#More options when creating a lobby

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

lean python
#

I think the lobby as of now is fairly functional, however I think that instead of worrying about balancing the game for number of items drawn, balancing for 2 or 3 players, or worrying about what items are too powerful, etc. Simply allow the lobby host to modify those things for each individual game. My suggestions include:

The ability to change the rarity of items, the amount of each item that can be in play at once, or altogether ban items.

The ability to change the amount of items drawn each round, with the options to set a range of items per round or stick to the default randomizations.

More options for number of rounds in a game. As well as the amount of lives per round.

A range slider for the number of shells loaded each round.

As for all of these suggestions I think the ability to modify all of these settings differently for different rounds in a game could also provide a lot of entertainment. (I.E maybe i want the first round to have no turn skippers and only 3-5 shells per round, but I want the second round to have access to turn skippers and have 6-8 shells per round.)

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.

lean python
#

I agree yes, hence "more options for number of rounds" I think 3 is fairly limiting especially with the nature of the game

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.

lean python
#

"you could pick if you want to keep playing and if someone decides to not continue the game they can spectate or leave." is definitely a good idea. I don't really see a reason to not measure the game in number of rounds, however I see your point with clarifying the 'base' number of rounds.

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.

lean python
#

Ah I see your point! However if you had more than 3 rounds you could also just shift the roman numerals to make it easy on the devs. I.E at round 4 it would read "II" "III" "IIII", and at round 5 would read "III" "IIII" "V"

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.

lean python
#

true!

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.

lean python
# manic shale One message removed from a suspended account.

Actually it's not, though that is a pretty common misconception. Historically it is likely that the romans used IIII due to its ease of use in mathematics, as roman numerals are inherently designed for addition. IV is shorthand that takes up less space, and also looks aesthetically pleasing, however it isn't particularly accurate.

#

An example of this being if I need to add XXIIII (24) and XVII (17) I can simply add the numerals together XXXVIIIIII and subdivide from this position, XXXVVI -> XXXXI (41). After getting my final calculation we can then swap to shorthand for XLI (41) which is easier to read as long as you aren't actively using it for mathematics.

#

It is also worth mentioning that IV was adopted long after the fall of the roman empire

manic shale
#

One message removed from a suspended account.