Conquer Club

grifftron wrote:I voted 3rd option, but seriously.. just make a medal for this and all will be happy.

Honestly, I'd be against medals for the Round Limit feature. Round Limits should be used more as a functional thing than a medal-hunting thing, if that makes sense.

-Sully

Definitely keep 100 rounds!! My favorite games usually last at least that long.

Why not just 30, 50, 100? 20 rounds is nothing!

So what exactly would happen when the game reaches the limit? How would winners and sequences be determined? Or would all lose?

squishyg wrote:Definitely keep 100 rounds!! My favorite games usually last at least that long.

Why not just 30, 50, 100? 20 rounds is nothing!

I agree with squishyg. Well, 20 games is a bit long for some maps, but it's not an unreasonable number, so it should not be included in the possible limits. The other three options are very reasonable, however.

But I too wonder what will happen when the limit is reached.

General Brewsie wrote:But I too wonder what will happen when the limit is reached.

gorehound wrote:So what exactly would happen when the game reaches the limit? How would winners and sequences be determined? Or would all lose?

read here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=153794

DiM wrote:

General Brewsie wrote:But I too wonder what will happen when the limit is reached.

gorehound wrote:So what exactly would happen when the game reaches the limit? How would winners and sequences be determined? Or would all lose?

read here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=153794

Oops! Thanks.

lackattack wrote: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?

Lack, I will tell you why it is good to have a round limit. I been caught up before in 6-8 player escalating games where players refuse to attack and sit there on their asses waiting for other players to do something. The game draws out to 6 months and a couple hundred rounds until someone yells " hey, lets set up another game and who ever wins that game we will let that player win this game too". In my opinion, there is never a " draw ". So if we put a cap on games with limited rounds, than perhaps that will force players to actually move and play rather than just sitting back and deploying round after round.

lackattack wrote:Based on feedback collected by our Community Manager and game stats (only 0.1% of games make it to round 100)

If that's the case, why bother having round limits at all? I for one, will not be creating any games with round limits.

Arethusa is going too far toward the other extreme, not having any limits at all. Better to reduce the maximum number of games that could be limited to a statistically significant number. That number may be 80 or 70 or some other number. Lackattack, if you have access to those stats, why not select the number that represents say, 5% of the maximum turns and set that as the largest limitation we could select. That figure could be rounded, of course, to the nearest 5, e.g. not 73 rounds, but 75.

ost of us couldnt care less. only you guys use it

While I did miss the poll, I certainly concur with the results. My two cents...

I'd agree with rd limits - it only happened recently but,

8275391 and others, we even got bored talking to each other - it's a plain draw. 200 rds, 14 missed turns, it don't matter.

I was going to try and knock us all down, so it was a game, but couldn't see a way to do it evenly.

Didn't vote, but 100 is surely the absolute max? 50?

In subbing for a clan member tonight I found a game he's in, the Max prison Riot, that is now in its 530th round. he has 79,000 on some positions, the player that holds the yard has 5000 on each position, etc. How preposterous! Whoever attacks one of the three players will get blasted by the other, so it just goes on and on and on and on .......

General Brewsie wrote:In subbing for a clan member tonight I found a game he's in, the Max prison Riot, that is now in its 530th round. he has 79,000 on some positions, the player that holds the yard has 5000 on each position, etc. How preposterous! Whoever attacks one of the three players will get blasted by the other, so it just goes on and on and on and on .......

Surely the best option for this type of game is for the system to enable a vote by each player to agree to a draw. Once all players have voted, a majority decision will decide whether or not the game continues or is drawn.

Arethusa wrote:

General Brewsie wrote:In subbing for a clan member tonight I found a game he's in, the Max prison Riot, that is now in its 530th round. he has 79,000 on some positions, the player that holds the yard has 5000 on each position, etc. How preposterous! Whoever attacks one of the three players will get blasted by the other, so it just goes on and on and on and on .......

Surely the best option for this type of game is for the system to enable a vote by each player to agree to a draw. Once all players have voted, a majority decision will decide whether or not the game continues or is drawn.

this has been suggested many times. it will not be implemented because the chance for abuse is too high. establishing a round limit before the game starts is a much more efficient way to eliminate stalemate games.

squishyg wrote:this has been suggested many times. it will not be implemented because the chance for abuse is too high. establishing a round limit before the game starts is a much more efficient way to eliminate stalemate games.

Limit it so draws can only be offered after games that exceed round 100? Im pretty sure that wouldn't encourage abuse

I would love to see a 10-round limit for short rt games!

Thanks for the feedback. I have added the 30 rounds to the existings options since that is what almost everyone wants

MoB Deadly wrote:Limit it so draws can only be offered after games that exceed round 100? Im pretty sure that wouldn't encourage abuse

Very good point - perhaps we should reconsider vote for draw!