Conquer Club

squishyg wrote:random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

squishyg wrote:random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Woodruff wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

squishyg wrote:random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Again, my concern is that once the site starts tracking RANDOM maps as a "map rank" (please do this soon, by the way!), that these "exclusionary randoms" will be included in that tracking, and they should not be. As long as that doesn't happen, then I have no problem with it (though I must admit the idea of "random but not actually random" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, personally.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

squishyg wrote:random is random is random is random. if you want to run a tourney of only small maps or big maps or green maps or pig maps, then select your maps and use random.org to decide which one is being used for each game. but don't ruin the random setting for the rest of us.

How will this ruin the random setting? It's an OPTION. It's not forcing people to remove maps.

Again, my concern is that once the site starts tracking RANDOM maps as a "map rank" (please do this soon, by the way!), that these "exclusionary randoms" will be included in that tracking, and they should not be. As long as that doesn't happen, then I have no problem with it (though I must admit the idea of "random but not actually random" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, personally.

I thought it was already banged out if you removed maps, it would remove the "random map medal".

drunkmonkey wrote:Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Woodruff wrote:

drunkmonkey wrote:Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Then get it specifically added to the initial suggestion, and I'll be satisfied. <smile>

drunkmonkey wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

drunkmonkey wrote:Please don't vote against this because it might mean that some other suggestion that might someday be implemented might not work the way you thought it might.

Then get it specifically added to the initial suggestion, and I'll be satisfied. <smile>

Why would we add specifics for how a future unconfirmed suggestion would work with this? That doesn't make sense.

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Lindax wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I made the suggestion mainly with tournaments in mind. In a tournament the exclusions can, and would have to be, easily noted.

I would think that for tournaments, the exclusions would be noted in the "tournament start post" at the beginning of that tournament's thread.

yes, it would be. This would just make it easy to implement something like this, random map tournaments without auto-stalemate maps.

AndyDufresne wrote:So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I would say they would need to be noted, it's not fair to people joining games if their favorite map(s) aren't on there. Perhaps something like this:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------two separate pics


obviously it wouldn't be the same 5 maps twice, but you get the picture. Also, there would have to be some sort of limit, even if it was like 20. If there was not a limit, people would Exclude way too many maps for that to work.

My idea would be to have the "Exclusions" thing as a mouse-over kind of like the share button used to be. It could also be clickable, doesn't really matter

TheForgivenOne wrote:Alright, we need a bit more support for one of the Yes votes before I can do anything with it. We need a clear path. Either
-Limited Exclusions
-Unlimited Exclusions

Master Fenrir wrote:I like this idea. Or just permanently exclude the Hive, Doodle, and Lux from random maps.

Woodruff wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:Alright, we need a bit more support for one of the Yes votes before I can do anything with it. We need a clear path. Either
-Limited Exclusions
-Unlimited Exclusions

Is 58% really such an overwhelming majority to accept the implementation will take place?

blakebowling wrote:Rather than "excluding" a list of maps. I'd rather see the option of choosing a list of maps, and one of them would be chosen randomly. The only issue I see with this is, How will it be displayed on a game listing that hasn't started yet.