Tunder's Anti-Leaving System

Ok many topics have gone over this current issue, but many of them fail in the following category:

1.- can be abused
2.- can be bypass
3.- death topic

whats different in this suggestion?

Well, as a matter of fact i just come up with a formula that will determine the right penalty for players that quit and it can't be bypassed or abused.

Such wonderful idea is simple and cheap as oxygen:

1.- To enter a game you must pay a fee of X amount of SP.
2.- first player to quit will lose the sp he pay to enter multiplied by the number of players inside the game. [only works from turn 1-3]
3.- after turn 3 a player that quits will only lose the fee they paid to join.
4.- everyone gets the SP they paid to join after reaching turn 10 or 10% of the players in the match quit. [example: 20 world game only allows players to quit until 2 people quit]

Though SP can go into negatives, I don't think it'd be a good plan to pay SP to play a game. Specially for a game with a low amount of players, test games, 1vs1, 3vs3's etc.

Wouldn't it be better to penalize future SP instead? Say for a game that is over 12 players, if you leave before the spawn week, on weeks 1-4, your SP rate is lowered by 20% for the next 500 SP. So you only get 400 SP from the next 500(ingame) you get, and then it returns to a normal SP rate. Wouldn't suggest higher rates, or for a longer SP period, low ranks need that SP. Only have this in the main room as well, not beginners. Also don't have this on any game with lower than 12 players, only for the big scenarios or world games. (ones you want people to stay in)

Otherwise, no thanks.

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 19:16

Problems:


What if the game ends before turn 10? Then people are out sp

Someone just joins AW... they have no Sp... so they cannot join a game to make sp....

Someone spends all their sp on upgrades.. they have no sp... they cannot play any games then...

is impossible for a game to end within 9 turns without at least 1 person losing [in a 3 vs 3 people are worth "1/6" > "1/5" = "2/10" = 20%, therefore 1/6 > 20%, there is no such thing as people getting out without sp.

this could be disable like "no upgrades/extra cities options" therefore players without sp can join normal matches [no one in mainroom lets a rank 0 play in a scenario anyways].

people don't just spend all of their sp on upgrades, take in mind that the fee could be from 1 to 1k, and even if they don't have such sp, they could play other games that don't require a fee and get such sp.


therefore all of your arguments are invalid.

Napísal Desu, 27.08.2013 at 19:37

Though SP can go into negatives, I don't think it'd be a good plan to pay SP to play a game. Specially for a game with a low amount of players, test games, 1vs1, 3vs3's etc.

Wouldn't it be better to penalize future SP instead? Say for a game that is over 12 players, if you leave before the spawn week, on weeks 1-4, your SP rate is lowered by 20% for the next 500 SP. So you only get 400 SP from the next 500(ingame) you get, and then it returns to a normal SP rate. Wouldn't suggest higher rates, or for a longer SP period, low ranks need that SP. Only have this in the main room as well, not beginners. Also don't have this on any game with lower than 12 players, only for the big scenarios or world games. (ones you want people to stay in)

Otherwise, no thanks.

you are a competitive player and have no experience on hosting scenarios, thanks god i am here to help you understand that this idea will not affect 1v1 or 3v3 games, it can actually help them, look: 1/6 = 16%.

it only takes 1 player to quit, and such player will not die within 3 right? therefore he will only lose his sp.
but the good thing is that you could choose to reduce the fee to 1, therefore 1 x 6 = 6 sp penalty.

since this is optional, it will help casual players and it will not bother you or any other competitive player. Nevertheless you could ask for small fees, and the host of a big scenario can ask more sp [ex: 100].

Napísal Tundy, 27.08.2013 at 19:50

Napísal Desu, 27.08.2013 at 19:37

Though SP can go into negatives, I don't think it'd be a good plan to pay SP to play a game. Specially for a game with a low amount of players, test games, 1vs1, 3vs3's etc.

Wouldn't it be better to penalize future SP instead? Say for a game that is over 12 players, if you leave before the spawn week, on weeks 1-4, your SP rate is lowered by 20% for the next 500 SP. So you only get 400 SP from the next 500(ingame) you get, and then it returns to a normal SP rate. Wouldn't suggest higher rates, or for a longer SP period, low ranks need that SP. Only have this in the main room as well, not beginners. Also don't have this on any game with lower than 12 players, only for the big scenarios or world games. (ones you want people to stay in)

Otherwise, no thanks.

you are a competitive player and have no experience on hosting scenarios, thanks god i am here to help you understand that this idea will not affect 1v1 or 3v3 games, it can actually help them, look: 1/6 = 16%.

it only takes 1 player to quit, and such player will not die within 3 right? therefore he will only lose his sp.
but the good thing is that you could choose to reduce the fee to 1, therefore 1 x 6 = 6 sp penalty.

since this is optional, it will help casual players and it will not bother you or any other competitive player. Nevertheless you could ask for small fees, and the host of a big scenario can ask more sp [ex: 100].

