Conquer Club

A feature in each game where every active player can vote for a winner. If all votes are unaniumous the game ends with a declared victory immediately.

Up to you how you work it but a tick box next to each players name to vote for them as a winner. Each player would also be able to see a display that shows the number of votes each player has but not who has voted for them.

This may go some way to addressing deadbeat complaints during end games when people get fed up with a game that is taking too long.

It will be open to some level of abuse so people will have to poke and prod to see how it can be exploited. I'd suggest it only goes active after X number of turns have expired for starters (8 is my suggestion, after 2 rounds of cashes).

I love long drawn out games and stalemates. A stalemate is 'never' permanent after all. I'd prefer people to dead beat or sucide than this.

I just had a two year old game just end yesterday... they all end eventually.

and the option would actually change the entire dynamic of the long games. As of now, the only way to win, is to win. Nothing more than pure competition.

Im sure eventually this will happen, but just so you know, its been suggested about 100 times before.

Swiftscot wrote:A feature in each game where every active player can vote for a winner. If all votes are unaniumous the game ends with a declared victory immediately.

Up to you how you work it but a tick box next to each players name to vote for them as a winner. Each player would also be able to see a display that shows the number of votes each player has but not who has voted for them.

This may go some way to addressing deadbeat complaints during end games when people get fed up with a game that is taking too long.

It will be open to some level of abuse so people will have to poke and prod to see how it can be exploited. I'd suggest it only goes active after X number of turns have expired for starters (8 is my suggestion, after 2 rounds of cashes).

Great freemium suggestion. "I wanna play more games! I can't win this one! Let me out!!!!!!!"

Also you think a game should be over (or possibly be voted over) in 8 rounds? I've, figuratively, barely got my shoes and socks on by eight rounds. I'm just about heading out the door by round 40.

Games should only be won once there is only one general left. If you don't like long drawn out games (and freemiums usually don't) then don't join games with settings that make that likely...i.e no cards singles.

Mr Changsha wrote:
Great freemium suggestion. "I wanna play more games! I can't win this one! Let me out!!!!!!!"

Also you think a game should be over (or possibly be voted over) in 8 rounds? I've, figuratively, barely got my shoes and socks on by eight rounds. I'm just about heading out the door by round 40.

Games should only be won once there is only one general left. If you don't like long drawn out games (and freemiums usually don't) then don't join games with settings that make that likely...i.e no cards singles.

So I didn't pay a premium what does that have to do with anything, I can still mix it with anyone out there. I love a long drawn out strategic battle, but hate it when the 3rd wheel suicides or deadbeats turning the game into a lottery.

8 turns I guess is more aimed at escalating games where by this point at least one or two players will already be dead. Not quite appropriate in no spoils I admit but it still avoids players starting a game and vote it over immediately to gain points. It could be in the region of 15 for a better balance.

I posted this in light of a game I played recently where I’d invested 30 odd turns as was probably sitting 2nd when last place used all his available troops to suicide by break me and hand the game on a platter to the leader. I and the remaining other player were fighting a no win situation with no deployments to speak of and less than half the territory between us. In hind sight I was maybe being a little hasty. Turns out the leader had no clue how to finish the game and with 10 to 15 turn of ineptitude the fight was back to an even 3 way.

I think the point still stands though. There are many examples of professional sport where you can concede a game. This is not viewed as giving up but professional respect for what is in all likelihood a lost position and let’s get on with the next game (rematch). No position is irretrievable I guess when dice are involved but it’s an assessment of opportunity and there are many situations where you know in all probability you are beat. There must be many an occasion where you’d rather not have played the last 6 or 7 turns of a game, when it’s just going through the motions of deploy, move one square stop while the winner slowly steam rolls you into the dirt.

The system is easily negated if your worried about it changing the dynamic of a game. If you don't want the game to end then don't vote.

Swiftscot wrote:A feature in each game where every active player can vote for a winner. If all votes are unaniumous the game ends with a declared victory immediately.

Up to you how you work it but a tick box next to each players name to vote for them as a winner. Each player would also be able to see a display that shows the number of votes each player has but not who has voted for them.

This may go some way to addressing deadbeat complaints during end games when people get fed up with a game that is taking too long.

It will be open to some level of abuse so people will have to poke and prod to see how it can be exploited. I'd suggest it only goes active after X number of turns have expired for starters (8 is my suggestion, after 2 rounds of cashes).

This sounds like a good option. All players could be satisfied if any such programming included an option for "no, do not end game on a vote," where any one opposition would negate the vote; that should satisfy those players who want 2-year standoff games. While that would mean that a player could not always get out of a long-term game by a vote, the potential would be there. Another thing the program should do is only end the game on a vote if every player voted for the same winner. With those two things in place, I do not see how there is potential for abuse, other than the potential that already exists: as-yet-uncaught multis voting themselves "wins."

I sense a lot of potential for abuse in this. From multis surrendering quickly to players teaming up and alternately giving the games to each other (a group of three playing a lot of singles could make a killing by helping each other survive until the end and then ending the game by surrendering) to such things as "Damn this game sucks, let's just give the game to the guy with the most points to minimize our losses", and I don't care that quite frequently I might be the guy with the most points, that's not how I want to win a game.

And what do you think would happen to the one person who's against ending the game by surrendering? If he admits to it chances are the others might turn on him and then vote again, and if he doesn't admit to it the game may well turn into a mudfest with people accusing each other of "keeping the others back" or something like that. No, this is not a good option.

I'd say that one of the most interesting parts of the game is that the dice decide. No matter how much people will moan about the dice, the fact remains that no position is lost even if you have only one man left. (I assaulted 6v1 and lost everyone) I think this takes away from that hope of still pulling off the comeback. It's the easy way out.

This would make it even esier for multies to point dump.
That is the same resion there is no "suicide botton"