Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Signing up... I'm ready to fight in the arena.
P.S. Of course, we can't completely eliminate conspiracies, etc.
But let's at least avoid transferring artifacts (resources, money), as that only encourages conspiracies. Let the loser take them with them.
I'd like to suggest giving each player 1 resurrection per game on day 111, to avoid any hard feelings later. Let's set the time limit for each turn to 8 minutes (so they can move their pieces faster).
Не шукайте краще, а шукайте своє. Адже краще не завжди стане твоїм, зате своє - завжди краще !
Unclear for now:
1. How will ONE winner be determined if the game is for four players?
2. How will the winner vs. loser final match be played if, for example, only one winner and one loser remain?
3. How can four players agree on a game?
P.S.: Boombox could be used as a template. And a time limit is needed, as in 2v2, of course.
It's unclear for now: 1. How will ONE winner be determined if the game is for four players? 2. How will the final winner vs. loser match work if, for example, only one winner and one loser remain? 3. How will four players agree on the game?
P.S.: Boombox could be a good template. And a time limit is needed, just like in 2v2.
1. The interesting part is that it's unclear! It will probably just be a chaotic free-for-all where you have to eliminate everyone and be the last one standing. Or maybe there will be some strategic plans or alliances. :) 2. The final match will work as described. I wrote that the winners will have a bonus from the start. Two winners will share 1st or 2nd place in the draw and choose the best colors and castles... and the losers will get what's left. 3. I think you need to agree in a group of four just like in 2v2. The main thing is the desire to play, and two weeks seems like enough time. I set the date to the 14th so that people don't have to wait too long for the start and don't lose interest, and everyone who wants to can sign up. Plus, it will be a Wednesday, so it will be convenient to arrange things for the first weekend. And yes, the time will probably be the same as in 2v2, maybe a minute longer, so that people don't have to rush around too much and can take their time to play properly. Regarding boombox, that's a good idea. I'll gather some good information and record it later.
1. That's what makes it interesting – it's unpredictable! It will probably just be a chaotic free-for-all where you have to eliminate everyone else and be the last one standing. Or maybe there will be some strategic plans or alliances. :)
Here, everything is clear about alliances and so on, but the game ends when only two players remain. Do these two share the 1st and 2nd places and both receive rewards? Or do they play until only one remains? This is, of course, about the finale. Gomunguls
2. The finale will be played in this way. I wrote that there will be a bonus for the winners from the very beginning. The two winners will share 1st and 2nd place in the draw and choose the best colors and castles... and the losers will get what's left.
That's clear. Again, for example, 2 winners (player 1 and player 2) and two losers (player 3 and player 4) are playing. Player 2 and player 3 win. What happens next? Gomunguls
3. Well, in a 4-player game, I think you should negotiate just like in a 2v2. The main thing is the desire to play, and there seems to be enough time – about 2 weeks.
In 2v2, there is a mandatory time for the game if the players cannot agree on a time themselves. Practice shows that it is very difficult to get four people together at the same time.
It's clear that alliances and so on are involved, but the game ends when only two players remain. Do these two share the 1st and 2nd places and both receive rewards, or do they play until only one remains? This is, of course, regarding the final stage.
The game ends when only one player remains; otherwise, it would be a team game.
That's understandable. Again, for example, two players are winners (Player 1 and Player 2), and two are losers (Player 3 and Player 4). Player 2 and Player 3 win. What happens next?
They keep fighting until someone wins; it doesn't matter if they were a loser or a winner before. That's what makes it interesting. To level the playing field, winners receive a bonus (which I think is appropriate for the final).
In 2v2, there's a mandatory time limit for the game if the players can't agree on a time themselves. Practice shows that it's very difficult to get four people together at the same time.
Yes, I understand that there will probably be difficulties, but they exist in every tournament. I think people who are interested will be able to gather and agree on a time for the weekend. We will resolve all controversial issues individually!
The idea is excellent; we just need to weigh everything carefully! It reminds me of the board game Munchkin – only the most cunning will win! I would like to come up with a template for such a specific set of cards, starting with a hero without a castle and a starting army :smile19:. There could be many ideas (the map editor has events, random curses or blessings, positive/negative bonuses in economics and battles)... I'm getting carried away :smile23:.
Captain
