The 3 min rule

[Da Dealer]

Check my about last 5 games....I've beaten 1700 ranked ppl at 2:30 in real time they resign early, there needs to be something kid kids are getting more and more scared....get rid of rule or shorten and don't tell anyone the number, or have it varry between 2-4 min of x2 time

[Mithoz]

You resigned before 3mins to a 1300 player lol.

[wonderer]

i looked at da stats, he did quit that match but tristi lost one guy i think the security guard.

da destoryed 4 of his own building im guess cuase he keeped on messing up. then he gave up and left the match

7 matches ended before 3mins out of 25 isnt so bad...

[Sub-Zero]

Sometimes if you wait until the 3 minutes has passed to attack, your opponent won't be so quick to resign. See if that helps.

[wonderer]

Sub-Zero wrote:

Sometimes if you wait until the 3 minutes has passed to attack, your opponent won't be so quick to resign. See if that helps.

Bla bla bla your not helping

[doom]

Yea what sub said and just play with people who you know won't resign like some older players

[vexy]

You know, if you really want the rule reduced or removed your going to have to prove that as a community you'd be able to watch out for pumpers, whether your a mod or not.
Having this rule in place means the admins also have to deal with less pumping reports and makes pumping much less likely to happen.
I'm sure alot of people have known when someone was pumping but kept it quiet because they were friendly with each other and if you would want that rule kept in place you would have to decide what's more important.

So here my suggestion if you really want it reduced or removed make an official thread with some rules such as by reducing the 3 min rule you will agree to helping watch out for pumpers and that you will not take part in pumping yourself.
Get supporting senior members and other members to support the thread and see if an agreement can be made.

[wonderer]

Well if you report someone as pumping no telling if the mod or admin will ever look at the player acused of pumping since they don't tell anyone if they did pump.

Hard to tell if someone is pumping cause theirs no rules saying how many times we can play each other before it's to much and it's consider pumping.

Playing against members is called " training " and " requirements " .

If you pump once then you might try it again. Since admins don't like to sees names posted even though the players have pumped for a fact. We cant help each other out to see if they are doing it again.

What's consider pumping? If I tell an admin I have a picture of me quiting a match cause we (me and the other player) agreed I didn't need the points.
Who's to knows if the admin takes the points away or even cares what you did.

I forgot but isn't sharing accounts consider pumping? I think sub doesn't like that for his clan leader board and I think It was posted before not to share accounts. But who knows the truth if van javas members losts any points when they shared accounts?

The 3min rules wasn't created to slow down pumping it was for unskilled players to have a chance at the game. And if you take off or lower the 3mins rules to 2min rule or something the pumpers will still pump. So to consider pumping they will still have to play more then 5 matches or more before all the admins will consider it pumping cause each person has a different way of thinking.


Isn't admins and mods jobs to stop pumping? What happens if they did their jobs for once will it hurt that much since all they do is sit in the chat room. And mute the worng people for what ever reason (lol)

[Dr. Diggles]

doom wrote:

Yea what sub said and just play with people who you know won't resign like some older players

The problem with this is that there are usually only 5-10 registered players on.

What needs to happen:

1. Anon's should be forced to register It's not fair that I win FFA's with all anon's and get 0 points. We should get credit for all wins. Even if its only 5 points. But just don't play vs anon's? There's not enough active registered players for this to be feasable.

2. Either drop it to 1.5 min, or get rid of the rule

Probability of the above being implimented? 15% chance.
Not sure how hard it would be, but at this point, it seems that the current state of the game will never change.

PS. Scott, have you released the source code yet? We'd love a sequel.

[AngryRedeye]

Well, their should be a rule that the game is free but u gonna have to make an acc to play it and when you register you will see the info about LEADERBOARD but it gotta be really short info cuz players are to lazy to read alot... thats it. If you will do it Scott, their will be nooo problem bout playing USELESS ANONS

[wonderer]

AngryRedeye wrote:

Well, their should be a rule that the game is free but u gonna have to make an acc to play it and when you register you will see the info about LEADERBOARD but it gotta be really short info cuz players are to lazy to read alot... thats it. If you will do it Scott, their will be nooo problem bout playing USELESS ANONS

way to stay on topic

[AngryRedeye]

Ya, but still i think that anons are really serious problem for registered players... and i dont really mind waiting 3 min... New players should have some time to atleast build some towers

[Enzo007]

AngryRedeye wrote:

Ya, but still i think that anons are really serious problem for registered players... and i dont really mind waiting 3 min... New players should have some time to atleast build some towers

Agreed. I think it is beneficial to have the 3 min rule. Remember when all of us were complaining about how this game was inactive and that we had to bring in new players some how? Well, I think some of us are contradicting ourselves when we say to abolish the 3 min rule. Getting rid of the rule would only be harmful to new players because they would just get their base annihilated without even having a chance, like Angry basically said. The 3 min rule being abolished/shortened would mostly benefit top players, not the developing ones.


