Team Round Limits Fixed!

[Lindax]

this is now on all games or just the new games witch are started from now on?
if it is made in existing games , its unfair to change it in the middle.

Exactly! I got a team game that has lasted over 2 month currently on its last round. Our whole strategy was based on this rule. You can t just change the rule for all existing games.. It s really unfair. Would have to be just for new ones (good change by the way, i just don t agree if it applies to games started a long time ago

Sorry, but no matter when we made the change, games would have been affected. I suspect that it would have been fairly difficult to code it in such a way that existing games at the time of the change were unaffected.

Besides, I wouldn't say it's unfair; presumably all of the teams in your games were also trying to play to win by the old rules, so everyone is affected equally by this change.

It would have been super-easy to code a condition for old games and new games.

Code: Select all

if (gameCreated < Dec 27) {
    checkOldConition
} else {
    checkNewCondition
}


Then just remove the if when last old round limit game ends.

And to make sure people don't confuse the games — add a chat line from system account noting which rules this game will be decided upon. It is easy, you just have to think for two more steps forward and be proactive.

Additionally, it would have been super easy to announce: One month from now the following change with regards to round limits and team games will go into effect, etc., etc.

[betiko]

this is now on all games or just the new games witch are started from now on?
if it is made in existing games , its unfair to change it in the middle.

Exactly! I got a team game that has lasted over 2 month currently on its last round. Our whole strategy was based on this rule. You can t just change the rule for all existing games.. It s really unfair. Would have to be just for new ones (good change by the way, i just don t agree if it applies to games started a long time ago

Sorry, but no matter when we made the change, games would have been affected. I suspect that it would have been fairly difficult to code it in such a way that existing games at the time of the change were unaffected.

Besides, I wouldn't say it's unfair; presumably all of the teams in your games were also trying to play to win by the old rules, so everyone is affected equally by this change.

Our opponents were clearly playing each their troops while we were all stacking on one being feudal epic trench nuclear quads and no chance to clear the board in 20 rounds. I have been screwed before by the old stupid rule so i learned my lesson. I just played the final round 20 today and the game started almost 2 month ago. You are being very dishonest, everyone in our situation (such as gunn in his bug report) have been screwed by your late announcement AFTER implementation. You didn t even bother to do something fair about it and you almost talk about it as if it was well deserved that people suffer an unanounced rule change by end game. It is not even the rules stipulated on the site rules!!! Admit the CC team made a big announcement mistake and don t put the blame on people in my situation!

[betiko]

here is the game, it just ended a few minutes ago:

Game 11918741

We clearly used a weird strategy based on the freaking site rules as per the 12th of november when the game started. Had the game ended yesterday (or was it done before yesterday?), we would have won, but it ended today and we have lost WITHOUT ANNOUNCEMENT.

All our strategy was based on a safehouse and letting them grow and while we weakened the toughest player, all calculated with estimated troops and rounds left. This affects our tourney!!

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

[Metsfanmax]

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

We don't mean that at all. We acknowledge that this should have been announced prior to the change. We're still in transition mode with the new administration and we hope that this does not happen again.

[betiko]

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

We don't mean that at all. We acknowledge that this should have been announced prior to the change. We're still in transition mode with the new administration and we hope that this does not happen again.

and do you admit that it's unfair for our team unlike what you said in your previous post? now that you see the game do you understand how our strategy was adapted to the settings and rules since turn 1, a month and a half ago? How could we know you guys could come up with such a sudden change? We won with the rules currently in place on the rules tab, yet it says that we lost because you guys are disorganized and making users pay the price.
I guess we have to be carefull with all our games now, team CC might come up with new secret objectives on maps without announcing it!!

[Metsfanmax]

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

We don't mean that at all. We acknowledge that this should have been announced prior to the change. We're still in transition mode with the new administration and we hope that this does not happen again.

and do you admit that it's unfair for our team unlike what you said in your previous post? now that you see the game do you understand how our strategy was adapted to the settings and rules since turn 1, a month and a half ago? How could we know you guys could come up with such a sudden change? We won with the rules currently in place on the rules tab, yet it says that we lost because you guys are disorganized and making users pay the price.
I guess we have to be carefull with all our games now, team CC might come up with new secret objectives on maps without announcing it!!

