[GP] Fix Round Limit of Team Games [Vote]

[TheForgivenOne]

Wow, so far both suggestion Mods have not agreed to this and only put up lame excuses..but another Mod has, thanks. Why do we have a suggestion forum ? This suggestion is a very good one and very reasonable and should be implemented. This has come about I presume because it's the first instance of this happening and not many were aware of this as the round cap is new. Singles games well it is obvious but team games surely the total troops wins the game.

86

Did I ever say I didn't agree with this? No. I just answered a question. Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

I actually put up a question behind the scenes, and i'm waiting on a reply from lack.

[Dako]

Agent 86 -- I'm not necessarily opposed to this suggestion, I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it. It's a minor issue at best, but if it is not a difficult fix it should be implemented.

The reason is because current implementation is not intuitive at all.

[nebsmith]

I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

Team 1 deserve to win, as Team 2 must all be Idiots for not forting to one player in the last round.

[Pirlo]

Team 1 deserve to win, as Team 2 must all be Idiots for not forting to one player in the last round.

wouldn't call anybody idiot just because he/she missed the fort race!

[Sniper08]

i agree with this sugg , you play as a team you should win as one. team troops over individual player troops

[safariguy5]

I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.

While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.

How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.

[chapcrap]

I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.

While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.

How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.

Well, I didn't want to go back through all of my games and look at them all to see which specific one it was, but the longest one was 12 rounds I think.

So, you're right in a sense, but it was meant to be a general example, because it could be something that happens that would effect this.

[Kabanellas]

Must say that it seems pretty obvious to me. If you're playing team games then team troop count should count, and not the individual player.

[darth emperor]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with this suggestion, but I can understand why is made like this:

In maps where you win by objective. Only one player must hold all the objectives, not the team. (There were also many sugg. to change it)

And they did that, like that, based that only one player can have a bonus zone, to get the armies.

So here they also mantain like that in order to keep the spirit.

[Metsfanmax]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with this suggestion, but I can understand why is made like this:

In maps where you win by objective. Only one player must hold all the objectives, not the team. (There were also many sugg. to change it)

And they did that, like that, based that only one player can have a bonus zone, to get the armies.

So here they also mantain like that in order to keep the spirit.

Yeah. Sometimes playing as part of a team means sacrificing your own objective strength to benefit the whole team. That being said, if there's enough support for the idea of changing it to team troop count it will probably happen, assuming it's not a bear to code.

[Pirlo]

poll added

[BGtheBrain]

Id like to see this brought back to an Active topic instead of rejected.
Any luck of that?

22-4 at the time of post

[Arama86n]

total team.
got my vote.

[IcePack]

+1 here

[jghost7]

Id like to see this brought back to an Active topic instead of rejected.
Any luck of that?

22-4 at the time of post

+1