Round Limits Aren't Fun

[iAmCaffeine]

So you're asking why I didn't voice my opinion about my dislike of round limits before we'd had a substantial amount of time to play with round limits?

I am sure that Round Limits were introduced long before they were added as a Default Setting to Auto Tournaments
What you dislike about Round Limits was also happening before it was made a Default Setting to Auto Tournaments
So yes you did have time to speak up back then but, you chose not to

I chose to speak up about it when in my own mind, I thought we could at least have a conversation about it and see if people agreed or disagreed as a whole. My first post literally asks what others think.

I'm not sure why you're so offended by the fact that I have an opinion but if you have nothing to contribute to the thread, stop posting.

What makes you think that I am offended ?

You're just here trying to be a piece of shit without actually contributing anything or even giving your opinion on the topic. You're just slating my own. Kinda sad.

[chapcrap]

I think round limits have their place. I do not think a tournament should last months and months if it isn’t specifically designed for that (ie a large, many faceted tournament). Small, simple tournaments shouldn’t be made to last more than a couple of months.

I play as if there aren’t round limits until the last few rounds, so I haven’t seen this as much of an issue for me.

[InnyaFacce]

You're just here trying to be a piece of shit without actually contributing anything or even giving your opinion on the topic. You're just slating my own. Kinda sad.

I do NOT have any issues with being able to use or not to use Round Limits in Game Settings

I already gave my opinion on the subject
As always you just interpret whatever you want from peoples posts

Learn to read.

Maybe take a lesson from your own posts - Learn To Read

[iAmCaffeine]

You really didn't address the point in question with your opinion but okay nice job. Thanks for derailing a thread about a topic I and others wanted to discuss. Extremely petty to specifically target me like you have done via PM and in the forums before. Keep it up dude, you're a fully grown man with a family, well over halfway through your life, and that's how you choose to act.

[BrutalBob]

I set 20 round limit in every 1v1 speed game i start because I dont want to get tied down for hours in a speed where I ...
Now instead of forcing your view on people and changing how it works, why dont you just set up games the way you like them and not play the ones you dont.

Its pretty simple

Learn to read. The issue is this affects so many tournaments.

Why are you such a jerk? I took the time and gave a valid response and opinion to your question. People like you are a big problem to participation of new players on this site.
BTW If you re-read your post you are clearly not taking about just tournaments but all games.

It's actually a requirement - all community events must include round limits.

How stupid.

Maybe take a leaf out of your own book and do some of your own research

...
I chose to speak up about it when in my own mind, I thought we could at least have a conversation about it and see if people agreed or disagreed as a whole. My first post literally asks what others think.

Yet a valid response is met with "Learn to read". Way to nurture that conversation.

Dd I say jerk. Oh, yes I said that already.

Well, have a nice day then

[iAmCaffeine]

Why do you talk like you never act like a jerk yourself? Guaranteed I've done more for new players and players on this site in general than you ever will so let's not start throwing those kind of accusations around.

Of course a player can look at a game with round limits and decide not to join, but when every single auto-tournament and 80-90% of community tournaments use round limits, you don't really have a choice if you want to compete in these events but to play with round limits.

My point is the game isn't fun like this and nobody I've spoken to thinks it is.

[tzor]

I really think round limits have their place. With that being written, one of the problems of the game in general is that there are a lot of options which in combinations just flat out suck. I've seen stacking problems in non round limited games in part because it reached a point where "the only way to win is not to play." (I was sitting on such a game a couple of months ago. Was told to sit tight and stack. The other side attempted a preemptive strike, decimated himself and I wound up mopping the floor with him.)

I think there are a number of things you can do to make limited duration games fun. One is to make it elimination as opposed to end game. At the end of the round limit, the lowest player is eliminated and play continues. That means a 5 player 20 round limit game would last (assuming one player wasn't normally defeated) 80 rounds.

I really feel that stacking is a problem apart from round limits, but then I am not an infinitely patient person. I'm not even patient enough to short stack knowing that a 6:3 attack is still a crap shoot at best.

[Dukasaur]

One thing I've always said is that in round limit games, the winning should be your deploy at the end, not the troop count.

That would incentivize people to continue fighting for bonuses until the end.

