Moderator: Community Team
ender516 wrote:The sitting feature is intended to give better control of account sitting, where one player covers turns for another. Right now, this is done by giving away passwords, a risky business. The built-in feature would control the authorization by one player of another to take turns, without permitting access to profiles, inboxes, and so on.
ender516 wrote:I guess I have to be more careful about my pronouncements. I don't know for certain what the sitter feature would entail exactly, and I believe that there is a topic in the Suggestions forum to discuss it in detail. I was mostly trying to point out that the sitter feaure would not involve an AI taking your turns for you.
Anyway, when you create a game, can't you invite players and have that show up on their My Games page, without using a PM?
eddie2 wrote:why are we talking about pms for tourneys. if someone is being sat for they are meant to tell the organiser anyway.
nvrijn wrote: ...
But if the primary factor was territories or bonuses, it's different (and I think better). The player who is strategic enough to barricade themselves off from multiple attackers, while racing around and ensuring no one else has a higher territory count, or bonus count, probably deserves to win. The downside is that it offers a real disadvantage to the guy that goes first.
I suspect the optimum way would be to choose the winner based upon several factors.
Total number of bonuses
Total number of territories (factors different if different number of territories in the variant)
The remaining number of men
It might be more complex to figure out, but that is GOOD because it gives a player several ways to win, the point weighing reflects the actual strategy considerations, the special suicide end game strategy is minimized, and it would provide several strategies for winning as the turn clock ticked down, instead of only one.
Is the current "end value" computation of this new variant written in stone?
DJ Teflon wrote:Would have liked the option for a game to be a 'Draw' when the limit is reached (i.e. no winner - no points)
qwertylpc wrote:DJ Teflon wrote:Would have liked the option for a game to be a 'Draw' when the limit is reached (i.e. no winner - no points)
demonfork wrote:5000 or so games with round limits have ended so far. Less than 100 of them reached their limits.
An update was done for something that happens 2% of the time, what a waste.
shijinn wrote:there must be a reason why the top players play so many 1v1 or team games (which are essentially 1v1 too) while those with less to lose play games with a greater variety of settings..
codierose wrote:prob already covered but what happens when the sitter sits and builds sit and builds etc etc etc for say 20 rounds the rest work hard to try and win then its 20 round time and the sitter win for doing nothing,zip, f all theres a few maps that are perfect for that
Users browsing this forum: No registered users