Conquer Club

Based on feedback collected by our Community Manager and game stats (only 0.1% of games make it to round 100) I propose that we switch up the round limits to make them more flexible. The new limits would be:

None, 20, 30, 40, 50

Any 100 Round Limit games would be converted to 50 (so far that won't make a much difference to any ongoing games).

Do you agree with this change?

Nice idea on the 20, 30, 40, 50
Agreed very little changes would happen on games that make it to 100 rounds, normally well and truly a stalemate by the time we hit 50

I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

chapcrap wrote:I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

I agree with this.

Bruceswar wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

I agree with this.

Yeah, I think chapcrap's got the right idea Naturally there won't be too many games that reach Round 100. It should be that way.

-Sully

A round limit of 100 is about perfect for a seq. 8 man no cards. 50 is too short...the best of those games often conclude between rounds 50 and 80.

While I am aware few players enjoy this style, for those that do I can tell you with some confidence that a 100 round limit is ideal.

Why not have a user entered #? It can be a dropdown box with Lots of choices.

kuma32478 wrote:Why not have a user entered #? It can be a dropdown box with Lots of choices.

At this point, until the feature is used more, its probably best to keep some things standard and organized. The more options we give the user at this point, the more disorganized things can get it. I would suggest the following values.

10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100

The reason for 10..
The best thing about the round limits is the possibilities it has for running tournaments. Tournament Directors can setup bo3 or bo5 1v1 maps and have a realistic idea of how long those matches may take. 10 rounds is often about the right amount for a 1v1 map.

Still though.. none of this will matter as long as the 'tie breaker' is as flawed as it is.

Again, I will try to find some time to come up with some proper math to figure a map where the round limit has been reached.

I prefer keeping the 100-round option. People currently shy away from stalemate settings for fear of being in the same game for years. I've got two active games going since 2008 which are on rounds 844 & 1,125; 100 rounds seem quite short in comparison.

While only 0.1% of games make it past 100 rounds, I'm afraid the 50-round max option wouldn't always provide enough time for these slow-play setting games to fully develop. I'd also plan on an increase in the number of high-round games compared to history as I would expect these great new round limit options to make stalemate settings a more popular choice going forward. I wonder how many games would be affected by dropping the maximum limit from 100 to 50: i.e., how many games last between 51 and 100 rounds? Perhaps it's a good bit more than 0.1%.

If there are only 5 options, I would like to see: none, 20, 30, 50, 100.

30 or 50-round limits are both reasonable alternatives for anyone who would have chosen 40.

what about none, 25, 50, 75, 100?

Only 0.1% may make it to round 100, but that number is hugely skewed since half of all games are 1v1s.

Bruceswar wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

I agree with this.

+1

If I had to choose between one or the other, I would say get rid of the 100 for a smaller increment

i'd be a huge fan of keeping the 100 turns limit.

it is a long time, but that way you can be sure the round limit only ends the game when it really is a stalemate.

50 turns is simply too little for that, since at round 40 or so, you'll already have to change strategies to prepare for the round limit.

Would like to see one of them at the 10 round range, so as to make this a really interesting option in games.

10, 20, 30, 40, 50 would be my preference. But as that is not an option in the poll, voted for the top one. 100 seems silly as, as you said, only 0.1% of games get that far.

MoB Deadly wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

I agree with this.

+1

+1

Gilligan wrote:

MoB Deadly wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I agree with more increments in the lower range, but I think leaving a 100 round limit would not be bad. Can we have 20, 30, 40, 50, 100?

If we can't, then drop the 100 and just use more lower limits.

I agree with this.

+1

+1

+1

I'd vote for:

None, 20, 30, 50, 100

This way, we keep the 100, and keep 20 and 30 (which are often used in tournaments). I haven't often run into a 40 round limitation.

Oh and btw: losing the 100 could be dangerous.
You say only 0.1% reaches 100. But you'd cut at 50... How big a percentage hits 50 rounds?


Edit:
Whoops, MudPuppy kinda said the exact same thing already... Guess we must have a point

Is it possible for any mods/admins here to extend the poll to include some of the other suggestions here? I would definitely vote for some of them more than the current options.

(I quite like 15, 30, 60, 100 )

Added None, 20, 30, 50, 100 to the poll and enabled change of vote

100 limit should be there.
When a 50 rounds limit game hits round 40, people will allready play different because of the round limit of 50. It is not that exceptional for a game to hit 40 rounds, therefore, 100 should be a good option.

What percent of games make it to 50 rounds?

koontz1973 wrote:Would like to see one of them at the 10 round range, so as to make this a really interesting option in games.

10, 20, 30, 40, 50 would be my preference. But as that is not an option in the poll, voted for the top one. 100 seems silly as, as you said, only 0.1% of games get that far.

10 rounds. I Love the idea. Would be useful for speed, hence Speed games shouldnt last 1 hour or longer.

Different topic, Speed games option of 3 minute turns would be awesome. 5 minutes seems to be a lot of time wasted.

lackattack wrote:Added None, 20, 30, 50, 100 to the poll and enabled change of vote

Good. Something on the lower end of things was definitely needed.

I agree with Kuma's suggestion of a drop down box or a typed in number where you could set your own round limit for every game. Just make 10 the minimum for sure.

For those that voted for the option with NONE, 20, 50, 100: why didn't you want 30 to be in there?

i'd like to be able to set any round limit i want.
also i'd like to see the option of setting a round limit to games that have already started but do not have a limit set. it would be great for current stalemates.

I voted 3rd option, but seriously.. just make a medal for this and all will be happy.