To the best of my knowledge, I have been waiting as of today exactly two weeks for "Fast 7" to be started and that is really not long relative to how long I have waited in the past for a game to be started;
but IMHO it is long enough and this suggestion is intended to cause the game to be started, if we can get a majority of those waiting to agree to a "forced start".

This would not require any special "vote to start button" so we wouldn't have to bother Req with any special programming, but he would have to give the okay for a trusted member to be able to inject the game with enough "inactive players" to cause the game to be started. The territories of these "inactives" would be immediately open to all active players for exploitation (i.e. as soon as the locations of them are known).

TR

TR, got to disagree with any suggestion that would allow a 'ranked' game to be filled with 'inactive' players in order to force a start. What would be the limit? 4 'fake' players?...6?...more?...should make a first place finish alot easier, huh?

This would invalidate the ranking system.

Join more than one or two games, there's no limit to the number of games you can que for (AFAIK), that should cut down on your wait time....and btw, 2 weeks is nothing (as you inferred)....I've been in games that didn't restart for over 3 months.

sugar
I'm not even going to pretend that I agree with you.
It's something that would need agreement by those queued to play and of course there could be a limit set to the number of "false players" that could be injected. It's really more fair than one or two players getting lucky to happen to stumble upon an inactive player because all active players would know in advance which are the "false players".

I did think that a majority was too easy though, and I did consider a unanimous vote;
but got lazy to change it.

Yes I did infer that two weeks wasn't that long and I withdrew from a game that hadn't started after 2 months. I can't stay interested in the slow games so that's why I'm queued in a fast game and I don't like the 12 player map.

PS:
I see only one problem and that is random placement (i.e. it would be nice if the inactives could somehow be equally accessible to all active players).

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 11 April 2005 - 23:32

For the lower ranks this idea sounds good, but for the higher ranks I think the privilege will be abused.

I'm speaking of one person having this ability to inject "false players" in any game where it is requested to be done and I'm speaking of that person being approved to do it by Requiem.

"False players" can be given unique names like "CharlieMange", "RunningNose" or "DonCoyote" so that they are known by all.
I don't see where there is a possibility of abuse.

TR

PS:
I'm really just interested in getting into a game more quickly because I want to play soon while I still have plenty of real life time to play and I do think that the slow turn over of games is not helping new members to stay.

TR

The issue with this as Sugar mentioned is that it is easy to abuse(and invalidates the ranking system)...wether or not you like it some people are going to be in more convinient positions then others when it comes to this...not to mention injecting false players will eliminate (if 4 "fake players" are injected for example) thats four spots that people will definitely not get...if your the firs to lose in this game and your losses are heavy...you wont be last youll be 6th (out of a ten player map for example)...the idea is just easily exploitable thats all...

Last Edited : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 - 01:15

Well I know I said that this wouldn't require any programming and I did say that the only problem I see with it is that "inactive player territories" might not be equally accessible by all active players, but I really do think that certain designated "false players" could be made to always fall in certain pre-determined locations;
and I do think that all active players could be made to randomly be located around the "false players" without a major programming task (i.e. if it is determined that the effort to do the programming is worth it).

As far as finishing sixth in a 10 player 140 turn game causing the ranking system to become invalidated and therefore subject to abuse and exploitation, I do look forward to the "1vs1 campaigns" in the new version which in my opinion will be the only truly valid way to determine rank.
For example why should diplomacy, NAPs, inactives, quitters, gang attacks, or any luck related issue be a factor in a "ranked game"?
Ironically comical is that the answer has always been that "it's the luck of the draw and it might be different next time".
Apparently some of us think we are pushing luck too far with this idea but I'm not one of them because I just want to play in a competitive game and I'm really not all that "rank happy".

TR

well thing about that is that..."rank happy" as you call it is the reason your getting those competitive games you get into now...being at your current level you do not see inactives and quitters and multies often...THATS what gets you your competition...and that comes from a ranking system if this ranking system becomes useless by implementing systems that do not stick to its structure...then youll find yourself with challenges alright...1 person gets access to two castles early on and you are first on their list...*shrugs* i do not know about you but if what you truly want IS a challenge then this suggestion should/could be modified....but leaving empty lots is just not a good idea, period.

It would seem easier to just make a 5 player game (like a 'ranked' ultra) instead of a 10 player game with 5 'inactives' at the start.

The 10 player map could be used with the 4 corner castles and the middle castle. The 5 castles that are 'removed' would not even appear on the map (no slab), but their resource buildings would still be there

It would be harder to start in the middle, but it always has been. It just seems like this would be a more appropiate way to fix slow queue times than rigging a game to start with 'inactives', in my opinion.

Maybe I'm overlooking something?

Ultima
I'm going to make one last defence because these arguments IMO tend to become quite *circular*. The first statement in quotes below is yours and the second one is mine:

"... 1 person gets access to two castles early on and you are first on their list... "-"Ultima"

"It's really more fair than one or two players getting lucky to happen to stumble upon an inactive player because all active players would know in advance which are the "false players"."-TR

Inactives do still occur in almost every "ranked game" in which I have played and I do try to play in higher ranked games but yes I agree that when one player gains an inactive player's castle early, IMO he has gained a distinct advantage over the other one-castle players especially because of the extra barracks that can be captured or built and used.

