Weekly Poll: Should a Castlewars match end...

[Kiara_Kat]

This week's poll, Should a Castlewars match end after a set number of captures? is up on the main Tip.It website, please be sure to vote before the poll closes. If you'd like to discuss the poll topic, or talk about the poll results so far, this is the place to do it.

[n_odie]

Yes I would think that it would make the game much more enjoyable and eliminate the boring waiting time after ownage. :twisted:

[nashy14]

I think it would be like pest control where everyone wants to be on the high levels team, and no come backs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would also mean that cw armour would become "noob armour".

[krisc6]

Yes I would think that it would make the game much more enjoyable and eliminate the boring waiting time after ownage. :twisted:

 

 

 

i agree with that.i reckon 7 catures is just right because most one sided games dont go over 7 captures never mind the competitive ones so i think 7 is reasonable

[Harrington]

Having played Castle Wars many many times and been on both losing and winning sides, I gotta say that I'd much prefer a set number of catches that trigger an end to the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think first to 5 flags would be fair and woud add a new dimension to the game.

[X3EN]

Having played Castle Wars many many times and been on both losing and winning sides, I gotta say that I'd much prefer a set number of catches that trigger an end to the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think first to 5 flags would be fair and woud add a new dimension to the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm with you.

[Azurechaos]

Woah. :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My idea got chosen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd prefer 5 captures too. 20 solid minutes of CW just to lose is very annoying.

 

 

 

Same with 20 solid minutes for just 2 tickets. :?

[jonno53]

 

 

 

I'd prefer 5 captures too. 20 solid minutes of CW just to lose is very annoying.

 

 

 

Same with 20 solid minutes for just 2 tickets. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree... why spend 20 minutes at 10 : 1 when the game has obviosly been won . half the players leave anyway which gets annoying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think 5 points max is ideal, as most games rarley get more than 3 points per team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and that 2 points is a bit poo (excuse my strong language), i think you should get at least another point for getting your flag, to give players a better incentive to go the the flag

 

 

 

so just running around killing all lower levels in sight with your 'pwn4g3' whip wont be the best way... :D

[thesmallone29]

no, there should not be a limit on the number of captures, but rather, a mercy rule, if a team should get 7 or 10 straight captures in a row then the game would end and they would win

[Potter_Pkr]

If this idea did get implemented into the game, clans could fix games on an empty world and eventually get the gold castle wars armour. This would then make this armour less rare and prestigious and might possibly anger members of RS who have worked hard for the armour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However I still think it is a good idea because it will make the game more fun as new rounds will will be faster.

[Bludragon124]

I don't think so... The game should go on for 20 minutes, no matter what. That time limit could go down some I suppose, but it's not my opinion that there should be a set number of captures, and when that is reached the game ends.

[ember3579]

although of the choices presented, i picked "no change", i think that something similar to the streak rule would suffice.heres my idea; when a team is 2 points ahead, after 3 mins of them keeping 2 points ahead, they automatically win.the regular 20 min timer stays.there could also be a possibility of bets being able to be placed on who will win (likely to be abused, just somethin i thought of to make it more interesting ;) )

[reaper88888]

Leave the 20 min time limit, but have the game end if one team draws ahead by six points, that's generally the point where the game has become one sided. Don't make a capture limit, it would make the tickets that some of us have worked hard for virtually worthless. If you want the armor, put in the hours. It's that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Has anyone else noticed that you can now take tix into the portal again? A possible fix for the teamswitchers who ruin the game by always flooding the winning team while the winners were banking the tix, thus causing it to lose?

[hellbellz]

If this idea did get implemented into the game, clans could fix games on an empty world and eventually get the gold castle wars armour. This would then make this armour less rare and prestigious and might possibly anger members of RS who have worked hard for the armour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However I still think it is a good idea because it will make the game more fun as new rounds will will be faster.