On the subject of anons, Diggs you make a great point. It is unfair to win a match against anon(s) and not gain any points. Additionally, I really think that forcing anons to make an account has many benefits, but one there is one that hasn't been mentioned; when playing as an anon, you kind of feel like an outsider. You have no identity, no rating, no history, and most of the time no friends in the game. When you force those anons to make accounts, it puts them on the map (so to speak), automatically making them more involved in the game.

[sam]

That's why people had the idea that to agree on the rule to be shortern like if there was a command that only the person that made the match and types something like " /time ". The 3 minute rule will either be taken off or shortern and for the noobs they don't have to type the " /time " coz the rule would still be 3 minutes. The way to shortern the time would be to type in that command as I said .

Thats what I would go for.

[AngryRedeye]

sam wrote:

That's why people had the idea that to agree on the rule to be shortern like if there was a command that only the person that made the match and types something like " /time ". The 3 minute rule will either be taken off or shortern and for the noobs they don't have to type the " /time " coz the rule would still be 3 minutes. The way to shortern the time would be to type in that command as I said .

Thats what I would go for.

Oh.. that could be a good idea

[Da Dealer]

sub i dont attack before they scout and see how out matched they are

[N@TE]

For reference, the three minute rule originally served as a safe-haven for players new to a specific map or to the game in general. With three minute rule, when a player who is inexperienced with the map or game got dominated early, they could safely resign with no loss. Keep in mind the three minute rule was implemented before pumping was even thought of.

Subsequent to pumping being recognized, the three minute has served as both a hurdle for pumpers and a safe-haven for new players. For this reason, removing such a rule would be more detrimental to the community than beneficial.

Nevertheless, reducing or increasing the three minute rule is certainly appropriate with some maps. I propose that mission authors should decide the amount of time to elapse until points are affected. In the mission editor (M), the mission author could choose to have anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes (integers only; no decimals) before points are affected. The default would of course be 3. A popup would appear in-game when a player joins a map where three minutes isn't the amount of time before points are affected. The message would read something along the lines of, "Points are affected after x minutes in this match. Are you sure you want to join?" Replace "x" with the amount of minutes until points are affected. There would be two proceeding options, "Cancel" and "Join".

With my idea, rapid-paced maps like UnlimBiT could be played more naturally because they could sport a 2 minute rule. Additionally, longer matches, such as those that occur on maps like MILES Laser Tag, could be played more safely because they could sport something along the lines of a 5 minute rule.

My proposed idea would allow safer and more natural matches, while still enforcing the standard three minute rule. Whether it's likely to be implemented until the game goes open source is another matter, however. Please provide feedback on my solution.

[wonderer]

Didnt kou make a map like that where he was able to by pass the 3min rule when the game started? I know scottlu talked to him asking how it was done. Didn't scottlu ask him not to make maps like that anymore? Is that what your talking about if it is then it's still point less.

[N@TE]

wonderer wrote:

Didnt kou make a map like that where he was able to by pass the 3min rule when the game started? I know scottlu talked to him asking how it was done. Didn't scottlu ask him not to make maps like that anymore? Is that what your talking about if it is then it's still point less.

Yes, kou did create a map like that. How it worked it that all sides were allied until three minutes. Once three minutes had elapsed, the sides were unallied, thus becoming enemies and able to attack each other. trine also described a map like this, which would be illegal.

What I'm proposing is a new option in M, something that's currently not there. This option would allow the mission author to choose how many minutes are to elapse before points are affected. For instance, if the mission author were to choose that after 4 minutes, points were to be affected, players would battle immediately, and after four minutes, scores would be altered. There would be no waiting, just battling.

[wonderer]

so a map creator can have an option to make a map so the players can gain points after 1min? if thats what your saying then thats good thinking.

but which map creators write briefings? seems unfair if i join a match and i leave before 3 min but i still lose points.

i still think the /comand would be better just make it visable when each player joins the match.



trine idea of waiting is... not a good idea no one should want to join a game just to wait to fight.

