Should game settings only be changed when 100% players agree?

Written by Goblin, 10.03.2014 at 05:35

if one player doesnt want game options to be changed, it would be in 99% cases because others want to screw him over.

The man has spoken.

Maybe this is an instance where we should give the game host final say. After all, he's/she's the one who set the rules in the first place. Maybe you could even add a player poll rating system for game hosts as well, that way people who are good hosts will fill their games quicker and it keep game owners in check from being douchebags.

Written by Director Aries, 13.03.2014 at 22:25

Maybe this is an instance where we should give the game host final say. After all, he's/she's the one who set the rules in the first place. Maybe you could even add a player poll rating system for game hosts as well, that way people who are good hosts will fill their games quicker and it keep game owners in check from being douchebags.

Yeah, but not make them able to change settings when they want. So much exploiting incoming.
With unanimous agreement, host sets the settings he wants at start, and options can be changed only if everyone agrees.
The poll system you suggested would be a unneeded feature imo, and still, if you said hosts should be able to change options when they want (not saying you did, but if so), then there will still be exploiting. The rate system won't completely prevent it. For example, beginners. (lol, considering beginners are most likely trolls..)
Not to mention it would be like rep, so it can be easily farmed.

The votes of rules in game should be depending on whether what type of government that the game has in place. if its democracy, then 100%, but lets say, communist only needs half.

I like what I read about that the creator should be able to lock some things. Like in a worldgame, I think its good if u can get to change turntime after a while if that wasnt something that waas important for the creator. But like if the creator at the same time wanted it to be FFA then that probably was the point whit the game and should be keept like that.

Written by Director Aries, 13.03.2014 at 22:25

Maybe this is an instance where we should give the game host final say. After all, he's/she's the one who set the rules in the first place. Maybe you could even add a player poll rating system for game hosts as well, that way people who are good hosts will fill their games quicker and it keep game owners in check from being douchebags.

And what if the host is a dillweed? What if he teams up with the others to kill the one guy who didn't want to ally anyone else? Would the change to 1 mins time would be fair? Don't make it 100%, and don't make it dependable on a single person either. It's fine as it is.

Written by Unleashed, 26.03.2014 at 12:15

Written by Director Aries, 13.03.2014 at 22:25

Maybe this is an instance where we should give the game host final say. After all, he's/she's the one who set the rules in the first place. Maybe you could even add a player poll rating system for game hosts as well, that way people who are good hosts will fill their games quicker and it keep game owners in check from being douchebags.

And what if the host is a dillweed? What if he teams up with the others to kill the one guy who didn't want to ally anyone else? Would the change to 1 mins time would be fair? Don't make it 100%, and don't make it dependable on a single person either. It's fine as it is.

If the host is a dillweed people will enemy list him and stop playing games he/she hosts. They should at least give the game host veto powers.

Written by Unleashed, 26.03.2014 at 12:15

Written by Director Aries, 13.03.2014 at 22:25

Maybe this is an instance where we should give the game host final say. After all, he's/she's the one who set the rules in the first place. Maybe you could even add a player poll rating system for game hosts as well, that way people who are good hosts will fill their games quicker and it keep game owners in check from being douchebags.

And what if the host is a dillweed? What if he teams up with the others to kill the one guy who didn't want to ally anyone else? Would the change to 1 mins time would be fair? Don't make it 100%, and don't make it dependable on a single person either. It's fine as it is.

If the host is a dillweed people will enemy list him and stop playing games he/she hosts. They should at least give the game host veto powers.

Written by Director Aries, 28.03.2014 at 23:33

If the host is a dillweed people will enemy list him and stop playing games he/she hosts. They should at least give the game host veto powers.

No they shouldn't. By the time they realize it's too late, and people have the attention span of a [insert word here, it's morning and I don't know what to say ]. So anybody will barely even remember the name of the host.

Written by Unleashed, 29.03.2014 at 04:12

Written by Director Aries, 28.03.2014 at 23:33

If the host is a dillweed people will enemy list him and stop playing games he/she hosts. They should at least give the game host veto powers.

No they shouldn't. By the time they realize it's too late, and people have the attention span of a [insert word here, it's morning and I don't know what to say ]. So anybody will barely even remember the name of the host.

It's their fault if they aren't proactive in selecting good game hosts.

No. It would be the hosts fault. The more power is concentrated into one single person, the worse it will be. The odds are that host will be a cretin.

The host should have veto right to accept the proposed change by others or not.
In a lot of cases the host is also premium customer and doesn't get what he paid for if noobs change the rules.

The host should be able to put some limits to the settings at the start. How many FFA games end with ally because of the majority ?

Changing the settings is a way for people to cheat at the game.

Silent one is right.. BitDL is right.. we gotto change this..
ppl fuck to many times with settings in their own advantage