What the nil are you talking about? Sometimes, I really wish you spoke english instead of Daganevian Needing to win four rounds to win the village means (hmm, let's see, this is a hard one....) that one side needs to win FOUR rounds to win the village. Not two. Not three. FOUR (Four is the number that is one more than three, which is in turn one more than two, in case it means something different in Daganevian).

So, because ONE side needs to win FOUR times to win the village, there are at least FOUR rounds of influencing. Since there are four organizations that compete in influencing, this means that the maximum number of rounds is 4+3+3+3 = thirteen, in a worst case scenario, and about eight in the average case, since the org that is dominant in a village tends to control it half the time.

Whoah, ok... thats even worse... I didn't realize you were completely removing Mirk's idea in your suggestion.

So you have 4 rounds of unknown amounts of time, assuming there is a clear winner each round.... Again, this means that Team A can win 3 rounds, Team B win 3 rounds, Team C win 3 rounds (thats 1 hour and a half (at 10 min) of influencing... and then Team D comes in, and wins 4 (40 minutes) and wins the village. (which again is what Xenthos complained about). If your going to say you have to win 4 rounds AND if there are ties then the team D can't win... That makes it even worse, because Team A and win 3 round and Team B win 3 rounds, and then Team C and Team D can win 500 rounds after that, and nobody will get the village.

Nothing I said removed a thing that Mirk said. All I proposed was ending the influence when one team had enough wins to win, rather than keeping it going for Mirk's proposed duration, even though one team had already won and the other teams couldn't do a thing about it after that point.



Once again, you didn't read a word I wrote, did you? If winning FOUR rounds won the village, then team D wining 500 rounds would have won the village after the FOURth round. That's what FOUR means.

...

Will do

And obviously Daganev didn't read that part...
But either way, I said a set amount of time, unless there was a tie, in which case there would be extra rounds until the tie is broken. I can see where there would be a problem where if org a and org b are tied, and then org c comes in and wins all the rounds after, making it last a lot longer than it should.
So to revise that, until there is a clear winner, the influence will continue, making it last only little longer, and any org can win.
Or maybe the other orgs that arent tied villager score won't be counted, and only orgs a and b can win said round?

*boggle*

I think you, my friend, are the one who is not reading. Or maybe its just that the concept of simplicity is too complicated for you.

I tried very hard to explain to you, why you were suggesting two contradictory ideas in one suggestion, but if your going to accuse me of just shouting "OMG UR STOOPID !!!!1!1", then I might as well have done that from the begining.

OMG UR STOOPID !!!!1!1 .. There, now you can say I ignored what you wrote.

Just to explain it to you further...

Simple means that the idea is very basic, and you don't need to explain all these conditions.

The fact that your suggestion has the words such as "untill", "unless", and requires the use of terms like "Org A" and "org B", and requires any explanation at all, means that your idea is no longer simple.

The concept of a time limit, is that TIME is the limiting factor on who wins. Not, equations that require many IFs and THENs.

but in essence, it is simple, in most aspects, but there is an overtime-like quality to it like most sports do. Take, for instance, basketball. If the teams are tied in the end, does it just stop? No, they go into overtime, in which at the end of it, the person with the highest score wins. If it's still a tie, they keep on playing. Is that overly complicated? No. Does using that for something else make it complicated? No.

Out of curiousity, have you ever played Puzzle Pirates? In it they have a blockade system to capture an island. They have boats go out and try to control the area that has a flag. At the end of the round, the people with the most flags gets a point. The group with the most points after a certain amount of rounds gets the island. If there is a tie, I believe they continue on until the tie is broken.

For our purposes, change flags to villagers, blockade to revolt, and island to village, and remove anything else that doesn't carry over from there to here.

This is meant to prevent revolts from taking only ten minutes, to 10 hours, like you are mentioning. It's meant to guarantee that a revolt will only last x amount of minutes. Kind of like basketball isn't guaranteed to last only four quarters, or baseball nine innings.

AND UNTIL NOW, I NEVER SAID IT WOULD BE SIMPLE
(and my idea, by my standards, is simple.)

The part he was emphasizing was that we were welcome to suggest ideas which Shorlen did. Not that we're calling him "STOOPID."

I personally rather like Shorlen's idea. It may not be as simple as Mirk's but it makes a little more sense than village revolts lasting a set amount of time.

what he said, I was just being lazy and quoting that whole section, which was meant more for the "please suggest ideas to make it work better, or your own ideas instead of just critisizing my idea", not the OMG UR STOOPID" part

And there's something else I'd like to say, but after thinking about it, it's probably a personal attack.

Overtime works great, when you know the score, and know that your in overtime and so can plan accordingly. I think it is merely frustrating when you don't know your in overtime, and you don't know how much longer overtime is lasting.


There is another thread talking about ideas that are not simple... thats the title of the thread, I sort of assumed you were talking about simple ideas.

Perhaps you didn't read my suggestion which said.. Keep it simple, just have a time limit. I don't have any other suggestions than to say that making the system simple, is a good idea, and keeping it simple is an even better idea.

KISS

Since you brought up baseball.. just last week I believe there was a 26 inning game.

but revolt's arent baseball, in a revolt someone is guaranteed a point, which will cause it to end long before it would become rediculously long. Baseball can be scoreless FOREVER (or both teams could score the same for just as long) because no team is guaranteed to pull ahead at some point in time.

And if I kept it to just a simple time limit, a group could decide to come in late intentionally, and still win.

Also, are all things always fun if there isn't any variation to them what so ever?

must...resist...urge...to...say...what...I...want...

Games are played very differently when you know the score vs when you don't know the score.

Take for example the concept of the 2 min. warning.

You don't know the score in Village revolts untill the end of the game, and even that you only know who won, and not by how much.

And that's what keeps people competing the whole time, instead of only coming in at a given time.