that's actually not a bad idea; even if winning like that will be extremely difficult... unless you use zombie/ nukes, cause in that case games would stall and have very little strategy
So to elaborate, round limits are usually for stalled out games. You will barely see them in an open, active game. Say we're playing nuclear 5 man FFA. Red: 120 troops Green: 100 Blue: 140 Yellow: 105 Pink: 150.
For simplicity, assume red started the game and thus after pink's turn the round limit goes into effect. For a chance to win, red needs to reduce his troop count to at least green's troop count. If he's smart, he does this by attacking blue or pink. Then, green can do the same. Blue tries to too, yellow has a shot at finishing last as well, and pink either suicides on everybody evenly to come out with the lowest amount of troops, or he cleans up since everybody got so weak trying to win.
Currently, while lots of people get suicided on, the round limit either rewards the player with the most troops throughout the game (no suiciding) or is a bit of a lottery (with suiciding). This proposal would make it even more of a lottery, because in most if not all cases the last player to play just wins. Reducing your troopcount in the last round is a lot easier than increasing yours, even relatively.
So what if it was random where some games end on lowest, some on highest, some on some other options and you don't know until the end. Do you think that would stop stalling out of games?
DoomYoshi wrote:So what if it was random where some games end on lowest, some on highest, some on some other options and you don't know until the end. Do you think that would stop stalling out of games?
I like this. The mystery option.
I'd also support it for spoils. Is it flat rate, or is it nuclear? Case that first set and find out!!!!
DoomYoshi wrote:So what if it was random where some games end on lowest, some on highest, some on some other options and you don't know until the end. Do you think that would stop stalling out of games?
That doesn't change this idea at all, it just changes the source of randomness. It might indeed increase suicide rates in the last round, but I dont know if that is was what we seek. Round limits are fine as-is.
DoomYoshi wrote:So what if it was random where some games end on lowest, some on highest, some on some other options and you don't know until the end. Do you think that would stop stalling out of games?
That doesn't change this idea at all, it just changes the source of randomness. It might indeed increase suicide rates in the last round, but I dont know if that is was what we seek. Round limits are fine as-is.
DoomYoshi wrote:So what if it was random where some games end on lowest, some on highest, some on some other options and you don't know until the end. Do you think that would stop stalling out of games?
That doesn't change this idea at all, it just changes the source of randomness. It might indeed increase suicide rates in the last round, but I dont know if that is was what we seek. Round limits are fine as-is.
No, they really aren't.
Last serious post from me here.
Provide a better alternative than "the player that has the most units" that cannot be abused and does not decide a winner randomly.