Total number of teams & minimum members limit

[Hercules]

No but it is good to know there is that reserve player option if needed down the line.

[Hercules]

As designated turn players step down ,so others, who have learned the script can play with some confidence.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Krill
There is no point in making each team have 3 turn players

Um ya there is, because they way things work around here after 6 months you will be lucky to have one left.

Please don't try and convince me otherwise, Ive been there and done that too many times already.

We almost ended the Warlords game after losing the only turn player on several teams.

Its insurance, it may not work but its beter than nothing, Im not sure why its so hard to understand?

Or do you like starting all kinds of these demogames and never finishing them?

[Nugog]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Our purpose here should be to encourage new people, not scare them off.

We don't need to make it a huge formal intimidating thing. Make it casual, encourage new members, and focusing on the fun and interaction with others, a great way to learn both the game and how to play multiplayer. Don't go about scaring folks away highlighting the negative aspects.

Completely agree.



That is why the Rabbits have the structure (or complete lack therefore of).

This is meant to be fun isn't it?

However - having said that - well it isn't fun when teams aren't playing their turns. Not much fun at all.

I think, that rather than having a set number of turn players, which in the long run has no real meaning, that we should look at what rules we can apply to all teams equally in regards to non playing of turns.

Eliminating them after not playing X number of turns would have my support.

This may sound harsh - but if applied equally by Keygen our mod for this game - well then no one has anything to moan about.

Thoughts?

[Nugog]

And doing a rough head count - RoC has at least 6 definate turn players!

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Nugog
However - having said that - well it isn't fun when teams aren't playing their turns. Not much fun at all.

I think, that rather than having a set number of turn players, which in the long run has no real meaning, that we should look at what rules we can apply to all teams equally in regards to non playing of turns.

Eliminating them after not playing X number of turns would have my support.

This may sound harsh - but if applied equally by Keygen our mod for this game - well then no one has anything to moan about.

Thoughts?

I can live with this but would rather avoid it in the first place. Your team and my team dont get along. We are next to each other. The team opposite of me gets eliminated because Krill no longer plays turns for GS

Now you have uncontested room for growth and I dont.

It adds unbalance to the game.

Thats why I would rather avoid it.

[ZargonX]

With Pitboss it is so incredibly easy for anyone to be a turn player that I would hope teams could get people to fill in in a pinch. Even if someone isn't a permanent team player, stepping up to fill in a gap for a day or two really isn't that hard, especially if your team has done the proper planning

[Zeviz]

I am pretty new to this, but my understanding is that "turn players" are not "the only people allowed to touch the save", but "the people who are willing to make sure the turns get played".

If you look at it this way, it is reasonable to expect each team to have more than one turn player/team leader/whipping boy, because a single person can't (or at least shouldn't ) be dedicated to playing a game every day for many months. Even SGs, with their set playing order and strict time requirements, die from inactivity if there isn't at least one person making sure the turnsets get played in a timely manner. And with the extended commitment of a game that is expected to last for months, every team needs at least a couple people who will remember that somebody has to play the save in the next two hours.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by conmcb25


I can live with this but would rather avoid it in the first place. Your team and my team dont get along. We are next to each other. The team opposite of me gets eliminated because Krill no longer plays turns for GS

Now you have uncontested room for growth and I dont.

It adds unbalance to the game.

Thats why I would rather avoid it.

While I agree that it is not the best option (the best option being each team plays it's turns and my team wins the game), it is however better than the alternative of all of us trying to decide what to do when the game has already started.

[conmcb25]

Ya agreed

The problem being when you have to do something like that it really starts to eventually ruin the whole game for everyone

[Nugog]

Originally posted by conmcb25
The problem being when you have to do something like that it really starts to eventually ruin the whole game for everyone

Anymore or less than a zombie team sitting there not playing?

Look - I don't know - it is just a suggestion - more to get people talking.

Maybe if a team does not play X number of turns Keygen has 7 days to find a replacement player if none exist for that team and then it's toast if no one steps up?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Zombie team?

Now there's a theme I could REALLY get into. Where do I sign up?

[Nugog]

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Where do I sign up?

In Da Graveyard.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Nugog


Anymore or less than a zombie team sitting there not playing?

Look - I don't know - it is just a suggestion - more to get people talking.

Maybe if a team does not play X number of turns Keygen has 7 days to find a replacement player if none exist for that team and then it's toast if no one steps up?

Nugog

Nothing we do will be perfect. Asking a team to make sure they have three turn players isn't the answer. Its just a bit of insurance to hopefully get us closer to having a game finish for a change.

Maybe we need several "answers".

Zapping a team or turning into an AI is a REACTIVE action. Im just looking for something thats PROACTIVE..