| 1 |
Ah yes Tick + Eraser might work. But I agree that having a majority of one would be desirable.
|
1 |
Ah yes Tick + Eraser might work. But I agree that having a majority of one would be desirable.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Current equation is:
|
3 |
Current equation is:
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
winCount = cnt /2 + 1;
|
5 |
winCount = cnt /2 + 1;
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
But that's an integer so in this case the ammount of votes needed to win would be 3/2=1 (integer division) +1 = 2. I think we should make that division round up instead of down, like:
|
7 |
But that's an integer so in this case the ammount of votes needed to win would be 3/2=1 (integer division) +1 = 2. I think we should make that division round up instead of down, like:
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
winCount = (cnt+ 1)/2 +1;
|
9 |
winCount = (cnt+ 1)/2 +1;
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
In that case 3 players would result in needing 3 votes. For even numbers it will still result in the same as winCount = cnt /2 + 1 due to integer division.
|
11 |
In that case 3 players would result in needing 3 votes. For even numbers it will still result in the same as winCount = cnt /2 + 1 due to integer division.
|
|
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
EDIT: Fixed it. I don't think it will work immediatly but it will be in next version. Fix is here: http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/detail?r=8544
|
Multiplayer imbalances