Scott-Land wrote:jiminski wrote:Scott-Land wrote:jiminski wrote:but yeah i think the Foe system is fine too! This way, with an armistice, it postpones a good system instead of altering it.
i suppose it wouldn't hurt if you're the host. If you join in the 2 slot, how would you know which settings? Or am I being an idiot if this is already been covered. I haven't read most of the posts here. I like to skim and quote things of interest.
I am not sure how you are seeing this Scott, but all it does is
postpone the Foe list for 1 game (settings are as they appear.) it just means that if someone joins and they have 300 foes, all the foes are allowed to join too.
So in effect the game is not held hostage by the avidly anti-social player.
I understand- Jim. I'm asking if that applies for all whom join or just the host? Second question, will the game be marked in a way that you know it's a foe-less game ? If yes, then I will know not to join it. If not, then WTF

heheh, yeap it would have to be clearly marked as a 'Foe-less' game (or something like that) otherwise it would be a bit more akin to Russian Roulette.
And yes -
all foe-lists suspended on entry of the
clearly marked game.
There are a few options floating around regarding Foe lists; this one just means you can join without having to remove and re-add players to do so. (you may have a player on there due to their perpetually antagonistic posting and not have an issue with their game style, for example.)
I think it is particularly useful for Speedgames.. and an hour or 2 of play with a mildly obnoxious gamer, is far less of a chore than a year in the casual format.... so it might just work.