Change to Round Limits in Team Games?

[darth emperor]

I voted for other, because deciding who wins based on the troop counts is propesterous, it would be more accurate to decide the win based on the strength force (wich BOB calculates), and for team games.... BOB also calculates Team strenghth

Does the average CC player understand how BoB calculates this number? Total troop count is easy to see/calculate and would therefore be a better measure of who is winning at any given point in the game.

It's easy

also, the strength is Troops + troops Due - (Regions*(2/3))
i believe the region number gets counted as negative because for each region there's an army which can't be used to attack with, so that army counts only for 1/3rd.

Of course if it's implemented this way, there's need of 2 things:
1-Show the strenght in statistics
2-Explain, like you explain the points in the rules...

There are many users who still don't know how the system point works, but they'll learn, it's the same with BOB strenght, people will learn to use it, and become better... I know is not easy, but is fairer and more accurate

[macbone]

I'd vote for Team Strength if it were coded into the site, but since not everyone uses BOB, I went went overall troop level for the whole team. But Team Strength would be better.

The winner of a round-limit game (say, for instance, No Spoils Hive quads) ought to be determined by a rubric that measures how you've been playing as a team, not an arbitrary number like the team with the player that has the highest number of troops or largest number of terts. Sure, size matters, especially in Feudal or Pelops, but not in classic-style play.

[Jippd]

Doing it by strength would only mean last turn could drastically over extend to get the troops due number up which increases there strength...but if it was them taking something they couldn't hold only because they got the advantage of having last turn and couldn't be retaliated against then I wouldn't consider that fair.

That is why total troops would be better then strength.

Why would a team that has a stronger strength not have higher overall troops anyways? Only way I could see that happening is if they made a last ditch effort to overextend in the final round or go lucky dice to bring their drop up.

[darth emperor]

I'd vote for Team Strength if it were coded into the site, but since not everyone uses BOB, I went went overall troop level for the whole team. But Team Strength would be better.

It's easy to coded in the site, easier than code overall troop level for the whole team... so that's not the problem

Doing it by strength would only mean last turn could drastically over extend to get the troops due number up which increases there strength...but if it was them taking something they couldn't hold only because they got the advantage of having last turn and couldn't be retaliated against then I wouldn't consider that fair.

True, but getting this is more difficult than to get only 1 troop more that the other team, and is the something, is not fair.

[Ace Rimmer]

Current status:

46 votes
5 to keep
40 to change
1 other

That's pretty overwhelmingly in favor of change.

[drunkmonkey]

I think the reason it was coded the this way is that it gets more complicated to combine data from multiple players into a winning round condition. But in general, I've always been in favor Team 'winning' conditions for Team games, and I like to pester Lack about them sometimes.


--Andy

I would think the code for determining a team winning condition would be nothing like the code determining who has the most troops at the end of the game. I also agree with keeping the map-specific winning conditions as-is. I always thought they were coded that way because it's much easier for a team to take a winning condition than a single player, not because it was too complicated to write.

[trinicardinal]

so can we get this moved across to Suggestions then?

[Ace Rimmer]

I thought you'd support this, trini Moving to suggs is the kiss of death.

[Ace Rimmer]

bump

6 no change = 11%
50 change = 88%
1 other = 2%

[tkr4lf]

I don't understand why it wasn't this way to begin with. It makes sense that the troop count of the whole team should be considered, not just the person with the highest troop count. It sucks when, in a team game, the last 10 turns or so before the round limit hits everybody spends the whole time forting their stacks to the person with the highest troop count to try to inflate that number. It's counter-intuitive.

Good suggestion.

[Ace Rimmer]

I would guess it works this way because lack spends most of his time playing casual games instead of team games, so he doesn't understand the team dynamic as well.

Going to convert this to a suggestion thread sometime - but keep voting/commenting to show your support!

[BigBallinStalin]

Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't thus way to begin with. What's the point of playing as a team if it's about the individual? This is capitalism at its worst.

Oh my god, honey, I totes agree. Capitalism at its worst!

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand why it wasn't this way to begin with. It makes sense that the troop count of the whole team should be considered, not just the person with the highest troop count. It sucks when, in a team game, the last 10 turns or so before the round limit hits everybody spends the whole time forting their stacks to the person with the highest troop count to try to inflate that number. It's counter-intuitive.

Good suggestion.

cuz it takes more time to code that in perhaps?

If it's the easiest way to implement it, you can bet Captain CC will jump all over that shit.

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't understand why it wasn't this way to begin with. It makes sense that the troop count of the whole team should be considered, not just the person with the highest troop count. It sucks when, in a team game, the last 10 turns or so before the round limit hits everybody spends the whole time forting their stacks to the person with the highest troop count to try to inflate that number. It's counter-intuitive.

Good suggestion.

cuz it takes more time to code that in perhaps?

If it's the easiest way to implement it, you can bet Captain CC will jump all over that shit.

+1

[IcePack]

+1 here

[The Voice]

A +1 bump

[hmsps]

I just cant see the logic in why it was coded this way in the first place, team game means team but obviously there is an 'i' in team CC

[Jippd]

Bump for my support

[Namliam]

76 votes total. I'd say that even though the poll shows overwhelming support for changing this rule, CC could care less about what 76 people think. Share this with your clan mates and your round limit teams!

[Jippd]

It's been posted in the AOC forum

[AndyDufresne]

76 votes total. I'd say that even though the poll shows overwhelming support for changing this rule, CC could care less about what 76 people think. Share this with your clan mates and your round limit teams!

It is definitely a change that I'd like to see. I think the current setup does make for some interesting gameplay, but I think the spirit of team games is probably more aligned with this change.


--Andy

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[Seulessliathan]

In case someone doesn´t see how the actual rule can be abused and is abused, please check

Game 11332819
Game 11328764
Game 11332881

If you don´t see which kind of advantage you get when you "just" miss turn 18 & 19 but not deadbeat, pm Kaskavel or mc, they will be able to explain you how you can get a great to chance to win a game you would lose otherwise, by taking advantage of missed turns. Only in case they refuse to explain, pm me.

That said, i support the change of rule Ace Rimmer suggests. About intentionally missed turns i will try to make a suggestion too if i find a good solution. Might be difficult but seems to be needed.