Dukasaur wrote:IcePack wrote:At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.
What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.
There are usually a few games that don't finish within the time limit, but usually only a few. Without the round limit, there would be many more. We can't completely eliminate games that don't finish, but keeping it down from "many" to "a few" is a valid gain.
How does round limits keep it from going over the time frame? the games last as long as they last. Only the ones that finish within the allotted time get counted regardless.
I feel like for alienating games that accidentally get the wrong settings (which would likely finish in the time frame), do the benefits of finishing a few games early (which likely would be within the timeframe even if they didn't have round limits) outweigh the issue of less games actually counting for the event?
Example, I looked all 217 games that finished for this event. 14 games went to round limit (most of those were set to 20).
8 games were mistakenly created without round limits and played for no reason. (nearly as many as went to round limit!) and none of those went to round limits.
Looking at the games, there was really only ONE game that risked NOT counting for this event if there wasn't a round limit
https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=18822262So, one game POTENTIALLY wouldn't have counted for this event - but EIGHT GAMES for sure didn't count because of it. And the one that potentially wouldn't have counted, potentially could still have counted, because they could have adjusted their play the last 48 hours to make sure it fit within the window.
It seems a pretty small detail that has almost no impact on the event, yet frustrates and discourages people who think they are playing the event but aren't, and dont even realize it in time.
Now understandably, they could be more careful in creating the games. But again, if youre goal is to minimize from "many" to a "few", then your actually hurting "many" and only assisting a "few" which is the opposite here. And the assertion that there would be "many more" that didn't meet the time limits in this case doesn't check out either.