As stated above, I actually think that because there is still always one or two inactives in a "ranked game" that this idea would make it more fair in that there would probably be something for everyone.
This idea was intended to cause games to be started more quickly without the need for additional programming;
however, I guess it can occur, but I think it is highly unlikely that ALL 3 or 4 "injected false players" would be ALL in ONE corner accessible to only a few of the active players.

Don't forget though that even if all the inactives are in one corner, the other active players who don't have access will still be able to press an attack against those who do have access.
I have stated elsewhere that I DON'T acknowledge that a player who is cleaning up the territory of an inactive is at war, and I DO believe that the spoils of inactives are "up for grabs" by ALL at all times;
So I don't think any player would be allowed to gain an advantage without having to fight for it and even possibly losing some of the "eggs already in his basket".

I have also considered that if this idea was used that players can also agree to wait enough turns before starting to allow all castles and troops of "false inactives" to disappear which I HAD thought would also help to keep a fair balance BUT REALLY NOT SO because then a player would be able to make a quick capture of a castle.
It is better if he has to risk losing the gold mine and the resource buildings and even possible have to fight an active player for possession of a castle to keep a fair and competitive game.

PS:
IMO it is very possible to do this without permission to do it and I do wonder about inactives to be honest.

TR

it STILL falls apart...

"It's really more fair than one or two players getting lucky to happen to stumble upon an inactive player because all active players would know in advance which are the "false players"."-TR

this matters not at all...if you inject 3-4 then that means there are only 3-4 extra castles to hand around...it means that some people might be forced to fight for their castle while others do not...it still becomes unfair at taht point...

"Ultima
I'm going to make one last defence because these arguments IMO tend to become quite *circular*. The first statement in quotes below is yours and the second one is mine:"(TaurusRex)

(this next paragraph is only valid IF you meant that we were bound to get into a heated argument...)

And as to your comment...we are having a fair discussion about this subject it would be highly ignorant to say that we would swoop down to that level,i for one would not...so i see no point in this even being said...you are giving the community an opinion...i am trying to see holes in the suggestion,you are trying to patch them up...that is all...this has no need whatsoever to turn into mudslinging or any other kind of heated argument...

as suggested before....what if all inactive players castles dissapear....

there is alot of luck currently involved.

castles cant b taken over before turn 5 and after that the r gone...

if someone wants 2 load a game they can do that allready.im sure we have all see it.

im still not convinced its a good idea though.

i think req need 2 remove half or more of the games..we r 2 spread out....

Again, NO...there is NO valid reason for implementing any form of this suggestion.

Our ranking system is based on 10 & 12 player maps. If a 5 member game is allowed to be started, then the whole system is invalidated.

UB shared valid points concerning this, providing examples, finishing last place wouldn't necessarily mean a 10th or 12th place finish with minimum points...it could be 7th...6th...or perhaps only 5th (if 5 'fake' players were allowed).

There's an abundant selection of games of varying speeds, there's the opportunity to donate some dollars to the game and have your active game limit increased...so the REAL solution to the problem is......que for more games, more often and IF you're not 'rank happy' as you stated....then playing in a lower ranked game should provide you even more opportunities. See?...plenty of alternatives, que up!

"UB"
when I find it necessary to re-quote my own statements to "patch" a so-called "hole" as far as I'm concerned the argument/discussion is becoming "circular".

"sugar"
when I start saying, "IMO that's your opinion",
I definitely think the argument/discussion is getting "circular".

For example:

"so the REAL solution to the problem is......que for more games, more often"-"sugarleo"

I think the foregoing statement is your opinion that entering more games will solve this problem and there is even another recent thread where it is recommended that we don't spread ourselves around so much as a matter of fact to alleviate the problem of "long waits".

Also I repeat to once again encircle the argument/discussion that I have personal preferences of fast over slow games, 10 player maps over 12 player maps and I have certain players that I prefer to challenge so I get into higher ranked games where I'm likely to encounter them. Again I don't see that getting into a type of game that I don't want to play solves the problem, and as a matter of fact the one game in which I am queued to play is more likely to get started than most others I see;
So why should I risk causing players who have an interest in playing against me to go elsewhere.

PS:
IMO spreading ourselves around too much as a matter of fact tends to aggravate the problem of waiting too long to play, and I AM ABLE to queue as many games as anyone else.
See? Recently polished.

TR

Two things:
If the inactive castles went away this might be workable.

In the "next version" (War of Kings) the maps will be random shapes and might solve this problem by only being as big as necessary.

Mog,
I was actually hoping that we might get you to input the "false names" for us (i.e. if "fast 7" doesn't get started soon and all 6 or 7 of us that are queued to play it agree to it).
I honestly think that if at least half of us are agressive enough and we play it as I stated here (i.e. press the attack to those closest to the inactives if necessary), the inactives might provide a good "free for all" atmosphere in the game.
The point is that knowing in advance which names are inactive is all the difference because they are "up for grabs" from game start.
No one can try to say that he had some sort of prior claim on them.

TR