Showdown Gaming Option (related to the current Terminator Option)
Specifics:
This option would allow the game creating player to choose the number of points to be lost by each player in the game (thusly, two players could play for almost all of each other's points, making the loser become a Cook!)
Players that have less than the chosen number of points to be lost in a game will not be able to join such a game.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Players can play for greater amount of points, in addition to a greater loss of points
Such games will keep players with lower points (and experience) from joining such games
Disputing players can settle grievances in a "showdown" manner
Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.
Not going to happen. Sorry, but have you thought this through?
If we had 2 player games where the winner takes 1000 points, the score system would go berserk. We'd have people reaching 100,000 points and a lot of other people below 100 points. People would just play games with low ranks as according to your suggestion, the two people would lose the same amount of points. You could easily play 100 games against cooks, with 90 of them, gain 300 points per game and end up thousands above where you started.
All I see in this idea is an attempt to make a couple of good rolls be able to get you several thousand points in a game so that you can win one game and be a general for a long time afterward by not playing showdowns anymore.
The Neon Peon wrote:Not going to happen. Sorry, but have you thought this through?
If we had 2 player games where the winner takes 1000 points, the score system would go berserk. We'd have people reaching 100,000 points and a lot of other people below 100 points. People would just play games with low ranks as according to your suggestion, the two people would lose the same amount of points. You could easily play 100 games against cooks, with 90 of them, gain 300 points per game and end up thousands above where you started.
All I see in this idea is an attempt to make a couple of good rolls be able to get you several thousand points in a game so that you can win one game and be a general for a long time afterward by not playing showdowns anymore.
Neon,
Do you think the Showdown would work if we limited the number of points instead. Larger amount than normal, but not too exuberant?
Maybe putting a cap on points and if that cap is larger than the total of points a player had, they would not be able to join?
Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.
The Neon Peon wrote:Not going to happen. Sorry, but have you thought this through?
If we had 2 player games where the winner takes 1000 points, the score system would go berserk. We'd have people reaching 100,000 points and a lot of other people below 100 points. People would just play games with low ranks as according to your suggestion, the two people would lose the same amount of points. You could easily play 100 games against cooks, with 90 of them, gain 300 points per game and end up thousands above where you started.
All I see in this idea is an attempt to make a couple of good rolls be able to get you several thousand points in a game so that you can win one game and be a general for a long time afterward by not playing showdowns anymore.
Neon,
Do you think the Showdown would work if we limited the number of points instead. Larger amount than normal, but not too exuberant?
Maybe putting a cap on points and if that cap is larger than the total of points a player had, they would not be able to join?
Put on a cap, I'll just play all cooks and gain whatever the amount of the cap is per game. There needs to be some method of scoring variably based on rank. In all cases where you remove that, people's scores will skyrocket because they will be able to farm low ranks for an immense gain in points.
Perhaps making the multiplier in the score equation 40 instead of 20 if you want more points to be on the line?
