Conquer Club

lancehoch wrote:
One big problem might be that there would be a lot of games where someone wants 1 min, another person wants 3 min, and a third wants 5 min, but all the other settings they want are the same. Now instead of having a 3 player game, they each have a game set up, but no one is joining. Then people will complain about not being able to find a game.

I think that these not possible,because speed game fill very fast(well except for 7 8 players).
Now you will very hard to find to many waiting speed games.
I just check now waiting games
You have casual public games 2800
and you have only 18 speed public games.
So i belive that these problem will be minor.

Can we see some more support for this, please?

How great would it be to be able to play a quick, casual speed game that doesn't require a multiple-hour investment of their time, or that they must sit on the edge of their seats in attempt to beat a player with a super fast connection off the line in a freestyle game, often to no avail?

two minutes

i love the idea even a 30 second one would be good

Only downside I can see is if someone has a game fill without them being there and in 3 min they are kicked for deadbeating... maybe you could have an initial 5 min for round 1 to collect the players and then it goes to 1 min?

Haven't gotten a chance to read the whole thread, but here is my input. I really like the idea of adding *one* other option for a turbo game that has turns of 3 minutes or less. I do not like the idea of having 1minute, 2 minute, 3 minute .. etc all at once because there will be tons of games going around that are all similar to one another but not exact, and games will not fill as much.

But I do not like the current speed game 5 minute limit, because I find it takes about 30 mins to an hour just to finish a game and most of the time I am just waiting for people to start their turn just so they can place their armies and end it.

Not a fan of the 1 minute time limits though. Its pretty hard to take a big portion of the map on the bigger maps within a couple minutes. I was playing some AoR's and Feudal and I had under a minute a bunch of times. but then again having 1 minute turns could add some additional strategy and tactics to a game knowing you wont be able to eliminate them if they are far away.

or you could get faster

many players can go a territory a second or faster

i can go 4 in 5 seconds which is fast but could be better

EagleofGreenErth wrote:Only downside I can see is if someone has a game fill without them being there and in 3 min they are kicked for deadbeating... maybe you could have an initial 5 min for round 1 to collect the players and then it goes to 1 min?

i really like this idea

Not a fan of the 1 minute time limits though. Its pretty hard to take a big portion of the map on the bigger maps within a couple minutes. I was playing some AoR's and Feudal and I had under a minute a bunch of times. but then again having 1 minute turns could add some additional strategy and tactics to a game knowing you wont be able to eliminate them if they are far away.

That why you have more options.
Some day i play Doodle eart-no cards,8 players asassin freestule-do you know howits pointles to waiting some player to finish hes turn for 5 minutes. Instead to play much faster,and to be interesting game,these game become to boring and not interesting,only because you waiting to people decide where to put 3 army on 2 territory.

CryWolf wrote:I think the 5minutes in the beginning are needed so that everyone has time to realize that the game has begun. However, subsequent turns could take less. I'm kind of in the middle on this because the more time variants you have, the more chance that people will not join a particular game because they differ on opinions of how long a turn should take.

agreed.

rnd 1, 5 min. gives everyone a chance to see it started and head in, etc.
subsequent rounds can go to 1 min.

Yes, I like this idea. My friend and I often talk about this.
A lot of FS games everyone just ends up waiting til the last 20 seconds to make a move.

The main problem with this idea is that none of the admins and very few of the mods play freestyle speed.

This thread duplicates the suggestion made in the SuperSpeed game option-You choose 1-5 minutes thread. Further discussion of this idea should be in that thread.

Note my merge post towards the end of that thread which summarises the history of this often repeated idea. In particular note the quote of the response by [player]AndyDufresne[/player] (site admin) to this suggestion:

AndyDufresne wrote:5 minute turn lengths will most likely be the shortest turn length we'll ever offer.

This duplicate thread locked.

Cicero

ONE MINUTE!?!?!?! THAT IS AN ETERNITY!!!! 30 SEC OPTION PLEASE?????

PS I love you all, and i am serious about the 30 sec option

please let this happen

it is a great option

will make things better

look at the poll

Theguyoverthere wrote:This is a good idea and would prevent all those times you wait 5 minutes just so you can do something in the last 30 seconds.

As I see it this is the biggest reason people want a change. IMO the eliminate time-out double turns idea would solve this in a much better way.

iambligh wrote:

lancehoch wrote:One big problem might be that there would be a lot of games where someone wants 1 min, another person wants 3 min, and a third wants 5 min, but all the other settings they want are the same. Now instead of having a 3 player game, they each have a game set up, but no one is joining. Then people will complain about not being able to find a game.

Anyone who plays speed games will experience this. You'll want to play a speed game, but you'll notice that the only available games use settings and maps that you'd rather not play -- this is certainly nothing new to CC. The fix is to create a game with your own preferred settings, or bite the bullet and join a game with "sub-prime" settings.

So your solution to having a hard time to find just the right settings is adding more settings to chose from? Seems kind of backwards to me.



What I could see being an interesting option is a chess style clock (as OvO mentioned). But otoh that would only work for sequential games where the problem is smaller atm.

This has been brought up a gazillian times to no avail-- but if it were 30 seconds or a minute with a 30 second extension, I'd have to get my dice out of retirement and play some 8s. It would be one hell of a rush!

Scott-Land wrote:This has been brought up a gazillian times to no avail-- but if it were 30 seconds or a minute with a 30 second extension, I'd have to get my dice out of retirement and play some 8s. It would be one hell of a rush!

1 min time frame... wow that is quick... too quick if you ask me

Bruceswar wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:This has been brought up a gazillian times to no avail-- but if it were 30 seconds or a minute with a 30 second extension, I'd have to get my dice out of retirement and play some 8s. It would be one hell of a rush!

1 min time frame... wow that is quick... too quick if you ask me

That's where the rush comes from-- better than waiting 4.5 minutes a turn. Usually 8 turns a game-- save over half an hour not counting the time extensions.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Theguyoverthere wrote:This is a good idea and would prevent all those times you wait 5 minutes just so you can do something in the last 30 seconds.

As I see it this is the biggest reason people want a change. IMO the eliminate time-out double turns idea would solve this in a much better way.

iambligh wrote:

lancehoch wrote:One big problem might be that there would be a lot of games where someone wants 1 min, another person wants 3 min, and a third wants 5 min, but all the other settings they want are the same. Now instead of having a 3 player game, they each have a game set up, but no one is joining. Then people will complain about not being able to find a game.

Anyone who plays speed games will experience this. You'll want to play a speed game, but you'll notice that the only available games use settings and maps that you'd rather not play -- this is certainly nothing new to CC. The fix is to create a game with your own preferred settings, or bite the bullet and join a game with "sub-prime" settings.

So your solution to having a hard time to find just the right settings is adding more settings to chose from? Seems kind of backwards to me.

I'm sorry that you had trouble understanding me; I'll attempt to make my position even clearer:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought more speed options would be a solution to the common problem of not always being able to get in a game with your ideal settings; honestly, I don't have any ideas for solving that problem other than telling people how great CC is in hopes of increasing membership. More members = better chances of getting to play a game with your ideal settings. Having less game options isn't better.

2 and 1/2 minutes is plenty of time, and this can be an option, we can still keep 5 min. games

Here here!

i want speed game 2 min?

i want ferrari?