My friend. A cook is taken as someone who didn't win enough to get a higher rank. Only that.
It may be that not all cooks "play bad" but if they don't win enough times to get a higher rank then that must mean something.
Then there is farmers, off course, people who only play with high rankers tend ...

I'm interested in this clan. Maybe having a partner to play with is good as well.

I play only 12 players escalating foggy with random people, it's my farm machine. So playing dubs or even trips maybe would be nice too. Though it woulndn't give me the nice points i want.

I didn't quite understand what you told Greenoaks. Could you ellaborate?

I know. I'm not that smart and in top of that I have a headache. Maybe I will try think about it later with a clean head.

Yep. If it's 20 turns based one can't play 21 turns. When his allowed turns are over, then they are over.

But it makes a slight changing. If someone can do more than one turn and everyone else has already played all of their turns then he can play all of his turns straight.

Later I will gather the ...

I agree that any system must be agnostic to the number of players.

Making a pool it's fine.

I have another option.

One can play more than one turn. But he have to wait for 30 minutes.

That way in objective maps someone will have to stop him, sacrifice a turn and it will add even more stategy.

This way he would wait 30 minutes, the game may even end into his ...

It's one of the things we need a consensus about before updating the op post.

I think. Once the game starts it can go without interruption. However. If a guy have a turn he didnt play due so people being too fast it may be buffered and his turn may become active after someone have finished his turn ...

I reckon that it's easy to get medals. Many people would get as soon as implemented.

But it may be some of the easy medals that attract new players to the site.

There are easy medals? These ones could be the easiest ones to obtain, but it's not that bad.

If something it could have another value ...

Let's get to a consensus about the mode so we update it. I guess.

I'm stuck here but will do. If you want to do feel free to do so too.

I mean, it may be a fail, may not be a fail. But if it's a fail then it should be made in a way that everyone could use it to be fair.

Yep. I guess that could do then.

But i think this way the system could be highly abusable.

Unless we put a limit for objectives. The player can play as many turns as he avoid. But the objectives are invalid for such sequential turns.

Not that bad.I think it's a little thing the site may add.

No Spies, the next turn only starts after the actual turn ends. after all players are given a chance the ones who didn't play are still in the round so the round won't advance and thus they are not given "second chances".
No, spiesr is right.

If player 8 is the only player left, 6 hours into his ...

Well. This is a balance issue. Anything can be decided.

I like chaos but I favor strategy over chaos so I tend of thinking about fixed rounds not to let people play many many times at once or having double or triple plays. That would mean fixed rounds and the one who plays last in one round would ...

No Spies, the next turn only starts after the actual turn ends. after all players are given a chance the ones who didn't play are still in the round so the round won't advance and thus they are not given "second chances".

Another option to avoid people from playing twice as it may become yet another farming tool at objective maps is delaying the last one if he's the last to play. That would be like Freestyle except that it's based on time and not on whether people already opened his turn. If it's to avoid he could be ...

Yep. The second turn starts after everything. One may be able to play twice. It's a small price to pay I guess.

I don't even know how you count the time on the server to determine anything. If it's a task done if someone open the pages or if you guys use daemons or when you guys use services. Lol.

I just told that it would be easy because the site already determine on freestyle when its half the turn time ...

While i would never play 1x1, 2x2 or 3x3. This seems to be a good idea.


However, I would not play these kind of games cause I'm not a luck/bruteforce kind of player and I value control over the madness of these luck based and no strategy games.


I think the 1x1 is a game of madness and not a game ...

I think it's an easy implementation and would forever solve the question for "12 hours turns" and whatever while giving the site a truly unique feature.

Since people are reviewing some modes and the community is active, can Doomyoshi review this one? Lol.

Hard to do and not that useful.
The fun is about winning at known maps who pass through a process of distilling and have some meaning.

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

========================
Its a text from the site, from the intro.
If you're strong then you need to either finish a game or lose ...

Ha! I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about US foreign policy

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces ...