1.- To enter a game you must pay a fee of X amount of SP.
(Determined by the host)
(Host pays no fee)
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 recovers the SP 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]
(Host should be allow to adjust if he wishes to make this happen early than turn 10)
5.- if the host quits, everybody else is allowed to quit without penalty.
Nah many would disagree because they would most likely lose much sp.Not every player can play entire game,some of them have to go or have to do some unfinished jobs.
Nah many would disagree because they would most likely lose much sp.Not every player can play entire game,some of them have to go or have to do some unfinished jobs.
Why would you join a game, if you are gonna quit turn 3... That literally ruins the game for other 19 people that have been waiting like 10 minutes to get the game full.
Nah many would disagree because they would most likely lose much sp.Not every player can play entire game,some of them have to go or have to do some unfinished jobs.
Why would you join a game, if you are gonna quit turn 3... That literally ruins the game for other 19 people that have been waiting like 10 minutes to get the game full.
To motivate people to stay longer, have a bit of bonus SP for playing a long time.
Yeah don't punish players, just reward them better for sticking around instead.
well dude it wont be good, lets say u started a scenario(10 to 20P) u wait about 30min in a harsh day then suddenly a dude decides to go and like most of the times the others leave as-well and opps here's go an eternity of waiting just because an idiot decides to screw things up so i really support this idea(btw that shit happened to me now over about hundreds of time =.=)
----
http://prntscr.com/811q8m
載入中...
載入中...
Black Shark 帳戶已刪除
19.04.2014 - 01:20
Black Shark 帳戶已刪除
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if they tried to ally those people, but they deny it? This is a very bad idea.
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if they tried to ally those people, but they deny it? This is a very bad idea.
you understand this is most likely gonna be used in team games? like ww2.
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if they tried to ally those people, but they deny it? This is a very bad idea.
you understand this is most likely gonna be used in team games? like ww2.
idk about team games. What if a host is a idiot enough to let a rank 4 play as Germany? No one would play that game, but because of the host who loses no SP they lose some SP.
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if they tried to ally those people, but they deny it? This is a very bad idea.
you understand this is most likely gonna be used in team games? like ww2.
idk about team games. What if a host is a idiot enough to let a rank 4 play as Germany? No one would play that game, but because of the host who loses no SP they lose some SP.
only noobs host a ww2 without rank 5+ requirement.
What if someone WFs a person, that person sees hope is lost and leaves the game. It's not his fault he got WFd and has no hope, but he still loses SP.
first of all: if you get wf, it doesn't mean you lose. in my times people where capable of capping you turn 1.
and this idea is more for scenarios.
I also played during that Afterwind mate. But not everyone knows how to win when they get WF.
Oh and, what if someone gets gangbanged unfairly?
why should i care? thats their lack of diplomacy, when somebody plays scenarios they should be aware that this may happen, what i do is to tell people that i will peace them, and then turn 3 i don't honor my statement ;3
What if they tried to ally those people, but they deny it? This is a very bad idea.
you understand this is most likely gonna be used in team games? like ww2.
idk about team games. What if a host is a idiot enough to let a rank 4 play as Germany? No one would play that game, but because of the host who loses no SP they lose some SP.
only noobs host a ww2 without rank 5+ requirement.
But then all scenarios will have to have a 5+ requirment. And would take EVEN slower to make. People may not wanna risk SP and only host, host and host.
