This topic is about games that will never end unless players surrender or being booted when nobody is winning.
In this kind of games you cannot attack and you don't recieve any income
For example: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9029943
I blacklisted the maker of the game and report him to warlight

It is my own fold I joined this kind of stupid games, but warlight could modify the settings that this kind of games cannot be created. For example, each player should have at least 1 income in total in the beginning of each game.


What do you think? should Warlight allow to exist these kinds of games or should it be forbidden?

It was made by Sun God, what did you expect? Everyone has blacklisted him!

Wait, .. ? Willem you have said once that you hated lottery games ? It was even in your tagline.

Betrapt!

Edited 7/6/2015 21:17:36

I remember, when I asked sarcastically and in real terms to create a filter where I can blacklist every player ever joined, created, played lottery game.

Its custom scenario! Why people do not want to accept these are not meant to be equal, under traditional game rules. Most custom scenarios found in Open multi or real time game-rooms are rigged. So why bother?

There is no point reporting a player who according to rules created game-settings? If we want to get rid of those, then we must presuade Fizzer to ban Lottery games and create set of rules for custom game-player or simply for those who are afraid of their stats to make every custom game un-ranked - sheep mode.

Its simply a question of dealing with outcome or source of problem. I believe its rather time consuming to ban every forum troll, rigged game creator-template etc, rather to add moderator-channels to game and forum for newcomers and for those who are simply immature ("kindergarden channel"), and ban certain game-styles as lottery - if you want to have statistics to show someones real skill not 90% winning in 1vs1 or whatever style by lottery - rigged games.

+0,1 to Benjamin for giving advice to create Fizzer a Headache, because you might have given someone an a idea!

Edited 7/6/2015 21:10:24

True.

Edited 7/6/2015 21:18:43

Banning people from having 0 income is not the way around this. There are actually a couple of very useful things you can do with having people make 0 income.

@ OxTheArtist

I agree. I would be dissapointed if that would be eliminated. I have not yet played 0-income. But played and created few with 1-2 income maps. Those are interesting for me, as every army counts and critically. The key point is to figure out when and what to attack as losing 1-2 armies more than your opponent in first 2 moves might determine the outcome. For me this is more strategical than the basic 5 income, where ususally in Rome map second turn most get +2 +3 more and most moves go without much of thinking as losing armies in scale of 1-3 does not determine much. Of course its different depending on with whom to play.

In general playing low base income (around 0-3), with for example a slight bigger starting army (7 to 11) creates much more interesting game-modes. As army transfer forth-and back in first turns and either to attack, stack, defend gets more calculated! And playing without fog would even add more calculated game-play!

Just my thoughts, why I need, small and even 0 income for!

It should not be allowed to create games with 0 income and 0 starting armies

I disagree. Could still start with reinforcements.

Besides, there is no need to limit settings. If someone is stupid enough to join such a game it is completely on them

First some things clear, the game is not a lottery game, it is a lottery map.
A lottery game is a game which can be won by having a lucky attack to gain a huge bonus. In my game that was not possible, it was furtermore not filtered by the lottery filter.

0 base income could be interested, but with 1 starting army and no income, no bonus and no cards it is impossible to play a game.

Or you could do what Cartoon Network does with their "Game Creator" games- just require users to test the level to see if it's winnable. Maybe just replace the players with AIs and see if the game ever finishes; if it does, then the template gets approved.

Yes 'Sun God' is one of the names everyone should have in their blacklist.

personally, I think that custom games should follow ai game rules.. and be practice only.
simply because they are not in any way set to be balanced games...
the creator can make it a balanced game.. but that's purely at the creators discretion.. while non-custom games each player has the same chance at the same start, so it's balanced enough to be allowed to count.

I agree, I'm honestly surprised Custom Senarios are not all practise games.

^ Wouldn't be too hard to circumvent if you're a map maker.