Conquer Club

ROUND LIMIT OPTION in the start your own game link

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Would you like the option offered for round limited games?

yes
30
67%
no
15
33%
 
Total votes : 45

Postby AAFitz on Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:09 pm

i might not put it at the top of the list either, but, it would create some interesting strategies in the rounds approaching the end of the game

if based only on the number of territories....virtually any player in the game could win if they planned correctly...though, it might have to be set up so that everyone finishes their turn in that round....

if based on the total number of armies, it would force the top players to fight each other, thereby giving the players with less armies a fighting chance too....the games might end up being decided by just a few armies, and almost always would result in a melee near the end of the game

it really would be fun...and really, its what happens at the end of every extended game like that anyways for the most part...its just this way you would know when that would be

like anything else...having the option available someday might be nice...options never really hurt....its more the priorities that matter
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Postby AK_iceman on Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:23 pm

But in a sequential game, couldn't this be abused by taking your turn at a specific time so that you end up playing last and therefore having a huge advantage?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AK_iceman
 
Posts: 5704
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 10:39 pm

Postby steelplayin on Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:17 am

--
User avatar
Lieutenant steelplayin
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: LITTLE ROCK, AR

Postby steelplayin on Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:24 am

the last player to go would have the advantage of making the last move, but the players that go before him have the advantage of putting a dent in those plans-it works both ways
User avatar
Lieutenant steelplayin
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: LITTLE ROCK, AR

Round limits

Postby hasaki on Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:19 am

I tried looking it up but could not find anything.

I had this idea if we could choose to put a round limit on our games for example 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200. And lets say if no winner is decided within the time limit the game is a draw and no points are given.

(this is not a time limit. i like having 24 hours to take my turns.)
Last edited by hasaki on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There can only be one. OK sometimes two or three.

Highest place- 35
Highest score- 2517
User avatar
Colonel hasaki
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:48 pm
Location: 15 Hume drive,Arcadia,Ivalice

Postby Skittles! on Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:46 am

Why would you do that?

I think, that if you run of out Rounds and there is not a person that killed everyone else, the game should go to the person with the most amount of territories, or how many armies they would get.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
User avatar
Private Skittles!
 
Posts: 14574
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am

Postby Tubby Rower on Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:43 am

maybe after a certain amount of turns, you stop getting the new armies from territories.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Tubby Rower
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:36 am
Location: under a rolling pin

Postby CreepyUncleAndy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:20 pm

Hmmm....interesting. This is used in real-life games sometimes to prevent the game from dragging on and interfering with other games and real life. I think it's perfect for tournaments (say 20, 50 and 100-round tourney games).

For new games.... Say, you could set the total number of rounds a new game would be limited to (or leave it at default "infinite"), and people would keep an eye on the clock, rushing to landgrab at the end.

Unfortunatly, this seems like it would favor the last player (usually pink), as with a lucky hand of cards, they could make a phenomenal final push. Also, you might have people just keep building and building in no-cards games (which already happens), getting ready for the final eleventh-hour push.

Once it's over.... The server would have to calculate a way to score -- say, +1 for each territory owned, and +X for each continent where X = that continent's bonus, +1 for each card in hand, +1 for every (five?) ten armies you control, +10 for each opponent that you personally have eliminated....

scores would be totaled and compared, with ties going first to the "lowest" ranked player (i.e., a Private tied for Victory Points with a Major would be given the win) then the "highest" in the turn order (i.e., if Private Blue and Private Pink are tied for points, Blue would win because Pink had the advantage of going last).

If I may be so bold, might I suggest trading in a set of cards would extend the game 3 additional rounds? (Ducks as mods and spammers hurl a torrent of flaming Spam cans at him.)
User avatar
Private CreepyUncleAndy
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby hasaki on Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:29 pm

I when i was thinking about it. i thought it would be good to add some presure into the game. I know this is not for everyone but if would make a nice game choice.
There can only be one. OK sometimes two or three.

Highest place- 35
Highest score- 2517
User avatar
Colonel hasaki
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:48 pm
Location: 15 Hume drive,Arcadia,Ivalice

Postby joeyjordison on Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:27 pm

it would stop build games nicely.

