However, I am happy to see what support this particular suggestion may get from the rest of the community, as it is asking for the option when creating the game.
Cheers, JB
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Moderator: Community Team
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
Queen_Herpes wrote:Add it as an option.
The other suggestions on this same general topic were asking to give extra time for weekends, holidays, etc. and required players to cast a vote mid game. All of the other suggestions were too much work.
This suggestion could work. I might never play a 48 hour turn game, but it could be great for players who don't get online as frequently as every 24 hours. Might even be nice for new players who seems to often miss a lot of turns.
AndyDufresne wrote:I think a package suggestion of 'variable time limits' might have a better chance of succeeding.
--Andy
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
CC Could allow it to where New Recruits can't play them; because new recruits can't play terminator or assassin games, or manual troops, etc. They can't have complex games. All CC needs to do is just add 72 hours or even 48 hours to the complex list.2dimes wrote:I like this but you need to separate it or something. Can you imagine some new guy accidentally entering one of my 72hour, no round limit, no spoils games and losing a spot for 8 months.
Forza AZ wrote:Just block the over 24 hours games for new members like team games are blocked for them.
zimmah wrote:chapcrap wrote:barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.
(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more)
You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.
me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.
chapcrap wrote:zimmah wrote:chapcrap wrote:barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.
(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more)
You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.
me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.
The only 2 arguments I have to that is that people will accidentally join games they don't want to (they're own fault, but still a disadvantage) and that if there are games that are 48/72 hour turns, the games will stay active in the system longer and could take up too much information on servers because of more games being played at once.
Woodruff wrote:chapcrap wrote:zimmah wrote:chapcrap wrote:barackattack wrote:But what if there is an exodus of players from 24 to 12 it would be like when the colonies all deserted the Empire.
(i.e. I'd still be incredible and awesome, but no one would want to play any more)
You would not be forced to play 12 hour games. And I think that most people would not play 12 hour games. I know that I wouldn't.
me neither, but i think 12/24/48/72 hour games would not hurt anyone just like 1/2/3/4/5 minute speed games.
The only 2 arguments I have to that is that people will accidentally join games they don't want to (they're own fault, but still a disadvantage) and that if there are games that are 48/72 hour turns, the games will stay active in the system longer and could take up too much information on servers because of more games being played at once.
I think it's a strong idea, but your second argument there is a very important one to keep in mind, I think.
TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.
zimmah wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.
noone forces you to join 72h games, it just offers more choice. and it's mainly useful for clans and teaching games because it allows more time to discuss. but even then there's also demand for longer/shorter games and the speed games have various lenghts now too, so why not the casuals?
TheForgivenOne wrote:zimmah wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:And if people are stupid enough to play 72 hour games with a 1v1 freestyle, well, could could end up waiting 108 hours between turns. And people complain about waiting 3 days to kick out someone for missing turns. Well, this turns into waiting a week and 2 days for that player to finally be kicked.
noone forces you to join 72h games, it just offers more choice. and it's mainly useful for clans and teaching games because it allows more time to discuss. but even then there's also demand for longer/shorter games and the speed games have various lenghts now too, so why not the casuals?
Think about new players though. I know when I joined, I just joined random games without looking at settings. Lot of new players don't really tend to look at the settings they join.
Actually, I still do it.
Dukasaur wrote:I think it was a mistake to merge the 12-hour game suggestions with the 72-hour game suggestions.
It makes it really difficult for someone to guage how much support the ideas have.
I, for instance, am totally opposed to 12-hour games but I could support 72-games. Should I post "I agree" and inadvertantly end up with an option I think is really bad, or should I post "I disagree" and sabotage what I think is a good idea?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users