In good teams with the team spirit listed below, sure. I just wonder how you
gather 100% same minded teams like this? Because one bad guy would ruin 24
other good guys game expectations. It could even go so far as extortion, "give
me that golden ticket or I will hold my turn until you do." If the whole
point is the special rule of faster rounds when possible, that might be a
tempting tool for an exploiter to use. How would we keep the roster clean?
I admit, I am new here and might be way out of line even wading into waters
as deep as this discussion thread, but felt it should be mentioned after just
clearing my spam folder and being reminded of the few bad guys out here in WWW
land. If I've over reached, put it down to having 3 turns experience. Mike
T.
In a message dated 3/6/2005 4:52:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lgtilley@morespeed.net writes:
That would be the price to pay for a game which eliminates some of the
boring waiting. It's not an unreasonable price - any individual player
could delay the process, up to the limit of 2 weeks, by holding on to his
own orders. So if for example you are trying to persuade a team mate to
change an order, you'd not send in your own orders until you'd persuaded
him, given up, or got too close to the deadline. A good team should be
able to co-ordinate well enough to circulate draft orders, with proposed
submission dates, then submit them if there have been no objections or
corrections raised.
Certainly there's a slightly increased chance of errors. But it's much the
same if you move from an unlimited chess game, to the use of a chess clock,
errors increase. But chess clocks were invented due to the fact that many
players get more entertainment from a more zippy game. In a process on
demand game, you'd get your 2 weeks whenever you needed or wanted them, but
if everyone was happy to proceed - especially in those first 6 or so turns
when you have 12 characters and many standard moves - then they'd be
playing instead of twiddling thumbs.
I acknowledge the seasonal problem, but that's a programming issue, which
should IMO, be corrected.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]