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:If I may be so bold, might I suggest trading in a set of cards would extend the game 3 additional rounds? (Ducks as mods and spammers hurl a torrent of flaming Spam cans at him.)


that wouldn't work at all. its an idea but think about it, in a 6 player game everyone cashes in 5th round say and that adds on 18 rounds to the game. they then all gets sets again by round 8 and it adds on 18 more rounds.

did i understand u rite?

finally i think a new scoring option where you gain more points for how quickly you win would be good
User avatar
Major joeyjordison
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:10 am

Postby billybobjoe on Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:32 am

or instead of no points given out you could split up the points of the players eliminated between the remaining players.
Lieutenant billybobjoe
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:20 pm

Maximum Number of Rounds

Postby tkirby on Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:10 am

Add ability to set a max # of rounds so games can't devolve into 300 round, troop building snooze fests. Whoever's ahead at the end of max rounds wins. If I wanted a lot of sitting around for months on end, waiting to fight, I'd join the army.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class tkirby
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:48 pm

Re: Maximum Number of Rounds

Postby Tupence on Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:43 pm

I doubt this would ever be implemented, but if it was, how would the person who is ahead be decided? Would it be based on the total number of territories, or armies?
Important Tournament Notice

The data for ALL of my tournaments has potentially been lost. I am working to recover it but as I am away on business all of this week, there will be some delay. Sincere apologies.
User avatar
Private Tupence
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:40 am

Re: Maximum Number of Rounds

Postby Halmir on Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:11 pm

This could be a bit of quirky fun. U could decide victory conditions as most territories held at close, with highest bonus due on the next round used as tie-breaker. Or in fact the other way around works pretty well also :)
Lieutenant Halmir
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: UK

Limited round games

Postby Aalmeida17 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:48 pm

hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not) :lol:
User avatar
Cook Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY

Re: Limited round games

Postby Sir. Ricco on Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Captain Sir. Ricco
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Making kingdoms burn and bloodshed start.

Re: Limited round games

Postby SultanOfSurreal on Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:45 pm

Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)
User avatar
Private SultanOfSurreal
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am

Re: Limited round games

Postby Aalmeida17 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:01 pm

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

:lol: =D> =D>

yhea we can not do all the rules thinking in multis , and every type is a multi type, so we have multihunters
User avatar
Cook Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY

Re: Limited round games

Postby Sir. Ricco on Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:56 pm

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Captain Sir. Ricco
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Making kingdoms burn and bloodshed start.

Re: Limited round games

Postby Aalmeida17 on Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:30 am

Sir. Ricco wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.

lol 20 rouns?
part of the games end before the 10 round
User avatar
Cook Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY

Re: Limited round games

Postby iamkoolerthanu on Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:41 am

Aalmeida17 wrote:hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not) :lol:


That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class iamkoolerthanu
 
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: looking at my highest score: 2715, #170

Re: Limited round games

Postby Sir. Ricco on Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:13 am

Aalmeida17 wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.

lol 20 rouns?
part of the games end before the 10 round

Not for most No Card of Flat rate game that turn into the 800 round games you were talking about. I think the only way this would pass is if it was used, not a game setting so much, but more as a deterrent from stalemate games. In that case 20 is way to short, 30 or 50 would be better.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Captain Sir. Ricco
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Making kingdoms burn and bloodshed start.

Re: Limited round games

Postby stahrgazer on Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:59 am

iamkoolerthanu wrote:
That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?


There's a work-around for that: Tournament organizers who're worried about stalemating have established a round at which the game for the game is over for tournament purposes; while the players might continue to play the game, the 'winner' of the game for tournament purposes is announced based on terrcount, troops, etc.

I see mainly negatives with the idea for normal play.

Some players enjoy being part of crazy-round games, so would dislike this option. Especially true of a few Battle Royale games.

The option is likely to encourage intentional stalling... people who won't attack, not because they risk another player massacring them, but because they're higher in troopcount so simply wait for the requisite number of rounds to announce them the winner.

One hope the site must have, since it's a business, is that people playing for free will ultimately want to buy premium. One reason people buy premium is because they want to play, and some games stall and hold up their allotted number of games. If games end at a certain round regardless, that could detract from the player's wish to purchase a premium account.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Limited round games

Postby Aalmeida17 on Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:19 pm

iamkoolerthanu wrote:
Aalmeida17 wrote:hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not) :lol:


That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?

yhea :D
User avatar
Cook Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY

Re: Limited round games

Postby rhp 1 on Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:08 pm

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
Sir. Ricco wrote:Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.


every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)


wow, this is off topic but... if you really think that there is a "hyper minority" (as if that's fuckin English) of players who care about their rank, you r smokin from the biggest fuckin bong that's ever been made... (which i owned at one time). The majority of players on this site care about their rank.. duh.. Every topic in this forum is related to rank. OMG ru out to lunch.
User avatar
Lieutenant rhp 1
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: IF YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE DOING, IT IS BEST TO DO IT....... QUICKLY

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users