Can a game admin end game 1944508? There are 4 remaining actives and we are deadlocked. All agree we can end it at the current rankings.
Only three players may retire a map. If you do not want to fight it out, one player must then get the VP needed for the map to end, or one player (usually chosen as the player with the least VP, or smallest chance of getting out of a clash of the titans alive) can go inactive in order to let the remaining three end the map.
I was in another game where an admin agreed to end it for us if we all agree in the newspaper. Is this a new policy?
Never was policy for us to end maps. We began to do it for some time, until Bytro decided about allowing 100p (and now other large maps) to have different retiring standards. Given Bytro has kept retirement standard at 3 for all maps, we have ceased from ending games for players, and suggest the map be retired the proper way (three players voting to retire), instead.
After actually thinking about it, the Powers That Be decided that only three players can be survivors at the end of a 100-player world map?WiseOdin wrote:
Given Bytro has kept retirement standard at 3 for all map . . . .
Seriously?
Yup, that is what it always has been.
In an upcoming coalition rework we will introduce coalition victories however, granting the ability to win to more players.
Good. That's really what needs to happen.freezy wrote:
In an upcoming coalition rework we will introduce coalition victories however, granting the ability to win to more players.
When do you suppose ending a game based on coalition will be an option.
Since a couple months agobgbdbear99 wrote:
When do you suppose ending a game based on coalition will be an option.
Please log in to post a reply.