Thank god I also have 20 different player's passwords and about the same amount of alts. Your ad hominem is looking at my profile. That's only one layer of a player. I don't host the games but I've joined a few WWII's and trolled/rogue'd a couple of UN games on other accounts. Now with that out of the way..

I don't mind your calculations, it actually makes sense. However I'm only against paying SP to play a game, which is why I suggested using future SP as a penalty. Nothing else.

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 20:22

Napísal Tundy, 27.08.2013 at 19:37

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 19:16

Problems:


What if the game ends before turn 10? Then people are out sp

Someone just joins AW... they have no Sp... so they cannot join a game to make sp....

Someone spends all their sp on upgrades.. they have no sp... they cannot play any games then...

is impossible for a game to end within 9 turns without at least 1 person losing [in a 3 vs 3 people are worth "1/6" > "1/5" = "2/10" = 20%, therefore 1/6 > 20%, there is no such thing as people getting out without sp.

this could be disable like "no upgrades/extra cities options" therefore players without sp can join normal matches [no one in mainroom lets a rank 0 play in a scenario anyways].

people don't just spend all of their sp on upgrades, take in mind that the fee could be from 1 to 1k, and even if they don't have such sp, they could play other games that don't require a fee and get such sp.


therefore all of your arguments are invalid.

3. what if a player loses before "after turn 3"? It happens

No it is entirely possible for a game to end before turn 10 without anyone losing, and it take sat least 2 people to lose in a 20 player game to reach 10%.

adding an option to turn the entire system on and off for games defeats the whole purpose of the system as well.

Also how would this system address people with alts? And i don't think people care about such low amounts of sp as well. When would the sp be taken from a player as well? what about people who have a problem like the power going out and leaving is out of there control?

I am pointing out flaws and asking how you ail address them

1.- you can't attack until turn 2, and you must destroy wall, then turn 3 is very hard for someone to cap you, even if they do, it will take until turn 6 for you to lose, therefore you can either quit or surrender since there is no excuse to your defeat.
2.- is impossible to ally-end by turn 9 without killing someone in the process, that just defeats the purpose of playing atwar.
3.- is easy to kill 2 people in a 20 player game, even there you could just wait until turn 10.
4.- is optional because there is some fags like you that like to complain for everything they fail to understand.
5.- the alt will get a sp penalty.
6.- low amount of sp? you where just complaining about people not having sp to spare!!!!!!!!!!!!, even then you could set up a 500 sp fee (500 x 20 = 10k sp lost)
7.- if people lose connection turn 1 and fail to reconnect by turn 3 they deserve to be punish and therefore be affected by 1th turn quit, if they go afk in turn 2 they will only lose a small amount of sp.
8.- i don't think that anyone is such a no-lifer to the point of staying in their house if it is on fire just for 500 sp.

at this point you are one of the following:

A) you either butthurt
B) not have anything better to do
C) just like to argue with people because you are alone.

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 20:55

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 20:22

Napísal Tundy, 27.08.2013 at 19:37

Napísal Guest, 27.08.2013 at 19:16

1.- you can't attack until turn 2, and you must destroy wall, then turn 3 is very hard for someone to cap you, even if they do, it will take until turn 6 for you to lose, therefore you can either quit or surrender since there is no excuse to your defeat.
2.- is impossible to ally-end by turn 9 without killing someone in the process, that just defeats the purpose of playing atwar.
3.- is easy to kill 2 people in a 20 player game, even there you could just wait until turn 10.
4.- is optional because there is some fags like you that like to complain for everything they fail to understand.
5.- the alt will get a sp penalty.
6.- low amount of sp? you where just complaining about people not having sp to spare!!!!!!!!!!!!, even then you could set up a 500 sp fee (500 x 20 = 10k sp lost)
7.- if people lose connection turn 1 and fail to reconnect by turn 3 they deserve to be punish and therefore be affected by 1th turn quit, if they go afk in turn 2 they will only lose a small amount of sp.
8.- i don't think that anyone is such a no-lifer to the point of staying in their house if it is on fire just for 500 sp.

at this point you are one of the following:

A) you either butthurt
B) not have anything better to do
C) just like to argue with people because you are alone.

Seems more like your the butthurt one trying to argue hue :3






o7

You are not fooling anyone here terminal, we all know you are gay, and you know what happens to gay people in russia.