Skip to content

Posts from Timer during Facebook Live.

2.0 (1 rating)
Closed
Timer for 1v1 battles
67 voters
Single choice Closed 2017-12-29
This poll is closed.
Needed
65.7% 44 votes
Not needed
28.4% 19 votes
I don't care
6% 4 votes
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
Al Feyn
The idea might be mathematically correct, and even (if it's developed and the details are clearly defined), it wouldn't be difficult to program.
But the idea is fundamentally flawed because what is easy and simple for the computer will drive a regular player crazy, who just wants to relax after a hard day at work. This will result in a different timer for each battle. People need simpler solutions, not to sit and guess - how many seconds the timer calculated for each turn of the battle this time, twenty-seven or forty-three, and why. And God forbid, it miscalculated and instead of forty-three seconds, it calculated thirty-nine, and because of this, I didn't have time to make a move. :(
I would only introduce a time bank in Tournaments; why choose an opponent in fan games with whom you are not comfortable playing?!

This may seem cumbersome, but the point is that for the Lords, there will be a minimum timer for each template; in my example, this is 5 minutes and no less + the time for each round + emergency time, and for the Fortress, it will always be a minimum of 30-40 minutes or you need 2 hours to assess the situation to make the first move... I don't know.

The coefficient can be simplified even further - for example, if there is one unit of level 7, the coefficient is not 1, but 1.5 (one unit of level 7 = 3-4 units of level 6), the coefficient will increase if there are 5+ units of level 7 in the army, and the maximum coefficient will be 2-2.5, the largest coefficient should be assigned to parameters from 1 to 3(?), since losing all artifacts = gg in 99.99% of cases.
8 years ago
Auto-translated
The only thing I don't understand is why the poll is anonymous. It would be very interesting to see who voted for what.
In reply to LuckyF
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
LuckyF
What I don't understand is why the poll is anonymous? It would be very interesting to see who voted for what.

I agree. Just ban all the slowpokes who voted against, and the problem is solved:smile13:
In reply to LuckyF
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
LuckyF
What I don't understand is why the poll is anonymous. It would be very interesting to see who voted for what.
Rak created it:
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
I haven't personally encountered this issue, but I also haven't played that many games yet. However, I believe that if people are talking about this problem, it must exist. If it's implemented as an optional feature that can be turned on or off, I think it would satisfy all players.
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
I voted against it. Condemn it. The problem is contrived; in my almost 20 years of experience, there have only been a few instances where it annoyed me or my opponent.
User Avatar
8 years ago
Auto-translated
I'm in favor of the option, but not making it mandatory, and I still won't enable it against those I actively play with.

Statistics

Welcome our newest member: recijeb