Random Settings

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

We already have a random map feature. Why not have random spoils and reinforcements ? Throw in fog or no fog. Nukes, etc. Make the entire game play a complete surprise !

[support81ghent]

i would most definetly play that because it would be lots of fun just to have no clue at all about what to expect

[JoshyBoy]

Sounds like chaos... sounds like fun!

[Streaker]

We already have a random map feature. Why not have random spoils and reinforcements ? Throw in fog or no fog. Nukes, etc. Make the entire game play a complete surprise !

I would very well like to see this get through. Sounds great!

[PLAYER57832]

It does sound like fun. However, it might be worthwhile to exclude a very few maps. Not many, but just some combinations that plain won't work.

For example, Fuedal and AOR already cannot have more than 6 players. That is an "internal" limit. AOR1 without fog is not really a game, so that could be excluded... very, very few others.

Then again, the chances of getting one of those games in a pure random selection is slim, and perhaps that would just be part of the fun.

[Donlarry]

i hate it

[Streaker]

i hate it

What can you possibly 'hate' about a random choice?

Also, the above comment. With the random settings, you still need to select the number of players

[Jatekos]

We already have a random map feature. Why not have random spoils and reinforcements ? Throw in fog or no fog. Nukes, etc. Make the entire game play a complete surprise !

How about random play order?
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 53&start=0

[Woodruff]

i hate it

What can you possibly 'hate' about a random choice?

Ummm...while I strongly disagree with Donlarry, I can think of many reasons why someone might hate a random choice. It seems rather obvious to me, even.

[Woodruff]

It does sound like fun. However, it might be worthwhile to exclude a very few maps. Not many, but just some combinations that plain won't work.

I see no reason at all to exclude maps.

For example, Fuedal and AOR already cannot have more than 6 players. That is an "internal" limit.

With the proper coding, this would be self-limiting...it should only select from the maps that fit the number of players.

AOR1 without fog is not really a game, so that could be excluded... very, very few others.

Screw that...it's still a game. It may be relatively pre-determined, but certainly not guaranteed.

[kabuki.mono]

Love the idea!! Would be great fun

[mgconstruction]

This is a good idea.

I would like to see a map exclusion in random feature as well. An option to exclude certain maps from random. I run random maps in my tourneys as a neutral map but would love to be able to exclude the Hive map as so many people hate it. It would also be nice to exclude both players home maps in the random feature so that their home maps don't come up in the random game & give that player an advantage.


MG

[PLAYER57832]

This is a good idea.

I would like to see a map exclusion in random feature as well. An option to exclude certain maps from random. I run random maps in my tourneys as a neutral map but would love to be able to exclude the Hive map as so many people hate it. It would also be nice to exclude both players home maps in the random feature so that their home maps don't come up in the random game & give that player an advantage.


MG

I think an exclusion for tournaments would make sense. However, as Woodruff noted, random is random. Playing those strange combinations you might not otherwise choose is part of the fun!

[PLAYER57832]

We already have a random map feature. Why not have random spoils and reinforcements ? Throw in fog or no fog. Nukes, etc. Make the entire game play a complete surprise !

I agree, except that I would want to be able to select freestyle versus sequential play. A lot of people, such as myself just don't have the time to play freestyle. (wait for someone to "blink")

I think it there should be an option that includes freestyle/sequential, but without the option to exclude that, a lot of people who might like this option will be forced to decline.

[chapcrap]

i hate it

This made me literally laugh out loud.

I think it's a good idea and a good option to have. Although, I'm not sure that I would use it much.

[Queen_Herpes]

This is a great idea and I don't see why it shouldn't get pushed forward. The more chaos, the better.

[QoH]

Concise description:

• Random Settings

Specifics/Details:

• Just like random maps, you get a random combination of settings.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Will add another twist to the game, and prove players more versatile.

EDIT: Couldn't find this in previous suggestions. If it's been rejected, whoops!

[TheForgivenOne]

Merged

[PLAYER57832]

As long as you can choose between freestyle and sequential, I would love it. The other types are fun variation, but freestyle requires a significantly greater real time commitment to play well.

[Powerhawks]

Yes that should be great to have random OPTION for ALL setting type.

I will surely use that option for some setting, this is the best to increase my skill, playing type of game, that I am choosing normally.

Also some player that have a good rating, always plays the same type of game, some others with a smaller rating try to play many type of game. Whit random possibility we will know which one are the best...on any type of games setting!

Imagine a tournament with many settings at random, we can find the true best player!

[sniffie]

As long as you can choose between freestyle and sequential, I would love it. The other types are fun variation, but freestyle requires a significantly greater real time commitment to play well.

So you wish to make random less random??
I don't like adjacent forts at all but in this suggestion that is just the risk/fun of joining/creating this type of game.

sniff

[PLAYER57832]

As long as you can choose between freestyle and sequential, I would love it. The other types are fun variation, but freestyle requires a significantly greater real time commitment to play well.

So you wish to make random less random??
I don't like adjacent forts at all but in this suggestion that is just the risk/fun of joining/creating this type of game.

sniff

This is more like randomizing speed in. Playing freestyle requires a significant time commitment not there with Sequential. Its not just a matter of shifting strategy, its a matter of having the time to just sit.

[sniffie]

As long as you can choose between freestyle and sequential, I would love it. The other types are fun variation, but freestyle requires a significantly greater real time commitment to play well.

So you wish to make random less random??
I don't like adjacent forts at all but in this suggestion that is just the risk/fun of joining/creating this type of game.

sniff

This is more like randomizing speed in. Playing freestyle requires a significant time commitment not there with Sequential. Its not just a matter of shifting strategy, its a matter of having the time to just sit.

But that is the whole risk and (for me) the fun of random settings, I'd rather have a casual freestyle game then a sequential poison rome game...

sniff