Ending battles early

[kayitsiz 621]

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.

Yes it is looks good idea :) Game moderators can't watch all matches but can watch all long high rank matches.

 

But early end is best idea

[whooo-a 0]

I certainly prefer shorter games, so I wouldn't have a personal issue with limiting the length; at the same time if people want the long ones for some reasons I don't have a problem with letting them have it. But if they get really unbalanced the losing team will quit, and no one will join on the now near-empty losing side, so having a way to get out of it without sacrificing all the crystals would be nice.

 

The vote to terminate idea is ripe for abuse and mults - the best way would be to have a system that automatically recognizes an unbalanced game and ends it.

 

Another option would be to allow team members to cash out their crystals and change sides - maybe that would also cause abuse, but if one team is lacking people someone could switch to make it more fair, but currently doing so would require sacrificing all they've earned. Obviously you could only switch to the side that is (1) losing and (2) has fewer people; otherwise there would be tons of abuse. 

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Even if the plan was to be accepted, it would require a penalty.  Leave early and loose 50% of points or some other penalty or just leave and loose the lot as we now have it..  Some players may initially enter games not realizing it might take unlimited time because on some days it is difficult to get a game so they just jump in without checking.  On the other hand, their is a real potential to earn huge winnings, so why should the game end earlier just because they scared off every one.  We all know that players start leaving every time a glitch takes place.  A team fully kitted and drugged, a Clan perhaps would exploit this plan and end up winning massive points because they slaughtered the opponents early.  Once the bulk of players have left, usually after a short time, so does everyone else.  I am not surprised that the odd time a player just stays on and hangs about without competing.  They may have been playing literally hours why should they loose all their points, reduced as they will be.  It is no any fun at all having armies camped at all your spawning places to kill you as soon as you materialize.  This is in fact one of the uglier parts of the game, the hounding of a single or last couple of players.

[Promissory 569]

Short battles are the easier way to make fast crystals. Long battles, are very risky, specially at lieutenant ranks, ca6s some kit buyer can com and takeover.

[dilsharox 2,395]

this is why i dont play in battles like these 

[spino.ska 19]

I’d like to use this old thread to propose an idea against saboteurs in CTF battles. It happens too many times that, when a CTF battle is left by all the members of the losing team, there is a saboteur in the winning team who gets the flag and stall the game, preventing to capture remaining flags to end the battle and collect funds.

 

Well, this is really annoying. Yesterday in stadium I had to change team to kill the saboteur.

 

Elizabeth already suggested to have mandatory time limit. I agree, but it could not be enough.

That’s why I had this idea:

 

---

IF a CTF battle has a score of AT LEAST 1 flag captured by any team (i.e., 1:0 or 0:1)

AND

IF one team is left empty (ALL players leave)

 

THEN

 

The battle will automatically end after 30 seconds (or less / more, for instance depending on map size or battle score), unless someone captures a flag. In that case, the 30 sec countdown is restarted, and so on.

---

 

PRO:

Saboteurs will no longer annoy you: the battle will eventually end.

If there is no saboteur, it is up to the winning team to decide whether keeping on capturing or just waiting the timer to end.

A battle with a score like 70:15 with 100 flag limit, will not take forever to end (especially in huge maps).

 

CONS:

Nothing comes to my mind.

 

Note:

I honestly don’t know if this idea can affect RAIDERS behavior. I think that players in a battle with huge fund hardly will all leave even if they are in the losing team. This idea is just against saboteurs.

 

What do you think?

[magnaboy2 656]

SAW ON TEST,pics from a friend,with limited time battles,and you have to put a limit if not pro game :c

[Eragon 13,876]

Agreed. Their should be a vote system, once more then half voted then a special time limit will be implemented, if for that time no players come the battle will end.