Well, looking at that game, I think you were winning because your opponents were not careful; they weren't playing to win by what the Round Limits rules were. Given the number of troops they have, my guess is that they would have had a fair shot at winning (under the old rules) had they been playing with the round limit in mind.

But this is neither here nor there. As I said, it is unfortunate that this happened, and I assure you there was no intention to mess up anyone's game. Since this was for a tournament, I recommend that you petition the person running the tournament to have the game not counted; I think this would be a fair request.

[denominator]

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

We don't mean that at all. We acknowledge that this should have been announced prior to the change. We're still in transition mode with the new administration and we hope that this does not happen again.

and do you admit that it's unfair for our team unlike what you said in your previous post? now that you see the game do you understand how our strategy was adapted to the settings and rules since turn 1, a month and a half ago? How could we know you guys could come up with such a sudden change? We won with the rules currently in place on the rules tab, yet it says that we lost because you guys are disorganized and making users pay the price.
I guess we have to be carefull with all our games now, team CC might come up with new secret objectives on maps without announcing it!!

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

The game was created on November 12, when the rules were that the player with the most troops on his team wins the game. Both teams played under this rule.

The rules changed on December 27, which affected both teams.

You are complaining that CC implemented this change just to cause you to lose a game, which you freely admit that you were attempting to win via a loophole in the system.

[betiko]

CC team answer: screw you. didn't bother to do something fair.

We don't mean that at all. We acknowledge that this should have been announced prior to the change. We're still in transition mode with the new administration and we hope that this does not happen again.

and do you admit that it's unfair for our team unlike what you said in your previous post? now that you see the game do you understand how our strategy was adapted to the settings and rules since turn 1, a month and a half ago? How could we know you guys could come up with such a sudden change? We won with the rules currently in place on the rules tab, yet it says that we lost because you guys are disorganized and making users pay the price.
I guess we have to be carefull with all our games now, team CC might come up with new secret objectives on maps without announcing it!!

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

The game was created on November 12, when the rules were that the player with the most troops on his team wins the game. Both teams played under this rule.

The rules changed on December 27, which affected both teams.

You are complaining that CC implemented this change just to cause you to lose a game, which you freely admit that you were attempting to win via a loophole in the system.

you are the smart ass that doesn't get it and brings in his 2 cents.
we didn't attempt to win via a loophole, we attempted to win via the best way given the settings and the map that came up with random AND THE RULES putten in place by LACKATTACK on PURPOSE. I had already suffered from this stupid rule:

Game 11662466

and I was one of the guys deeply in favour to change it as I think the new rule is better. Now what would you do?? Play to lose because you don't like the rule, or use the best strategy given what the opponent is doing and the map is too large to be finished in 20 rounds in trench? Is it my fault if the opponent is not using the best strategy? Do you always warn your opponents with a "hey guys, carefull it's the last round, you need to stack all on 1 because we might win otherwise!!"

What CC team did is totally unprofessional. If they were not able to apply the rule only to newly created games, well they had to announce it and give a month deadline, just like lindax said. Even worse, they anounced it 1 day after changing it!!
This is just like changing the rule in the middle of a tournament. "it's not best of 5 anymore it's best of 1, you've lost 1 game and we don't care if you are leading in 3 of them, you lost, gg!"

look at yesterday's bug report:
viewtopic.php?f=506&t=183197&view=unread#unread

what type of organization is this????

[universalchiro]

Heya heya,

As many of you already know, the Bug that evaluated the winning team of games with Round Limits has been fixed!

The old setup:

• At the end of the Round Limit, the team with the player who had the most troops would win.

The fixed setup:

• Now, at the end of the last round in a Round Limits game, the Team with the Total Troop Count will be declared winners.

Furthermore, I apologize for the lag between the Announcement and the actual update! Everything is on the same page now and it won't be happening again . Thanks for your time, more updates to come!

BMO

Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."

[betiko]

Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."

this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.

[Pirlo]

wow shit... this community is really sick and too fucking demanding !!

[Gillipig]

wow shit... this community is really sick and too fucking demanding !!

+1

[rdsrds2120]

The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

[greenoaks]

The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

shortly, what's wrong with immediately

[Dako]

Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.