[iAmCaffeine]

I think there are a number of things you can do to make limited duration games fun. One is to make it elimination as opposed to end game. At the end of the round limit, the lowest player is eliminated and play continues. That means a 5 player 20 round limit game would last (assuming one player wasn't normally defeated) 80 rounds.

I think this is an intriguing element but would need changing, because at 20 rounds they could've just stacked and then the troops will be neutrals nobody bothers with, or if they're spiteful and someone upset them they could go and put 40 troops into the middle of a bonus. Needs refining but a good basis.

One thing I've always said is that in round limit games, the winning should be your deploy at the end, not the troop count.

That would incentivize people to continue fighting for bonuses until the end.

I like this idea a lot. It means games don't go on forever like people are scared of and makes the game itself fun again.

[HitRed]

Round limits encourage stacking (defensive) because most troops wins.

So make most territories wins (which is offensive). All players will go all out blitz. Might be fun endings.

----

Risk is by nature and offensive game. Defensive minded players rarely win expect through the most troops tie breaker. This is counter to the nature of the game. Have an offensive game end with offence. Switch the order to most territories then most troops.

HitRed

[chapcrap]

Round limits encourage stacking (defensive) because most troops wins.

So make most territories wins (which is offensive). All players will go all out blitz. Might be fun endings.

----

Risk is by nature and offensive game. Defensive minded players rarely win expect through the most troops tie breaker. This is counter to the nature of the game. Have an offensive game end with offence. Switch the order to most territories then most troops.

HitRed

The issue with most territories winning is that whoever is last will likely win. They don’t have to be strongest or best position. Just be lucky enough to go last.

[HitRed]

Round limits encourage stacking (defensive) because most troops wins.

So make most territories wins (which is offensive). All players will go all out blitz. Might be fun endings.

----

Risk is by nature and offensive game. Defensive minded players rarely win expect through the most troops tie breaker. This is counter to the nature of the game. Have an offensive game end with offence. Switch the order to most territories then most troops.

HitRed

The issue with most territories winning is that whoever is last will likely win. They don’t have to be strongest or best position. Just be lucky enough to go last.

Yes, so instead of everyone seeing the winner of the game 5 turns out everyone will have to watch the final moves. Much more exciting. Like the Hail Mary in football on the final play.

[chapcrap]

Round limits encourage stacking (defensive) because most troops wins.

So make most territories wins (which is offensive). All players will go all out blitz. Might be fun endings.

----

Risk is by nature and offensive game. Defensive minded players rarely win expect through the most troops tie breaker. This is counter to the nature of the game. Have an offensive game end with offence. Switch the order to most territories then most troops.

HitRed

The issue with most territories winning is that whoever is last will likely win. They don’t have to be strongest or best position. Just be lucky enough to go last.

Yes, so instead of everyone seeing the winner of the game 5 turns out everyone will have to watch the final moves. Much more exciting. Like the Hail Mary in football on the final play.

You’ll just know 20 rounds out. Or 30. Or whatever the limit is set to

[mookiemcgee]

First of all sorry for my rambling style of writing...

I agree that way too many of the Great war tourneys and other tourney games were boring and stale because of bad setups. Some of them resulted in just stacking one spot all game and making no attacks. While this is not healthy, I'm not sure changes to round limits is the solution. I think there would have been the same issue in many of these with games people just stacking till round 400 and then player A winning because player B died in real life or had a wedding to go to and missed a couple turns.

It seems to me that choices in map and setting selection would solve some of the round limit problems brought up here. But I think perhaps modifying the point system in tournaments would be an approach worth considering (though maybe it's just unrealistic to expect programing changes). In alot of poker tournaments they offer "bounties" for eliminating another player. I could see partial point in tournament scoring for eliminating another player, this would really help push things along. It would certainly give some reason for people to act more aggressively in the early games and perhaps as round limit drams towards the end. So if a tourney a win is worth 1 point, then an elim is worth .1 or .2 points. this would also keep tiebreakers (on round limit, troop count, and first to join) being limited in the grand tourney totals (no more 5 players with 14 pts at the end of a tourney, instead 5 players with all different scores (14.2, 14.4, 14.8 etc). To me this is the most logical solution to games stalemates and tourney ties. It wouldn't have to be all games, but there are many games I've played in the last two years that were pointless, and a bounty system would have completely changed the dynamics. It's basically the idea of terminator but applied to tournament scoring instead of just gamewide rank.