Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote:I like the idea. If an escalating reaches 100 cash it s not normal and it s been stalling for a few rounds. It does need a fix.
maxfaraday wrote:betiko wrote:I like the idea. If an escalating reaches 100 cash it s not normal and it s been stalling for a few rounds. It does need a fix.
There's already one. It's called "round limit".
Metsfanmax wrote:maxfaraday wrote:betiko wrote:I like the idea. If an escalating reaches 100 cash it s not normal and it s been stalling for a few rounds. It does need a fix.
There's already one. It's called "round limit".
Sure, but the whole point of escalating is that it is not supposed to drag on forever (and usually it does not). Round Limit games are very useful for options like No Spoils, where there's no easy way out of a deadlock. If an escalating game results in frequent deadlocks, then the setting isn't working properly.
chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?
Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
DoomYoshi wrote:chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?
Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.
Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?
Dukasaur wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?
Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.
Well, natty_dread suggested not starting the escalation until 100, but I'm still comfortable with starting at 50.Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?
I would go by scientific rules of rounding as a personal preference, but common rules of rounding would be okay if that's easier to program.
50
55
60
66
73
80
88
97
105
116
128
141
155
160
176
193
212
233
256
282
310
341
375
412
453
498
548
603
663
(I did those manually so I round off in each step. However, you could in theory let the computer carry whatever number of decimals behind the scenes and get more precise results.)
DoomYoshi wrote:This will make the most epic Colliseum games.
Dukasaur wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?
Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.
Well, natty_dread suggested not starting the escalation until 100, but I'm still comfortable with starting at 50.Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?
I would go by scientific rules of rounding as a personal preference, but common rules of rounding would be okay if that's easier to program.
50
55
60
66
73
80
88
97
105
116
128
141
155
160
176
193
212
233
256
282
310
341
375
412
453
498
548
603
663
(I did those manually so I round off in each step. However, you could in theory let the computer carry whatever number of decimals behind the scenes and get more precise results.)
Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.
DoomYoshi wrote:@Dukasaur: can you upgrade your scale to start at 100. If we start messing with people`s escalating numbers, there is going to be a backlash. This suggestion does not qualify as distinct enough to be a new Spoils, so it really should replace the current ones. By the time a game reaches 100, most games are not playing, but I know many go between 50-100.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.
Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?
chapcrap wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.
Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?
We'll have to take care of the first post or give the first post to you... I would actually prefer the latter on situations like this so that the person who is involved with the suggestion currently can receive credit for it and keep it up to date themselves. In honesty, there are probably too many for the mods to keep every one of them perfectly up to date. That being said, I've updated the OP.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.
Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users