tom wrote:

As in a chart of the board rating history for a board?

Yes, so that you can see the top rated boards over time.

M57 wrote:

I do not believe the host can leave a game once it has been joined by another player, even if it hasn't started.

In a RealTime game the host can Delete the game prior to start even if players have joined, I just double checked.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Request: Expiration time for flash game invitations

 

Usually when I setup a flash game I have a particular timeframe in which to play the game.  Once created, I'd like the option to set an expiration date on the invite after which the game would automatically be deleted.

 

Thanks,

ATH

In two-player games this feature should be unnecessary; in theory, you are pretty much at the computer (ready to play) right up until the moment you would prefer to terminate the invitation.  But in games with more than two players, players who join have to be willing to abide by the termination time (as does the host, who is not allowed to terminate games where other players have joined).  I'm guessing this will actually be preferred by some.

...

I assume ATH just wants this automated, so if not started in 1 hour then Delete that way he doesn't have to try and remember to Delete when he leaves. ...

Yes Yertle this is what I meant.  Open games with joined players would behave the same way since everybody expected to play within a particular timeframe after joining.

Example: I start a 3 player flash game at 9:00 PM and know I don't want to be up after midnight.  I would probably set the termination deadline at 10:00 PM, meaning that if the game had not started by 10:00 PM, it would automatically be deleted whether a second player had joined or not.  If the game had started before that time, play would be as normal and the deadline would be forgotten.

Seems like a good idea to me, I have added to the Feature list.

tom wrote:

Seems like a good idea to me, I have added to the Feature list.

I agree on the fact that it seems like a good idea. But it is not a good idea, according to me.

The good idea is to be able to be automatically out of a real-time game after a choosen hour. The bad idea is to delete the game automatically. Say the game you created was a 6 player one and 4 other players had joined it when the time you set is reached. Why should the game be deleted ? You should be withdrawned from it, that's it. So I believe every player joining a real-time game should be able to set a time for him only to be automatically withdrawned.

Toto wrote:

So I believe every player joining a real-time game should be able to set a time for him only to be automatically withdrawned.

This sounds logical, as long as we're still talking about at the Join phase of players being withdrawn.

The only slightly confusing part is the transferring of Host to another player.

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

So I believe every player joining a real-time game should be able to set a time for him only to be automatically withdrawned.

This sounds logical, as long as we're still talking about at the Join phase of players being withdrawn.

The only slightly confusing part is the transferring of Host to another player.

Of course we are talking about the Join phase.

I believe a host is not necessary.

I see 2 cases in which the game could be deleted :

- when everybody has withdrawn from it, even the host,

- when the game is still waiting for players x days after being created (the case of these 16 player RT games already mentioned in another thread, where almost everybody gets booted from the start).

It would be nice if the game would hold off on skipping your turn while you are actively taking it.

BlackDog wrote:

It would be nice if the game would hold off on skipping your turn while you are actively taking it.

"Actively taking it" could be tough to define, and overall could potentially be easily abused by taking 15-20+ long turns depending on how to define it.

Rematch option pretty please.

Would it be possible to add an option so that a territory can be classified as a capital city, but still allowing it to be included in random distribution?

Either make it an option where you set the unit minimums and maximums, or allow Empty to be an option instead of Player X or Neutral.

Toto wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

So I believe every player joining a real-time game should be able to set a time for him only to be automatically withdrawned.

This sounds logical, as long as we're still talking about at the Join phase of players being withdrawn.

The only slightly confusing part is the transferring of Host to another player.

Of course we are talking about the Join phase.

I believe a host is not necessary.

I see 2 cases in which the game could be deleted :

- when everybody has withdrawn from it, even the host,

- when the game is still waiting for players x days after being created (the case of these 16 player RT games already mentioned in another thread, where almost everybody gets booted from the start).

Toto's comment is a good adder; as long as the transfer of Host issue is not a problem then the automatic withdraw feature is a good one.  That way the other players who are interested could still pick up another player to fill the game.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Would it be possible to add an option so that a territory can be classified as a capital city, but still allowing it to be included in random distribution?

 

Either make it an option where you set the unit minimums and maximums, or allow Empty to be an option instead of Player X or Neutral.

I do think this could be cool, and could work with some layouts (ie there are a lot of randomly distributed capital cities), but there still is that potential mis-use (not unlike a lot of things though) of player 4 starts with 1 capital and is eliminated before his/her turn.

Ultimately though I still think it's a good request to put on the list.

I don't think the misuse would pass the review board.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Would it be possible to add an option so that a territory can be classified as a capital city, but still allowing it to be included in random distribution?

 

Either make it an option where you set the unit minimums and maximums, or allow Empty to be an option instead of Player X or Neutral.

+1

Especially if combined with an idea that was discussed earlier about being to randomly giving players a number of territories out of different groups.  For example you could randomly give each player a capital and also randomly give them some territories. 

But, just the basic thing Ed just asked for would be cool enough too.

Feature Request: Territory name links

The other day I was playing a game on an unfamiliar map and several ppl (including teammates) were mentioning territories by name that I found difficult to locate.  When a territory is mentioned by name in an in-game message, is there a way to link the territory to the map so it's obvious which territory it is? This would be easier than having to scroll over each territory to see the name.  I could envision a simple highlight of the territory.

Thanks,

ATH

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Feature Request: Territory name links

The other day I was playing a game on an unfamiliar map and several ppl (including teammates) were mentioning territories by name that I found difficult to locate.  When a territory is mentioned by name in an in-game message, is there a way to link the territory to the map so it's obvious which territory it is? This would be easier than having to scroll over each territory to see the name.  I could envision a simple highlight of the territory.

 

Thanks,

ATH

+1 - A table similar to the continent window would be nice and probably simpler to implement.

Alpha wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Feature Request: Territory name links

The other day I was playing a game on an unfamiliar map and several ppl (including teammates) were mentioning territories by name that I found difficult to locate.  When a territory is mentioned by name in an in-game message, is there a way to link the territory to the map so it's obvious which territory it is? This would be easier than having to scroll over each territory to see the name.  I could envision a simple highlight of the territory.

 

Thanks,

ATH

+1 - A table similar to the continent window would be nice and probably simpler to implement.

Ooooh, I love this idea!  ATH's sounds cool, but sounds harder and if the player misspelled the name or something then I would think it would break any potential link.  I like Alpha's table idea!

Yertle wrote:

Alpha wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Feature Request: Territory name links

The other day I was playing a game on an unfamiliar map and several ppl (including teammates) were mentioning territories by name that I found difficult to locate.  When a territory is mentioned by name in an in-game message, is there a way to link the territory to the map so it's obvious which territory it is? This would be easier than having to scroll over each territory to see the name.  I could envision a simple highlight of the territory.

 

Thanks,

ATH

+1 - A table similar to the continent window would be nice and probably simpler to implement.

Ooooh, I love this idea!  ATH's sounds cool, but sounds harder and if the player misspelled the name or something then I would think it would break any potential link.  I like Alpha's table idea!

I like the add.  The table idea would also be alphabetized for quick searching.  Brilliant!

Feature Request:

Didn't see this in the list already but is there a way to improve the Review Orders popup?  In games requiring a large number of moves (+30 line items) the popup is above and below the limits of my screen.  This means that I'm unable to click "Ok" and thus lock in any changes I make during the Review Orders phase.  Maybe an "Ok" at the top and bottom and/or resizing the popup and/or some other option that would make it work.

Thanks,

ATH