Forum

by **lackattack** on Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:39 pm

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?

by **TeeGee** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:18 am

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

by **chapcrap** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:56 am

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.

by **Bruceswar** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:10 am

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.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:29 am

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

by **Mr Changsha** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:21 am

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.

by **kuma32478** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:37 am

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

by **elGrande** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:52 am

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.

by **MudPuppy** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:54 am

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.

by **trinicardinal** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:05 am

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

by **DoomYoshi** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:54 am

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

by **MoB Deadly** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:08 am

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

by **Catarah** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 am

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.

by **koontz1973** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:14 pm

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.

by **Gilligan** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:52 pm

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