.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)
-   -   The Artifacts Game - [ HOLY S**T MICAH WON!! ] (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=39778)

quantum_mechani March 26th, 2009 12:52 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Actually, I added 24 hours... the hosting schedule was mixed up with the last llamasever glitch and it was on 48 hours.

calmon March 26th, 2009 03:13 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Thanks, i really didn't notice it :).

WraithLord March 26th, 2009 07:13 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Hi, I'm back from my vacation and will take over Caelum again.

Thank you so much Calmon for subbing for me.

WraithLord March 28th, 2009 04:41 AM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Are we still on 72h?

I'm sorry guys but for me this is way too short a turnaround for that late in the game. I find it too stressing. Considering that there's always some reason for delay and that actual turn around is closer to 4-5 days I don't see why we should stick with 72h.
Anyway, as I was saying, for me its too stressing. I'm afraid that unless its changed I'll have no choice but to bow out of this game.

Had I known this game won't accommodate the turnaround according to game progress (like most MP games) I'd have passed from the first place. So IMO this is something worth mentioning in the first post of the game thread so that players be aware of that from the beginning.

Amhazair March 28th, 2009 06:50 AM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Well, while my personal preference would be to try and keep it at 72h - while granting extensions when necessary - to try and keep the game moving a little bit, I've also allways been of the opinion that if the pace is to fast for some, then it should be slowed. So, bottom line, if WL feels he can't keep up with 72h, I'll back him.

Micah March 28th, 2009 12:48 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Above is seconded.

quantum_mechani March 28th, 2009 06:35 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord (Post 682652)
Are we still on 72h?

Had I known this game won't accommodate the turnaround according to game progress (like most MP games) I'd have passed from the first place. So IMO this is something worth mentioning in the first post of the game thread so that players be aware of that from the beginning.

Well, obviously the hosting has progressed as the game has progressed, if people are ready to take it up the next notch to 96 hours that's ok with me.

Lingchih March 28th, 2009 08:41 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
No, I cannot agree to 96 hour. That level of hosting time is never agreeable to me. 72 hour is the max.

I'm sorry if you must bow out because of this Wraith. But then, you are really not much of a factor in this game anyway. Right?

WraithLord March 28th, 2009 09:24 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
Well as the 3rd in the majority of the scores I wouldn't quite put it that way.
Yes, clearly Mari and Bogarus are the leading nations but that does mean I'm not at all a factor in the game. Besides I'd venture I'm much more of a factor in this game than you are :)

As the majority of the players support my request I don't see why I should bow out of the game b/c of your preference. I find your insistence strange and inconsiderate, had 72h been that important to you why didn't you rail at all the delays the game for so many turns now.

Bottom line - If 72h stays then I'm out.
I'll let QM take the final call on this one.

quantum_mechani March 28th, 2009 09:59 PM

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 
I do believe Lingchih was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. In any case, I have already set it to 96h.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.