Let's face it, if you have the time for an Ultra game then you have the time to play a Fast Game. Since we do not have a ton of players, let's reduce the number of games available. This looks to be an easy choice to go.

I also advocate removing "Last Man Standing". I am not against the variations, just that most of us prefer playing to waiting, and unitl there are greater numbers in the community, I suggest these be put on hold.

not!!

Actually I agree Corflu...The LMS games have been stuck on turn 4 forever and I've been queued for games for close to 3 mths now and STILL have yet to have one get filled up so it could get started...

aw, I love LMS games. I only have time for slow games though. Ultras however, I don't really care about I tried one and missed way too many turns for it to be worthwhile.

Yes, the Ultra and LMS are fun. No one said they were not. However most will agree we do not prefer them instead of the Fast/Slow/Reg campaign games.

To ensure we do not have waits of 3 months I prefer we do eliminate some games until the membership increases. Otherwise too many choices for too few people.

I would think a better thing to get rid of to reduce the number of choices would be the 20-player games. The last one I was in ended up with 3 active players.

Or to allow the games to start up with fewer than the required number of players. For example, if 6 players are signed up for a 10-player game and noone has queued up within the past 2 weeks, start it up with 6 players (on a map that has 4 of the centrally located castles removed).

good idea luger i love the lms games though

another idea would be to combine the diffrent players in diffrent games of the same rank and time to fill them up

thing is people are looking for seperate requirements when searching for games...i often see two games with the same exact level and turn requirements enough people to make one game start but they are spread out...i suggest there be some type of auto assigner...if such situations occur then this could assigne some gamers to merge in one game...left overs stay in the other game...or something like that...

Aren't we forgetting the ranking system (i.e. some folks can't play in the same ranked games as others for one problem) and then there is the time element that may not be convenient for all and not to mention the maps.
I don't recall exactly but when Req was asking us the size of the games we preferred when he eliminated the "double castle" games, I don't recall how I voted but it didn't dawn on me then that I would prefer the 10 player map instead of the 12 player map.

PS:
Luger
how did a 20 player "ranked game" end up with 3 active players?
I'd sure like to see that list of inactives.

*(edit)*
Whoops
I guess you mean it was a 20-player "Ultra".

TR

Last Edited : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 - 19:12

Yah, I did mean a 20-player ultra.

But I did decide to avoid ALL 20-player games, because:

-- The map size causes noticeably slower response times.
-- They just take too long to fill and start

I really Like the LMS games... deleting the ultra games is ok by me..

how about deleting 3/4 of eaach and leave one game for each level range...the ten player map being the only map though

Might be a good way to start...but let's at least leave a big and a small. 40 and 10 I figure.

for each type of game, one game should be avaliable for each level range. Once that queue gets filled up, then another game becomes avaliable.
I do believe that would do the trick.

actually that is perfect....cheers to gutter

Yeah...Ive been singing the same song as Gutterfly. There are too many darn games. They are just confusing to noobs, confusing to vets, and make queing take forever. One type of each game would solve most problems. But, will Req do the programming? Now THAT is the question...

Nothing wrong with ultra and lms game options being in - the problem is the que system is per game and not per game type. e.g., there are 8 or 10 or so 10-50 level games. Never is more than a couple of these playing at a time and usually there are a couple of players waiting in the ques of SEPERATE games. The ques need to be for a game style/map and then the players get dumped into a specific game when there are the appropriate number of players in place.

well, i prefer to choose a 10 or 40 player game myself. though time (fast/slow/reg) is more important.

I have never played ultra's, but now that I've been out of commision for quite a while I see the value of spending a game just learning how to play again. Ultra's are a fast, and unranked way, to test things out that you wouldn't want to risk your ranking on, to practice, or to re-learn how to play again

I understand the problem of waiting on games, I ended up joing one 4-5 turns in because I was sick of waiting for a new one, but I don't know that eliminating ultra's will solve it. If they are scrapped though, I think it's important to still have unranked games, because I'm not up to par with most 40-60 players just yet .

*Also forgot how to make smilies here

Last Edited : Sunday, 24 April 2005 - 18:22

Too many choices means too few games in play. Let's fix this issue before we "fix" other core basics of the games.