Ending battles early

[whooo-a 0]

I'm currently in a battle to 100 flags, with a score of 67-8. There are no defenders, nothing left to gain, but we have to get to 100 flags to get the battle fund. To make matters worst, there's one player who grabs the flag and refuses to capture (presumably because he wants all the battle fund). We've reported him but no one has come. 

 

There should be a way to end this battle early. Maybe if there are no opponents for 5 minutes the battle should end as it is? 

[MarineMan2 1,164]

I'm currently in a battle to 100 flags, with a score of 67-8. There are no defenders, nothing left to gain, but we have to get to 100 flags to get the battle fund. To make matters worst, there's one player who grabs the flag and refuses to capture (presumably because he wants all the battle fund). We've reported him but no one has come. 

 

There should be a way to end this battle early. Maybe if there are no opponents for 5 minutes the battle should end as it is? 

Hmm, nice idea, I like the direction it is going in.

 

Though to address your issue with the mult. If you ever are presented with a scenario such as that, record a video for at least five minutes and no longer than twenty and post it in this section: Game violators. If you do not know how to record a video or what software to use go here: How to make a video | How to post a video.

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

Why not limit maximum length of a battle to begin with?

[Thekillerpenguin 1,731]

Why not limit maximum length of a battle to begin with?

^

 

If you decide to set no time limit, you have to deal with the possibility of everybody leaving and you not being able to get the crystals one way or the other. This is why I think that almost all battles should have some sort of a time limit.

[Pathfinder 1,690]

Maybe a vote option where if there is a majority, then battle will end? Though maybe that's open to abosu I don't know..

 

I think there could be an option that if no one is killed, no one self destructs etc then game will end after 5 minutes?

[Meowmix56 174]

Why not limit maximum length of a battle to begin with?

It sucks but for whatever reason people seem to like long games, then the game dies a third of the way through.  I can't justify it.  You are at risk for raiders, multis, getting a phone call, having to be somewhere in the next six hours.  Can anyone explain the appeal?

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

Can anyone explain the appeal?

Let me guess... bigger fund? Bigger seem to be better, lol. It actually doesn't matter if you play 4 short 15 minutes games or 1 long 60 minutes game, you still get the same number of crystals in the end, but people loves bigger numbers. Even to the point of risking losing it to raiders and such.

[kayitsiz 621]

Let me guess... bigger fund? Bigger seem to be better, lol. It actually doesn't matter if you play 4 short 15 minutes games or 1 long 60 minutes game, you still get the same number of crystals in the end, but people loves bigger numbers. Even to the point of risking losing it to raiders and such.

İ don't agree you. İn long matches much players leave and at last players get much more crystal. But in 15 minute players rarely leave.

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

İ don't agree you. İn long matches much players leave and at last players get much more crystal. But in 15 minute players rarely leave.

Is that fair?

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Is that fair?

It is, instead of playing 1 100 minute game and possibly lose the fund all together, you can play 5 20 minute games and get almost the same crystals, but with a less chance of losing all the time, effort and possibly drugs on a longer game.

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

It is, instead of playing 1 100 minute game and possibly lose the fund all together, you can play 5 20 minute games and get almost the same crystals, but with a less chance of losing all the time, effort and possibly drugs on a longer game.

So, long battles making it worse. I see..

[lordmostafa 3,821]

So, long battles making it worse. I see..

I didn't mean it like that :D

 

I mean, if you play a really long game, lets say 200 minutes, and about half way there all the other side left (because they are losing badly), so you have 100 minute to wait and the fund is really high (with all Generalissimos it is very high), by then, you have spent time and drugs for nothing, or will you wait 100 more minutes for the fund? And no one will join the game. But, if you played, let's say, 10 20 minute games (same players same map etc), you will have much more less chance of losing the fund, because it is only 20 minutes, players will rejoin since they wont have much to lose, and the game will continues, so his suggestion makes since if you think of it that way.

