Page 1 of 2
Suggestion - Player's Turn Should End When He Has No Options
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:18 pmby bamage
<-------------------->
<Subject>:
A player's turn should automatically end when he is out of possible moves.
<Body>:
* Suggestion Idea: Towards the end of a game, a player that only has territories with a single army on them can just log off without clicking End Attacks / End Fortifications, and slow the game done for the unused remainder of the hour. This is easily tested for (the app already does it when populating the pulldown boxes) so why not just end the player's turn for him?
* Specifics:
Grumpy players with very little likelihood of winning can exhaust their territories down to one army each. That's fine, but once they've done this, they can log out and have the system wait there for the remainder of the hour of their turn, even though the system could easily determine their turn should end.
* Why it is needed:
It keeps games moving faster and customers/players happier.
* Priority** (1-5):
Honestly, low. Like a 1 or a 2. But still, would be nice.
**Note**
1 = Bottom of 'To Do' list
5 = Urgent, implement with next update
Thanks!
<-------------------->
Posted:
Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:45 pmby dominationnation
bad idea. If it is escaltating and they dont want thier 5th card then they may intentionally not end thier turn.
Posted:
Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:46 amby ChaoticWraith
It is a bad idea because in a doubles game what my partner and will do is he will deploy and me. Then I will attack and clear off a certain section until I can't move anymore, decide to stop attacking, or just run out of units for dice rolls. After I will end my attack phase and fortify all the units I have form all my defense points over to my my partner so he can start his attack phase and attack what he wishes to. After I fortify him though I'm usually left with 1 unit per country which is what you stated. If it were to end he would not be able to fortify me back those units so I can fortify them in my places for defense once again.
So yeah BAD idea.
Posted:
Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:51 amby yeti_c
Could be limited to Sequential only?
C.
Posted:
Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:52 amby dominationnation
yeti_c wrote:Could be limited to Sequential only?
C.
still no cause of the card issue. It would have to be only no cards sequential.
Posted:
Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:01 amby alex_white101
i think its crap wen people run down time not too get a card and should be FORCED to have one. also who refuses a card in flat rate? that wud be crazy. i like this idea for sequential.
Auto-end turn
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:15 pmby Risktaker17
Subject: when you have no contries with over 1 army it automatically ends your turn because you can't possibly attack or fortify.
Body: When all of your territories have 1 army your turn ends automatically because there is nothing else you could possibly do.
priority: 1
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:19 pmby spiesr
Why make it do that?
There is no reason to go through a lot of work to make it do that.
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:53 pmby Herakilla
would be nice, but i say the priority is .00000001 for the trouble lack would go through just to save some players (i aint saying nutting but if you got all ones im not sure i want to be you!) some time
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:01 pmby misterman10
Why go through all this trouble in the programming? Besides, I personally enjoy making games last forever by not ending my turn, on certain occasions
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:05 pmby Risktaker17
yeah but it could somewhat stop the problem of people of running out of time to not get a card. I dunno I think it would be nice. LAck you can just put it on the to-do list and forget about like most of the other stuff
JK LOL! HAHA!
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:23 pmby dominationnation
thats not a problem Its a strategy.
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:40 pmby Risktaker17
but it shouldn't be because that isn't in the regular game.
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:41 pmby dominationnation
for the last time. THis isnt risk. ITs CC
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:50 pmby Risktaker17
whatever. THIS FEATURE I THINK WOULD BE SOMEWHAT HELPFUL THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE BUT THERE IS AN UPSIDE. sorry I left caps lock on
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:54 pmby dominationnation
there is a down side. HAve ou not read this thread at all?
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:08 pmby misterman10
no downside?
what if its your strategy in an escalating game NOT to get a card?
ever think of that?
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:14 pmby john1099
misterman10 wrote:no downside?
what if its your strategy in an escalating game NOT to get a card?
ever think of that?
From what I read, it only ends your turn when you are down to 1 armies everywhere.
Not when you're inactive
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:24 pmby misterman10
john1099 wrote:misterman10 wrote:no downside?
what if its your strategy in an escalating game NOT to get a card?
ever think of that?
From what I read, it only ends your turn when you are down to 1 armies everywhere.
Not when you're inactive
Risktaker17 wrote:yeah but it could somewhat stop the problem of people of running out of time to not get a card. I dunno I think it would be nice. LAck you can just put it on the to-do list and forget about like most of the other stuff
JK LOL! HAHA!
He contradicts himself
Posted:
Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:26 pmby john1099
misterman10 wrote:john1099 wrote:misterman10 wrote:no downside?
what if its your strategy in an escalating game NOT to get a card?
ever think of that?
From what I read, it only ends your turn when you are down to 1 armies everywhere.
Not when you're inactive
Risktaker17 wrote:yeah but it could somewhat stop the problem of people of running out of time to not get a card. I dunno I think it would be nice. LAck you can just put it on the to-do list and forget about like most of the other stuff
JK LOL! HAHA!
He contradicts himself
I knew I should have stuck with my gut and quit posting to the morons ideas
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:30 amby Risktaker17
I thought they were tring to get rid of the rule that let's run out of time and not get a card, I think its dumb that you can do that in real life you cn't just say I'll just wait til time is up. That's dumb. I think cards should be given if you conquer a territory on your turn. But anyway that is the only "downside" I could possibly see in this.
P.S-It hurt my feelings when you called me a moron
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:33 amby Coleman
In teams freestyle this is a problem because someone could pass you armies to use.
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:35 amby ClessAlvein
What if you're in a freestyle unlimited fortifications game, your partner is online at the same time, and you're forting to each other? If you happen to have 1's everywhere at any point, and your ally wants to still transfer armies to you, then you guys would be cheated out of a turn.
Edit: fastposted
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:46 pmby AndyDufresne
The last two posts make a good point.
--Andy
Posted:
Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:03 pmby Risktaker17
Would it be possible to only make it effective for just sequential games, I will admit that is a good point.