games and objective maps. Nevertheless it seems to me to be a significant enough objection (when coupled with the probable technical challenges) to consider restricting this gameplay mode so that the last player in the round has to finish his or her turn before the next round can commence. If anyone has a workaround to this issue that doesn't involve putting arbitrary breaks on the rolling turns, please state it.

[greenoaks]

Alright. I like this idea, and there's a lot of potential. It seems to me that the outstanding objection relates to how rounds are counted. This is of course mostly only relevant for Round Limit games and objective maps. Nevertheless it seems to me to be a significant enough objection (when coupled with the probable technical challenges) to consider restricting this gameplay mode so that the last player in the round has to finish his or her turn before the next round can commence. If anyone has a workaround to this issue that doesn't involve putting arbitrary breaks on the rolling turns, please state it.

your problem is you are thinking in the traditional Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 mode.

this is a rolling mode ie. everyone's turn is the start of the 'round'. the next player may begin their turn 6 hours after the previous player's 24 hour timer began. if a player has not taken his turn then the game can not progress beyond that point (with him used as calculating the begining of that 'round'). rounds are more fluid than they are now but not so much that other players could take 15 turns while you slept.

[Metsfanmax]

Alright. I like this idea, and there's a lot of potential. It seems to me that the outstanding objection relates to how rounds are counted. This is of course mostly only relevant for Round Limit games and objective maps. Nevertheless it seems to me to be a significant enough objection (when coupled with the probable technical challenges) to consider restricting this gameplay mode so that the last player in the round has to finish his or her turn before the next round can commence. If anyone has a workaround to this issue that doesn't involve putting arbitrary breaks on the rolling turns, please state it.

your problem is you are thinking in the traditional Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 mode.

this is a rolling mode ie. everyone's turn is the start of the 'round'. the next player may begin their turn 6 hours after the previous player's 24 hour timer began. if a player has not taken his turn then the game can not progress beyond that point (with him used as calculating the begining of that 'round'). rounds are more fluid than they are now but not so much that other players could take 15 turns while you slept.

My comment is a relevant consideration. However we end up doing it, there needs to be a clear and fair way to determine when a round has ended for the purpose of determining the winner in round limit games and on objective maps. Saying that "it's a rolling mode" doesn't make it clear to me how this issue has been resolved. Specific ideas are required here.

[greenoaks]

Alright. I like this idea, and there's a lot of potential. It seems to me that the outstanding objection relates to how rounds are counted. This is of course mostly only relevant for Round Limit games and objective maps. Nevertheless it seems to me to be a significant enough objection (when coupled with the probable technical challenges) to consider restricting this gameplay mode so that the last player in the round has to finish his or her turn before the next round can commence. If anyone has a workaround to this issue that doesn't involve putting arbitrary breaks on the rolling turns, please state it.

your problem is you are thinking in the traditional Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 mode.

this is a rolling mode ie. everyone's turn is the start of the 'round'. the next player may begin their turn 6 hours after the previous player's 24 hour timer began. if a player has not taken his turn then the game can not progress beyond that point (with him used as calculating the begining of that 'round'). rounds are more fluid than they are now but not so much that other players could take 15 turns while you slept.

My comment is a relevant consideration. However we end up doing it, there needs to be a clear and fair way to determine when a round has ended for the purpose of determining the winner in round limit games and on objective maps. Saying that "it's a rolling mode" doesn't make it clear to me how this issue has been resolved. Specific ideas are required here.

what part don't you get?

• the winner in a 20 round limit game is the player with the most troops after everyone has taken 20 turns.
• the winner by objective is the player who holds all relevant terits at the start of his turn.

this mode doesn't change that in the slightest.

[spiesr]

the winner in a 20 round limit game is the player with the most troops after everyone has taken 20 turns.

Then there needs to be a block to prevent Player 1 from taking a 21st turn before Player 8 takes the 20th.

[greenoaks]

the winner in a 20 round limit game is the player with the most troops after everyone has taken 20 turns.

Then there needs to be a block to prevent Player 1 from taking a 21st turn before Player 8 takes the 20th.

it is not possible to take 21 turns in a 20 turn game.