SPEED GAME REMATCH BUTTON

[thehippo8]

Okay so I've played a gizzilion speed games. Primarily 1 minute. It's great but you get addicted and want MORE. Now, say you find a like minded opponent and you want to play them again (and again and again ad nauseum) but to do that you need to go through all the rigamarole of setting up an invite game. That takes too long and is against the whole spirit of SPEED!! So, what I want is a "PLAY AGAIN WITH THIS OPPONENT" button.

Obviously this would only pop up for two player games, but why not even for multi-player games?? But I digress.

Thoughts?

[maxfaraday]

Great idea.
I'd like to see that.

[padsta]

nice idea

no need to limit it to speed games though, a rematch button for all games would be nice.

[blakebowling]

nice idea

no need to limit it to speed games though, a rematch button for all games would be nice.

My thoughts, basically.

I assume all players would receive an invite to an identical game that would only start if all of the players accepted it (i.e. if one player declined, the game would be dropped).

[patrickaa317]

nice idea

no need to limit it to speed games though, a rematch button for all games would be nice.

My thoughts, basically.

I assume all players would receive an invite to an identical game that would only start if all of the players accepted it (i.e. if one player declined, the game would be dropped).

I like this though I'd say if one player declined, then that spot became open after invite declined or expired. Maybe make it a private game so noone could join right away if the others wanted to back out of it. And perhaps a PM sent to original requester notifying them of the decline/expiration.

This should only be for public & private games, though it would be nice if you could also do it for a tourney but just convert the new game to a public game.

[thehippo8]

Wow, more than a year and nothing but positive comments. Not many, but positive all the same

My thoughts:

1. Hitting the "REMATCH" button would set up an identical game with the same players and invites will be sent to those players;
2. If the game was a private game the new game will be private;
3. If it was a tournament game then it would become a public game;
4. If it is a multy player game and one or more persons declined their invite then the "slot" would become publicly available;
5. If all players decline then the game will implode.

Have I missed anything?

[blakebowling]

Wow, more than a year and nothing but positive comments. Not many, but positive all the same

My thoughts:

1. Hitting the "REMATCH" button would set up an identical game with the same players and invites will be sent to those players;
2. If the game was a private game the new game will be private;
3. If it was a tournament game then it would become a public game;
4. If it is a multy player game and one or more persons declined their invite then the "slot" would become publicly available;
5. If all players decline then the game will implode.

Have I missed anything?

I, personally, disagree with this one. However it wouldn't really bother me either way.

[thehippo8]

Yay, a discussion! So blake, why do you disagree and why would you not care if was there despite the disagree(abilitudinousness)?

[blakebowling]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

[thehippo8]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

Ah, well you can always drop the game if one of the others (or the only other) declines the game. There is a risk that someone might sneak in if the game is public, but if you are worried about that then by setting up a private game in the first instance then you will have complete control!

[eddie2]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

Ah, well you can always drop the game if one of the others (or the only other) declines the game. There is a risk that someone might sneak in if the game is public, but if you are worried about that then by setting up a private game in the first instance then you will have complete control!

why could they not just code the rematch as a private game...

also would this not make noob ranching a little bit easier where you dont have to go through the hassle of creating and inviting to games.

[thehippo8]

Private rule is rule 2.

As for this making noob ranching easier, I think that it might make it quicker but why easier? What's the difference in setting up 50 games of your favourite type and dropping those you don't like and using a REMATCH button in that respect. Indeed, to set up multiple games of the same type you just keep clicking refresh and they magically appear. But I think this would be more a tool for good than evill! It would be easy to check on those who are preying on others. But my thoughts are that there is more to be had than angst.

[chapcrap]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

I agree with blake on this.

One of the biggest reasons is because this could be used for team games and if one team proposes a rematch and only part of the other team accepts, they may get stuck with someone they do not want to play with. There are other scenarios for non-team games too, but I say that it should be identical games.

[patrickaa317]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

I agree with blake on this.

One of the biggest reasons is because this could be used for team games and if one team proposes a rematch and only part of the other team accepts, they may get stuck with someone they do not want to play with. There are other scenarios for non-team games too, but I say that it should be identical games.

Sometimes I have a lot of fun with a game but it might be finished on someone else's watch, then I forget to go find another game or agree to a rematch. If I got an invite, I'd most likely accept it. So I disagree with the "they'll go find the game" comment.

[nicestash]

I just think the rematch should be fixed to the exact same game, if I agree to play a rematch, I may specifically only want to play those people I've just played.

I agree with blake on this.

One of the biggest reasons is because this could be used for team games and if one team proposes a rematch and only part of the other team accepts, they may get stuck with someone they do not want to play with. There are other scenarios for non-team games too, but I say that it should be identical games.

I wouldn't think this would be a problem in team games. If you like your teammate then you've probably been talking with them and should know if they'd be interested in a rematch.

[rhp 1]

Love the idea.. especially for me... 1 min, 1v1 fs games where rematches are extremely common. then again, there are a lot of valid ideas swimming around the CC world... very few of which have been implemented.. many more pressing/important/beneficial than this one... but a great idea nonetheless...

[agentcom]

Wow, more than a year and nothing but positive comments. Not many, but positive all the same

My thoughts:

1. Hitting the "REMATCH" button would set up an identical game with the same players and invites will be sent to those players;
2. If the game was a private game the new game will be private;
3. If it was a tournament game then it would become a public game;
4. If it is a multy player game and one or more persons declined their invite then the "slot" would become publicly available;
5. If all players decline then the game will implode.

Have I missed anything?

I, personally, disagree with this one. However it wouldn't really bother me either way.

I think hippo sums it up well, and I agree with blake and chap (for their stated reasons) that the game should be conditioned on all users accepting the invite.