ROUND LIMIT OPTION in the start your own game link

[AAFitz]

i might not put it at the top of the list either, but, it would create some interesting strategies in the rounds approaching the end of the game

if based only on the number of territories....virtually any player in the game could win if they planned correctly...though, it might have to be set up so that everyone finishes their turn in that round....

if based on the total number of armies, it would force the top players to fight each other, thereby giving the players with less armies a fighting chance too....the games might end up being decided by just a few armies, and almost always would result in a melee near the end of the game

it really would be fun...and really, its what happens at the end of every extended game like that anyways for the most part...its just this way you would know when that would be

like anything else...having the option available someday might be nice...options never really hurt....its more the priorities that matter

[AK_iceman]

But in a sequential game, couldn't this be abused by taking your turn at a specific time so that you end up playing last and therefore having a huge advantage?

[steelplayin]

--

[steelplayin]

the last player to go would have the advantage of making the last move, but the players that go before him have the advantage of putting a dent in those plans-it works both ways

[hasaki]

I tried looking it up but could not find anything.

I had this idea if we could choose to put a round limit on our games for example 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200. And lets say if no winner is decided within the time limit the game is a draw and no points are given.

(this is not a time limit. i like having 24 hours to take my turns.)

[Skittles!]

Why would you do that?

I think, that if you run of out Rounds and there is not a person that killed everyone else, the game should go to the person with the most amount of territories, or how many armies they would get.

[Tubby Rower]

maybe after a certain amount of turns, you stop getting the new armies from territories.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Hmmm....interesting. This is used in real-life games sometimes to prevent the game from dragging on and interfering with other games and real life. I think it's perfect for tournaments (say 20, 50 and 100-round tourney games).

For new games.... Say, you could set the total number of rounds a new game would be limited to (or leave it at default "infinite"), and people would keep an eye on the clock, rushing to landgrab at the end.

Unfortunatly, this seems like it would favor the last player (usually pink), as with a lucky hand of cards, they could make a phenomenal final push. Also, you might have people just keep building and building in no-cards games (which already happens), getting ready for the final eleventh-hour push.

Once it's over.... The server would have to calculate a way to score -- say, +1 for each territory owned, and +X for each continent where X = that continent's bonus, +1 for each card in hand, +1 for every (five?) ten armies you control, +10 for each opponent that you personally have eliminated....

scores would be totaled and compared, with ties going first to the "lowest" ranked player (i.e., a Private tied for Victory Points with a Major would be given the win) then the "highest" in the turn order (i.e., if Private Blue and Private Pink are tied for points, Blue would win because Pink had the advantage of going last).

If I may be so bold, might I suggest trading in a set of cards would extend the game 3 additional rounds? (Ducks as mods and spammers hurl a torrent of flaming Spam cans at him.)

[hasaki]

I when i was thinking about it. i thought it would be good to add some presure into the game. I know this is not for everyone but if would make a nice game choice.

[joeyjordison]

it would stop build games nicely.

If I may be so bold, might I suggest trading in a set of cards would extend the game 3 additional rounds? (Ducks as mods and spammers hurl a torrent of flaming Spam cans at him.)

that wouldn't work at all. its an idea but think about it, in a 6 player game everyone cashes in 5th round say and that adds on 18 rounds to the game. they then all gets sets again by round 8 and it adds on 18 more rounds.

did i understand u rite?

finally i think a new scoring option where you gain more points for how quickly you win would be good

[billybobjoe]

or instead of no points given out you could split up the points of the players eliminated between the remaining players.

[tkirby]

Add ability to set a max # of rounds so games can't devolve into 300 round, troop building snooze fests. Whoever's ahead at the end of max rounds wins. If I wanted a lot of sitting around for months on end, waiting to fight, I'd join the army.

[Tupence]

I doubt this would ever be implemented, but if it was, how would the person who is ahead be decided? Would it be based on the total number of territories, or armies?

[Halmir]

This could be a bit of quirky fun. U could decide victory conditions as most territories held at close, with highest bonus due on the next round used as tie-breaker. Or in fact the other way around works pretty well also

[Aalmeida17]

hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not)

[Sir. Ricco]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

[Aalmeida17]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

yhea we can not do all the rules thinking in multis , and every type is a multi type, so we have multihunters

[Sir. Ricco]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.

[Aalmeida17]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.

lol 20 rouns?
part of the games end before the 10 round

[iamkoolerthanu]

hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not)

That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?

[Sir. Ricco]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

We don't need to make it easier on them either. That is why there needs to be minimum round requirement, as I stated above. 4 rounds is way to short, something around 20 rounds.

lol 20 rouns?
part of the games end before the 10 round

Not for most No Card of Flat rate game that turn into the 800 round games you were talking about. I think the only way this would pass is if it was used, not a game setting so much, but more as a deterrent from stalemate games. In that case 20 is way to short, 30 or 50 would be better.

[stahrgazer]

That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?

There's a work-around for that: Tournament organizers who're worried about stalemating have established a round at which the game for the game is over for tournament purposes; while the players might continue to play the game, the 'winner' of the game for tournament purposes is announced based on terrcount, troops, etc.

I see mainly negatives with the idea for normal play.

Some players enjoy being part of crazy-round games, so would dislike this option. Especially true of a few Battle Royale games.

The option is likely to encourage intentional stalling... people who won't attack, not because they risk another player massacring them, but because they're higher in troopcount so simply wait for the requisite number of rounds to announce them the winner.

One hope the site must have, since it's a business, is that people playing for free will ultimately want to buy premium. One reason people buy premium is because they want to play, and some games stall and hold up their allotted number of games. If games end at a certain round regardless, that could detract from the player's wish to purchase a premium account.

[Aalmeida17]

hey guys i have a sugestion , what abbout a option to limited your game !

ex: you limited to round 4 , at round 4 the game OVER , and the guy with most troops WIN , simple and very cool to tourneys , cuz some games if all the players good never end , some games still active after 800 turns, and in a tourney game that sucks , so i think its a good idea even if just used in tourneys (or not)

That would be cool for tourneys... So maybe make a 'Tourny-Only-Option'? This way multis cant abuse it, and it can still be used in a tourny-loving manner?

yhea

[rhp 1]

Easily abused by Multis. Unless there was a minimum requirement. All the multi would have to do is suicide on neutral while the player built up.

every gametype is abusable by multis, we really shouldn't be basing our rules around cheaters (this is the same reason I think limiting new players to certain maps is retarded when it's only meant to appease a hyper-minority of players who actually care about their rank)

wow, this is off topic but... if you really think that there is a "hyper minority" (as if that's fuckin English) of players who care about their rank, you r smokin from the biggest fuckin bong that's ever been made... (which i owned at one time). The majority of players on this site care about their rank.. duh.. Every topic in this forum is related to rank. OMG ru out to lunch.