Moderator: Community Team
I agree with the idea of creation of multiple speed games but i do not agree with the idea of a limit of 3 because when i first started i could play 4-5 speed games at once without missing any turns, and that was when i didn't have clickable maps. I don't play 1 vs 1 sequential speed anymore but i bet i could do 6-7 1 vs 1 speed games without missing a single turn.wolfpack0530 wrote:I say, put a 3 game max on simultaneous speed games.
Because it is rude. Lets say you have a 5 player speed game, it can go by very quickly if everyone is into the game and taking their turns right away. but if everybody is stalling (or worse, missing turns) then the rounds become 20-25 min each. That can turn a quick speed game, into a 3 hour marathon, which many of us dont have time for. There is a reason why you rarely see any speed games being made that invovle more than 5 players (unless you count the doodle assassin games which only last a minute or 2). That is why it is so hard to get a speed game with more than 4 players to even fill.K-dub wrote:whats the point of this? seriously? ur complaining that ur opponent misses turns? isnt that supposed to be an advantage to u if he misses dont you think?
ljex wrote:I agree with the idea of creation of multiple speed games but i do not agree with the idea of a limit of 3 because when i first started i could play 4-5 speed games at once without missing any turns, and that was when i didn't have clickable maps. I don't play 1 vs 1 sequential speed anymore but i bet i could do 6-7 1 vs 1 speed games without missing a single turn.wolfpack0530 wrote:I say, put a 3 game max on simultaneous speed games.
I would think the 50 limit would still apply, but the 10 limit, which I think will be the limit, would only affect the speed games.AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, what would the be the most reasonable limit to Speed Game creation?
And how would or would not Active games factor and count into the limit?
--Andy
Well said!! But i also like the idea of starting with a lower number than 10 and earning your way upwards. You know 2 people that can keep up with 10, i am sure you have come across many more who cant deal with 4 at onceAAFitz wrote:I would think the 50 limit would still apply, but the 10 limit, which I think will be the limit, would only affect the speed games.AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, what would the be the most reasonable limit to Speed Game creation?
And how would or would not Active games factor and count into the limit?
--Andy
so, you are allowed 50 waiting games total, which is what it is now, and only 10 of those can be speed games.
I kind of expected this to be suggested at some point to be honest. As long as it isnt an infringement on any real person, who is really playing speed games, then the limit only affects the unreasonable ones, and the deabeats, and point dumpers really.
Hell, it even protects people from themselves and biting off more than they can chew. 10 speed games is quite a few to pull off at once. Anyone who needs more, probably needs something else...lol
I agree. Perhaps the limitation should only cover certain types of gamesmax is gr8 wrote:If they are sequential 8 players then you could play 10 with ease. If they are 2 player freestyles you could not. Because of such I endorse this 10 speed game policy then no matter how many games you are playing you can manage
Most likely specific coding like this would be something Lackattack would want to avoid. But a standard limit for Speed games may have a chance.jleonnn wrote:I agree. Perhaps the limitation should only cover certain types of gamesmax is gr8 wrote:If they are sequential 8 players then you could play 10 with ease. If they are 2 player freestyles you could not. Because of such I endorse this 10 speed game policy then no matter how many games you are playing you can manage
While I share your distaste for people who are playing multiple speed games at the same time and missing turns because of it, I don't like the idea of limiting the number of speed games someone can create or play in at the same time. I'd prefer that those players who are playing against them either give them grief for it or give them poor ratings for it.azezzo wrote:Concise description:
limit the # of identical speed games created by the same player
It may be an advantage in a two-person game, but in multi-player games a missed turn can throw games off completely. In a multi-player game it may result in an advantage for me, but that would be a disadvantage for the other player(s) or vice-versa. It's one thing if you can't make the turn for legitimate reasons (you get a phone call, your boss is talking to you, your lose your internet connection, etc), but if you miss a turn because you're trying to take a turn in another game, it's lame and unsportsmanlike.K-dub wrote:whats the point of this? seriously? ur complaining that ur opponent misses turns? isnt that supposed to be an advantage to u if he misses dont you think?