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

I didn't mean it like that :D

 

I mean, if you play a really long game, lets say 200 minutes, and about half way there all the other side left (because they are losing badly), so you have 100 minute to wait and the fund is really high (with all Generalissimos it is very high), by then, you have spent time and drugs for nothing, or will you wait 100 more minutes for the fund? And no one will join the game. But, if you played, let's say, 10 20 minute games (same players same map etc), you will have much more less chance of losing the fund, because it is only 20 minutes, players will rejoin since they wont have much to lose, and the game will continues, so his suggestion makes since if you think of it that way.

Yeah, I know. Still, it doesn't make sense to me why should elaborate system be created if you can achieve same results by limiting battle life-time.

[Ilia.ArchangeI 6,785]

It is, instead of playing 1 100 minute game and possibly lose the fund all together, you can play 5 20 minute games and get almost the same crystals, but with a less chance of losing all the time, effort and possibly drugs on a longer game.

Not necessarily, look at it this way:

 

A long battle increases your chances of separating yourself score-wise from the rest of the team. If your score is significantly higher, you also get a higher fund percentage. Short battles don't allow you to do that, not to the extent at least.

 

Long battles also increase the chances of other players leaving because they have some emergency, they get bored, they didn't notice it was so long and don't have time, etc. Also increases your winnings. 

 

In this case if you are a committed and skilled player with a lot of time on your hands, you will win significantly more at the end of a long battle than the total of five short ones.

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

In this case if you are a committed and skilled player with a lot of time on your hands, you will win significantly more at the end of a long battle than the total of five short ones.

Or you will be raided in last hour and you will lose both crystals and time.

[Ilia.ArchangeI 6,785]

Or you will be raided in last hour and you will lose both crystals and time.

Also a sad risk to consider.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Or you will be raided in last hour and you will lose both crystals and time.

Or it is a TDM and you wont be able to finish the game if it has no time limit, other player will not rejoin, because the team they are joining is losing badly.

 

IMO, short battles are safer and more balanced.

[Truthteller 4,204]

What does IMO stand for

[Opex-Rah 5,385]

...IMO, short battles are safer and more balanced.

Which brings us to the point of the next significant update ^_^

Let's hope we got some news ready for you in V-LOG 17 :D

[Truthteller 4,204]

I mostly play 15 min battle cause I always get crys

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Which brings us to the point of the next significant update ^_^

Let's hope we got some news ready for you in V-LOG 17 :D

Ohhhhhhh, I know which one that is :D

Keep up guys!

I am waiting for that long range you promised!

 

What does IMO stand for

IMO = In My Opinion.

[lnstantly 1,020]

Which brings us to the point of the next significant update ^_^

Let's hope we got some news ready for you in V-LOG 17 :D

XP battle format option? ^_^

[Dragonfire237 4]

I'm currently in a battle to 100 flags, with a score of 67-8. There are no defenders, nothing left to gain, but we have to get to 100 flags to get the battle fund. To make matters worst, there's one player who grabs the flag and refuses to capture (presumably because he wants all the battle fund). We've reported him but no one has come. 

 

There should be a way to end this battle early. Maybe if there are no opponents for 5 minutes the battle should end as it is? 

you know you could get a lot of your team members and push him to so he an self destruct and you guys could get the flag or if it is a closed arena then just get a faster hull to get it so if he accidently drops the flag. Make a deal with him but your idea is nice.

[kayitsiz 621]

Is that fair?

Definitely not! İ hate this!! But it is true  :(  :angry:  :(  :angry:

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Perhaps all battles should have mandatory time limits.  The very long or games that require huge amounts of flags/points, should have a maximum permitted time.  The games with very long or endless time limits are those that attract the most hangers on, Crystal Harvesters, Gold Box Hunters, MULTS, Saboteurs, Viking Hoard Invaders,Vandals, Clans and other game ruing opportunists.  If the authorities set much smaller maximum time limits or the longer games where watched over more closely by Game Moderators, it would be much so better for the rest of us.