battle royale

hwhrhett · Post by **hwhrhett** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:53 pm

insomniacdude wrote:
hwhrhett wrote:
richardgarr wrote:I would request a pre- registration or at least a little notice of when it will be...I missed the last one by an hour...arrrghh
but if there is pre-registration, youll prolly have the same problem, you'll just miss pre-registration by an hour instead... pre-registration would fill up just as quickly as the game would anyway......
People could sign up for the chance to play a battle royale. Everyone who wants to join would submit their name over the period of, say, a week. Then when the deadline passes, 100 names (or however many people are going to play) are randomly selected from the list to play the game. We should make it so that only ranked players can submit their names (no n00bs). I think it should also be for premiums only, but that may just be me.

premium only would be awesome, lol, noobs are already not allowed in battle royal's i dont think.

what,me worry? · Post by **what,me worry?** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:56 pm

I made it to round 10 last time..... lol.

hwhrhett · Post by **hwhrhett** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:38 pm

what,me worry? wrote:I made it to round 10 last time..... lol.

ive been in 2 i think, and never made it past round 2, always get fucked, lol. never even made an attack, in either.

frood · Post by **frood** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:15 pm

I still think there should be a doubles or triples battle royal. The point gain would still be huge but not as crazy as singles.

Zemljanin · Post by **Zemljanin** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:15 pm

Are someone going to explain the rules? There are people who don't know how battle royale goes.

frood · Post by **frood** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:24 pm

Zemljanin wrote:Are someone going to explain the rules? There are people who don't know how battle royale goes.

A battle royal is a game where every player starts with just one country so the number of players is equal to the number of territories on the map. From there it is played like a normal game. It is always freestyle because sequential would take for ever. The first three BRs where standard with various card and fortification settings so the winner got points from all the other players. The 4th was terminator so the points were spread around but people could still gain a lot of points.

xtratabasco · Post by **xtratabasco** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:54 pm

interesting

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:14 am

Terminator was lame. I really hope this one is not terminator, because it took away the big thrill of the end game and greatly reduced the accomplishment of winning the whole thing.

CrabNebula · Post by **CrabNebula** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:24 am

I get a feeling this is gonna be a speed game, sequential

richardgarr · Post by **richardgarr** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:35 am

CrabNebula wrote:I get a feeling this is gonna be a speed game, sequential

Ya , right. Good luck with that . I can see it now : Player 1 through 46 kicked out for missing to many turns.

stringybeany · Post by **stringybeany** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:38 am

I don't care how it's structured. I just want in on one.

chessplaya · Post by **chessplaya** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:31 am

hwhrhett wrote:
Rocketry wrote:
cena-rules wrote:BATTLE ROYAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*dramatic echo*

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:00 pm

Oh, a Speed Battle Royal game. THAT would be very interesting to play!

Clive · Post by **Clive** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:13 pm

sully800 wrote:Terminator was lame. I really hope this one is not terminator, because it took away the big thrill of the end game and greatly reduced the accomplishment of winning the whole thing.

If it isn't terminator, couldn't a guy work himself down to 1 point when he reaslises he's won, then get 100 points from each of the other over 100 people in the game...

alster · Post by **alster** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:34 pm

Clive wrote:
sully800 wrote:Terminator was lame. I really hope this one is not terminator, because it took away the big thrill of the end game and greatly reduced the accomplishment of winning the whole thing.
If it isn't terminator, couldn't a guy work himself down to 1 point when he reaslises he's won, then get 100 points from each of the other over 100 people in the game...

I recall sully800 posting a pretty nice chart re point gain/spread a few BR back. It should be in one of the threads unless he's nice enough to re-post it here.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:14 pm

alstergren wrote:
Clive wrote:
sully800 wrote:Terminator was lame. I really hope this one is not terminator, because it took away the big thrill of the end game and greatly reduced the accomplishment of winning the whole thing.
If it isn't terminator, couldn't a guy work himself down to 1 point when he reaslises he's won, then get 100 points from each of the other over 100 people in the game...
I recall sully800 posting a pretty nice chart re point gain/spread a few BR back. It should be in one of the threads unless he's nice enough to re-post it here.

Sure thing! Here's the old thread http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 56&start=0

You wouldn't end up with max total points by lowering your score to 1, since you start with such a low score. The max score would occur if you started with about 150 points.

But either way, it would still be ridiculous. By purposefully lowering your score you could end up with 10,000 points. Of course you would lose points dramatically from then on because you wouldn't be able to sustain such a high score.

