If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below. You may also attach files by dragging and dropping them in the message box.
by Kremmen » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:54 pm
Mercy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:15 pm e.g. one could have only kicks and extends for players who controlled more than two supply centers. Something like this may be worthwhile to look into as an option, as it apparently can work with the webdip code.
by Mercy » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:15 pm
by Mercy » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:59 pm
by Kremmen » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:30 am
Squigs44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:56 am After the change, are those 7+ SC positions more or less common, or about the same? Do you think this has biased your view on the change?
by Squigs44 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:56 am
Kremmen wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:12 am jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:49 am Sure, so the problem is that you're pretending that new players couldn't and didn't come into games before and take over worse positions. That still used to happen (100,000+ times), it just used to happen for a more messed up position. That hasn't changed at all with the new system. What changes is how good that position is. I'm not pretending that at all, but the more messed up position isn't always a bad thing. With that change to how good the position is comes a change to how much damage a new player can do. In the past, an NMR (especially in a non-anonymous game) was predictable, especially the second time. Takeovers costing 0 points was a terrible decision, responsible for probably half of the games that go to hell or were significantly delayed, so you are right that I don't like it. However, I'm not using that to attack this. The combination of the two is significant. Making the position that is taken over superior to what it was in the past greatly exacerbates the damaging aspects. The worst case situation used to progress from A (ally is helping) to B (ally NMRs so is useless) to C (ally is taken over by someone with <100 points and no clue, who causes chaos). Now it can go straight from A to C.
jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:49 am Sure, so the problem is that you're pretending that new players couldn't and didn't come into games before and take over worse positions. That still used to happen (100,000+ times), it just used to happen for a more messed up position. That hasn't changed at all with the new system. What changes is how good that position is.
by teccles » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:55 am
jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:26 pm I mean I'm not quite sure why everyone ignored my post stating we're working on a change to make the max delay possible for a missed turn 24 hours, and a longer term change that will remove delays entirely without allowing NMR's as a game creation option. If it's just fun complaining and ignoring that (as well as the overwhelming statistical data that showed a solution was needed for the problem of NMR's) then please feel free to continue.
by Kremmen » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:12 am
by Squigs44 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:01 am
pyxxy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:18 am jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:49 am If you'd like to argue that CD takeovers should only be available to people who have completed a game, or something along those lines, that's something that I could see being a valid concern. I would support adding a rule/setting where players must have completed at least one game before taking over a CD. Related question, in games with an RR minimum, is that minimum enforced for players taking over a CD? Or is it just enforced at the beginning of the game?
jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:49 am If you'd like to argue that CD takeovers should only be available to people who have completed a game, or something along those lines, that's something that I could see being a valid concern.
by pyxxy » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:18 am
by jmo1121109 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:49 am
by Kremmen » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:52 am
jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:06 pm games aren't impacted nearly as drastically when a replacement comes in as they take over a position that hasn't missed turns. Overall the stats and player feedback are showing the change as an overall win.
by jmo1121109 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:27 am
by Squigs44 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:35 am
by jmo1121109 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:26 pm
by Senlac » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:46 pm
Kremmen wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:58 pm bo_sox48 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:45 am I don't know how to reconcile this for you. Your idea of what is fun and what isn't is yours and yours alone. My idea of fun is playing an unbroken game. 1) There will always be broken games. In one game I'm in (242303), two of the biggest countries just NMRd. One was replaced by an experienced player. One was replaced by someone with 30 points who then entered all hold orders. The experienced player is now way closer to a solo victory that should never have happened. For all the existing players, both those countries having all-hold orders would have been much less broken! 2) When it comes to preferences, I suggest you perhaps try actually looking at other people's sometime. Here's a set of comments from different players of a single game I was just looking at: "With all due respect to the mods, it's a thankless job and they do it fantastically. I disagree with this new rule change. If you miss a turn, you should pay the consequences. Everyone else shouldn't have to wait because you forgot to enter your orders. There are ways you can pause a game if you're unable to play for a day or two." "I also hate - HAAAATE - this new rule change. It is 100% pointless. If you miss a turn, you miss a turn. Everyone else gains by your apathy, and you suffer, as you should. If you miss too many moves, you get kicked out and go CD." "Agree with everything said. New rule has been a pain in the a$$ in all my games." "Yo I’m gonna die before 1995 happens" "Is this some sort of sick joke?" That's in an anon AE IV game. (242316) I'm not in it. I have no idea who those people are. I have no vested interest. I'm just pointing out that clearly everyone there is having a miserable time and you just keep pretending that the change is totally positive.
bo_sox48 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:45 am I don't know how to reconcile this for you. Your idea of what is fun and what isn't is yours and yours alone. My idea of fun is playing an unbroken game.
by Kremmen » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:58 pm
by LeonWalras » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:26 am
by Fandaran » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:40 pm
by Restitution » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:12 pm
Kremmen wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:42 pm If you think that, then you are simply ignoring the comments in games as people gripe about how much the delays suck.
by jmo1121109 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:06 pm
Top