[N@TE]

wonderer wrote:

so a map creator can have an option to make a map so the players can gain points after 1min? if thats what your saying then thats good thinking.

The minimum amount of time before points would be affected would be two minutes in order to still honor the original intent of the three minute rule.

wonderer wrote:

but which map creators write briefings? seems unfair if i join a match and i leave before 3 min but i still lose points.

i still think the /comand would be better just make it visable when each player joins the match.

Please refer to the post proposing my solution.

N@TE wrote:

A popup would appear in-game when a player joins a map where three minutes isn't the amount of time before points are affected. The message would read something along the lines of, "Points are affected after x minutes in this match. Are you sure you want to join?" Replace "x" with the amount of minutes until points are affected. There would be two proceeding options, "Cancel" and "Join".

[wonderer]

Why would it matter if they honor the 3min rule? The hole thing is to bypass the 3min rule isn't that what most of us want?

[KissFromARose]

I had a warning about this problem in topic:

http://www.warfareincorporated.com/xyzzy/viewtopic.php?t=7337

[sam]

N@TE wrote:

For reference, the three minute rule originally served as a safe-haven for players new to a specific map or to the game in general. With three minute rule, when a player who is inexperienced with the map or game got dominated early, they could safely resign with no loss. Keep in mind the three minute rule was implemented before pumping was even thought of.

Subsequent to pumping being recognized, the three minute has served as both a hurdle for pumpers and a safe-haven for new players. For this reason, removing such a rule would be more detrimental to the community than beneficial.

Nevertheless, reducing or increasing the three minute rule is certainly appropriate with some maps. I propose that mission authors should decide the amount of time to elapse until points are affected. In the mission editor (M), the mission author could choose to have anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes (integers only; no decimals) before points are affected. The default would of course be 3. A popup would appear in-game when a player joins a map where three minutes isn't the amount of time before points are affected. The message would read something along the lines of, "Points are affected after x minutes in this match. Are you sure you want to join?" Replace "x" with the amount of minutes until points are affected. There would be two proceeding options, "Cancel" and "Join".

With my idea, rapid-paced maps like UnlimBiT could be played more naturally because they could sport a 2 minute rule. Additionally, longer matches, such as those that occur on maps like MILES Laser Tag, could be played more safely because they could sport something along the lines of a 5 minute rule.

My proposed idea would allow safer and more natural matches, while still enforcing the standard three minute rule. Whether it's likely to be implemented until the game goes open source is another matter, however. Please provide feedback on my solution.

i dont like it because
1. your going to have to go through most of the maps and change the time limit and i think everyone on will want there map to have the 3min change and god nows how long thats going to take!
2.it going to be hard doing all that
3 what if the map making that made the maps dont want you moving the times around .






Im not saying it bad but the idea i had i think it a little better (have scottlu create a command so the time is changed or gone just like that no muking around with the maps just a fast /time WHILE in multiplayer in a map that the player has created and their done .

[AngryRedeye]

Ya, i like the /time idea... This command should be added for every map, so it would be like from 0 till 5 mins before points are affected you just type /time from 0 till 5 min...

[N@TE]

KissFromARose wrote:

I had a warning about this problem in topic:

http://www.warfareincorporated.com/xyzzy/viewtopic.php?t=7337

Yes, you have raised immense awareness of this problem. We are at the point now where generating and evaluating ideas is the main goal.

wonderer wrote:

Why would it matter if they honor the 3min rule? The hole thing is to bypass the 3min rule isn't that what most of us want?

As mentioned, the original intent for the three minute rule was to provide a safe-haven for players new to the map and/or game. Some new players may become extremely discouraged by losing points due to lack of knowledge on the map and/or game. That includes not seeing or understanding the warning given. Additionally, I would still like to provide somewhat of a hurdle for pumpers. Since pumping is illegal, making that more difficult is also a major priority.

Keep in mind that I believe the three minute warning should be reduced to two in some situations. It is not a drastic decrease in time, but it should enable players to enjoy fast-paced maps a little more, while still honoring the intentions of the three minute rule.

sam wrote:

i dont like it because
1. your going to have to go through most of the maps and change the time limit and i think everyone on will want there map to have the 3min change and god nows how long thats going to take!
2.it going to be hard doing all that
3 what if the map making that made the maps dont want you moving the times around.

I actually wouldn't be editing every single map myself. It would primarily be the duty of the mission authors to edit their maps. However, I would be glad to edit maps if permitted to do so by the mission author.