Oh gosh, someone shares my same opinon. :) ..Except what about you're SODB event? Everyone would get owned in like 2 minutes :(

[Macmaster92]

Leave the 20 min time limit, but have the game end if one team draws ahead by six points, that's generally the point where the game has become one sided. Don't make a capture limit, it would make the tickets that some of us have worked hard for virtually worthless. If you want the armor, put in the hours. It's that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Has anyone else noticed that you can now take tix into the portal again? A possible fix for the teamswitchers who ruin the game by always flooding the winning team while the winners were banking the tix, thus causing it to lose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean they made it so you can go into an uncrowded world then log out and be in then portal in your logged out in? I was so mad when they fixed that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway the game should always last 20min no matter what. If you could end the game based on the amount of caps people could rig the game. So they could get as many tickets as they want in half the time.

[haloffx]

I've never really thought about this before :-k But it makes sense both ways if people choose to put a capture limit on it or not.

[cobbal]

It should stay the same, otherwise:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 people find a deserted world, then enter the portals, 2 on one team, 1 on the other, the team with two players runs the flag back and forth as fast as they can so that they get the game over with in 5 minutes (just a guess), then they switch who's on the losing team. If you played like this you would get about 8 tickets an hour, which doesn't seem fair to people who really like to play cw and get tickets at about 2.4 tickets a hour on average.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would also cause the team to give up hope after becoming a few behind and let the other team win just to end the game.

[jimjimson]

No, for two reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1: It would be like the fight pits, people just sitting there and raspberrying people in the waiting room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2: What the guy above me said.

[snake6man]

I think it should be a race to 10 scores... but i don't play it that much so I duno how hard that iis to do.

[Dalcyte]

no, because if its 4-4 or something, both flag's are taken, then its just a footrace, which doesn't determine it. Also, in empty worlds you could just get dozens of tickets in an hour.

[mirage]

If this idea did get implemented into the game, clans could fix games on an empty world and eventually get the gold castle wars armour. This would then make this armour less rare and prestigious and might possibly anger members of RS who have worked hard for the armour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However I still think it is a good idea because it will make the game more fun as new rounds will will be faster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actually you can fix the game even as it is now, if you just get most ppl to play on one side and then you have 20 min to take as many flags to the other side as possilble. But most people dont think about that. But imo I think it should stay how it is, from experance of playing king of the hill on halo, if you have two really good teams it could take an hour or more just to get points you need to end the game.

[kevbil3]

i also think it's a good idea,it's that OR less playing time!20 minutes is much too long!

 

 

 

it's a great mini-game but....!!!20 MINUTES!!

 

 

 

like.....5-10 minutes would do.=O

[D. V. Devnull]

This is one of those times I hate being F2P-only... There's possibly so many overlooked measures and stuff, and I can't think of enough stuff regarding CW to drop in something that would help this discussion! :cry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Mr. Devnull

[M_u_s_ii_X]

It should be 1st 1 to 5 but its still 20 mins long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The game will end straight away after 5 flags on 1 team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If u don't get 5 flags in 20 minutes then the team with most flags wins.

 

 

 

If u have the same flags (draw) then both team will get 1 ticket

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I support my own ideas

[Robot919]

I say no because I have scored 5 times in a game before. And it wouldn't really be fair. You can score 5 points in about 10 minutes if you're on a really good team. Defintely no the the first option (game ends after 3 captures). A good team can win ni about 5 minutes. I am an experienced CW player (almost 500 tickets), and I believe you should play the entire 20 minutes, regardless if you win or lose. I hate the people that say "I give up, we're gonna lose" if we're down by 4 or something with 7 minutes left. Those are the types of people that are worthless to the team. Usually I play all 20 minutes unless I have to log off or there is no chance we can win. I agree that sometimes if you're winning by a lot you want the game to end quickly, but there are also times you wish the game would be extended (for instance, if it was a tie game and you had the opponent's flag with 1 min left)