However losing games purposefully is very much frowned upon and you'd probably receive a lot of negative feedbacks for trying to lower your score. Also, the only way you could manage it would be to have a secure lock on the game (the last person has one country and can't attack) and simply drag it out. If that person wanted to prevent you from getting 10,000 points they could simply deadbeat and your victory would be over in 3 days. So you'd gain the "normal" amount of points.

hwhrhett · Post by **hwhrhett** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:28 pm

sully800 wrote:
alstergren wrote:
Clive wrote:
sully800 wrote:Terminator was lame. I really hope this one is not terminator, because it took away the big thrill of the end game and greatly reduced the accomplishment of winning the whole thing.
If it isn't terminator, couldn't a guy work himself down to 1 point when he reaslises he's won, then get 100 points from each of the other over 100 people in the game...
I recall sully800 posting a pretty nice chart re point gain/spread a few BR back. It should be in one of the threads unless he's nice enough to re-post it here.
Sure thing! Here's the old thread http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 56&start=0

You wouldn't end up with max total points by lowering your score to 1, since you start with such a low score. The max score would occur if you started with about 150 points.

But either way, it would still be ridiculous. By purposefully lowering your score you could end up with 10,000 points. Of course you would lose points dramatically from then on because you wouldn't be able to sustain such a high score.

However losing games purposefully is very much frowned upon and you'd probably receive a lot of negative feedbacks for trying to lower your score. Also, the only way you could manage it would be to have a secure lock on the game (the last person has one country and can't attack) and simply drag it out. If that person wanted to prevent you from getting 10,000 points they could simply deadbeat and your victory would be over in 3 days. So you'd gain the "normal" amount of points.

but now with speed games you have the ability to deadbeat a game in 30 minutes.... someone could literally start their turn, realize theyre going to win on that turn, start 100 speed games, and deadbeat them all before that very turn is over

lol.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:44 pm

sully800 wrote:You wouldn't end up with max total points by lowering your score to 1, since you start with such a low score. The max score would occur if you started with about 150 points.

That makes no sense. If anything, once you get below a certain score, the points earned would be the same since 100 is the max earned per player... you wouldn't earn less for having a score of 1.

john1099 · Post by **john1099** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:47 pm

wicked wrote:
sully800 wrote:You wouldn't end up with max total points by lowering your score to 1, since you start with such a low score. The max score would occur if you started with about 150 points.
That makes no sense. If anything, once you get below a certain score, the points earned would be the same since 100 is the max earned per player... you wouldn't earn less for having a score of 1.

But what he is saying is that if you have 150, it is more than 1, therefore, you're already starting 149 points above the person starting with 1 point, thus giving you more points in the end (149 to be exact)

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:59 pm

aah, should've known sully would do things the weird way. I thought he was talking about points earned.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:00 pm

I like how they are once every few months. Makes them more exciting.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:51 pm

There are many on this site myself included that rarely if ever play freestyle. As we now have speed games the way to go should be a seq. speed game instead of freestyle and not terminator it should be winer takes all.

Are ignore lists disabled for battle royal games as obviously by haveing a lot of names on your ignore list you can exclude a lot of players fro battle royal.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:36 pm

rebelman wrote: Are ignore lists disabled for battle royal games as obviously by haveing a lot of names on your ignore list you can exclude a lot of players fro battle royal.

DiM brought this problem up before. I dont think it was acted upon thou

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:38 pm

rebelman wrote:There are many on this site myself included that rarely if ever play freestyle. As we now have speed games the way to go should be a seq. speed game instead of freestyle and not terminator it should be winer takes all.

Are ignore lists disabled for battle royal games as obviously by haveing a lot of names on your ignore list you can exclude a lot of players fro battle royal.

Worst suggestion ever!

If the game was sequential, then anyone starting in the second half would be eliminated before they could ever take a turn. Also, keep in mind that with 112 people and up to 5 minutes a turn rounds each round would last about an hour. Maybe you get in 5 or 6 turns if you're lucky enough to still be alive, but eventually you'd have to do something else. Then you start missing turns and probably deadbeat while your asleep. A sequential speed game would not work.

And ignore lists have worked normally in the past for battle royales. I don't believe it was changed, even though so people complained loudly that ignore lists shouldn't apply to BR games (and I tend to agree).

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:58 pm

Ignore lists should be enforced no matter what IMO. If I don't way to play you, I DON'T WANT TO PLAY YOU. lol If you play in such a way that you made someone's ignore list, then maybe you don't deserve this 'special treat.' You can always ask nicely for someone to remove you. Or better yet, just be nice so you don't make anyone's ignore list.

battle royale

should we have a game for 100 pplz