Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
From my personal experience in a multitude of alliances once the win is not achievable or severely hard graft to pull off half the alliance goes 'awol' this can be as early as tick 500 sometimes.
|
Keep in mind, even at tick 0 up to three quarters of the player base realistically have no chance of winning. I find it hard to believe that a significant fraction of these people care that much about winning. If they did, they would join Ultores, or Black Flag, or p3nguins, which are the only alliances who have won in the past 8 rounds. That's only 180 people. The remaining 520 people should not care if they were 10% behind, or 30% behind, or 50% behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
With your non human regulator of round length we could end up with a round that runs 8-9 weeks yet nothing happens conflict wise, those alliance could be napped and roid farming 3-6 alliances whilst staying within 10-15 mill of each other. Having a potential 800 ticks of dead game for the majority, along with a minimum downtime of 2 weeks would push over 1100 ticks inbetween some people's active play. That is not good no matter which way you slice it
|
I agree your scenario is possible, but it could go the other way, too. We could end up with a round that ends after 5 weeks, when one alliance has clearly won very early on and there's no real point in waiting out the remaining weeks. Or a round with 3 alliances within shouting distance of each other, each with their own cronies, fighting it out hardcore until week 8 or 9. The trick would be to pick a set of metrics such that these scenarios are more likely to play out than the type you sketch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Why not just havoc the final week.
|
You call it havoc, 90%(?) of the player base calls it downtime. You're basically suggesting making the round a week shorter. Patrikc has provided a solid reason not to do that.