Yes, this would be difficult to enable, chiefly due to the programming involved. I see my proposed idea as more of a long-term solution.

sam wrote:

Im not saying it bad but the idea i had i think it a little better (have scottlu create a command so the time is changed or gone just like that no muking around with the maps just a fast /time WHILE in multiplayer in a map that the player has created and their done .

AngryRedeye wrote:

Ya, i like the /time idea... This command should be added for every map, so it would be like from 0 till 5 mins before points are affected you just type /time from 0 till 5 min...

A /time command is a great idea. However, I find root of the problem at the maps and not the players. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having to put in "/time 2" every time you play a specific map get annoying?

Contrarily, this is a very simple and easy solution. It requires far less programming than my idea, making it more likely to be implemented. I can certainly see it as a short-term solution. AngryRedEye, perhaps the integers could range from 2 to 5 or 2 to 10 instead of 0 to 5 in order to honor the intentions of the three minute rule.

[sam]

Quote:

N@TE
A /time command is a great idea. However, I find root of the problem at the maps and not the players. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having to put in "/time 2" every time you play a specific map get annoying?

I don't think it would get annoying it'll just be like the /anon command take like two second and you done typing that command and I do that quite aften sometimes and havn't found that annoying



reducing it to 2minutes is getting better but maps like ( camped ) and small maps like them , I'v been playing this map called ( Litlle island(Hydra) ) and I'm getting pretty good at that map but everytime I'm playing it I have to wait 3 minutes and it fills like it goes on for ever waiting for the timer to past before i can attack and that annoys me coz I can win on that map in like a 1minute .

[AngryRedeye]

N@TE wrote:

KissFromARose wrote:

I had a warning about this problem in topic:

http://www.warfareincorporated.com/xyzzy/viewtopic.php?t=7337

Yes, you have raised immense awareness of this problem. We are at the point now where generating and evaluating ideas is the main goal.

wonderer wrote:

Why would it matter if they honor the 3min rule? The hole thing is to bypass the 3min rule isn't that what most of us want?

As mentioned, the original intent for the three minute rule was to provide a safe-haven for players new to the map and/or game. Some new players may become extremely discouraged by losing points due to lack of knowledge on the map and/or game. That includes not seeing or understanding the warning given. Additionally, I would still like to provide somewhat of a hurdle for pumpers. Since pumping is illegal, making that more difficult is also a major priority.

Keep in mind that I believe the three minute warning should be reduced to two in some situations. It is not a drastic decrease in time, but it should enable players to enjoy fast-paced maps a little more, while still honoring the intentions of the three minute rule.

sam wrote:

i dont like it because
1. your going to have to go through most of the maps and change the time limit and i think everyone on will want there map to have the 3min change and god nows how long thats going to take!
2.it going to be hard doing all that
3 what if the map making that made the maps dont want you moving the times around.

I actually wouldn't be editing every single map myself. It would primarily be the duty of the mission authors to edit their maps. However, I would be glad to edit maps if permitted to do so by the mission author.

Yes, this would be difficult to enable, chiefly due to the programming involved. I see my proposed idea as more of a long-term solution.

sam wrote:

Im not saying it bad but the idea i had i think it a little better (have scottlu create a command so the time is changed or gone just like that no muking around with the maps just a fast /time WHILE in multiplayer in a map that the player has created and their done .

AngryRedeye wrote:

Ya, i like the /time idea... This command should be added for every map, so it would be like from 0 till 5 mins before points are affected you just type /time from 0 till 5 min...

A /time command is a great idea. However, I find root of the problem at the maps and not the players. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having to put in "/time 2" every time you play a specific map get annoying?

Contrarily, this is a very simple and easy solution. It requires far less programming than my idea, making it more likely to be implemented. I can certainly see it as a short-term solution. AngryRedEye, perhaps the integers could range from 2 to 5 or 2 to 10 instead of 0 to 5 in order to honor the intentions of the three minute rule.

Well i think we should make a vote, cuz many people want 3min rule deleted, but... Its obvious that veterans must have atleast some respect for new players, otherwise they will just quit the game...

[wonderer]

Respect is earn and lost

New players should expect to lose fast on any map if they don't understand that when they are new to this game then a whole wave of quiters will emerge.
Maybe they should quit if the game is to hard cause life is so easy and quitting takes a load off.

[sam]

So I just wanted to bring this topic back up because its good idea and want someone to do something but we kinf of do need scottlu to take a look at this since he is really the main person that do the idea for to game so manybe the Amins can ask scott to take a look at this !