Conquer Club

We've all been there. The game is down to 3 players from 8 ... it's the gunfight scene from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The guy who shoots first will get killed by the 3rd guy. So everyone sits there waiting ... and waiting ... until one guy cracks.

It's not really a game. I've got one game where I'm training my kids to take over because I think it will outlast my lifetime. What we need is a "REQUEST TIE" button. Any player presses it, and the others can respond on their next turn (anonymously). If everyone agrees, the points are split equally as if they were a team. But everyone has to agree.

It might be that "Tie-able / One Winner" might be an option like "Manual / Automatic", so players who didn't want this could avoid those games.

Thoughts?

This has actually come up in the Suggestions forum before. The main reason it hasn't been implemented is that while it would be a neat option, people could abuse it by starting a game, killing a few random opponents, and then agreeing to a tie. This way they'd all get points and would have colluded against the other opponents to take their points.

And then we could have a medal for unique ties. That would rule.

As a side note: I have argued for a tie option where no points are lost or gained if a tie is declared. No one has come up with a reason why this would be bad.

then if thats the case of abusing it, make it an inbuilt option into everygame, but an option that is only available after 50-100 rounds?
this way it would:
-- apply to a tiny minority of gamnes making the number of suspicious games that the mods will have to investigate very small.
-- also hopefully make the effort way too large for any players to be bothered trying to abuse the system in this way.

and anyone exploiting this to any real length will be quite apparent by the huge level of games he is active in reaching insane round numbers.

i have no idea how practical this is in a programming sense but seemed like a reasonable solution.

liamrisksmart wrote:then if thats the case of abusing it, make it an inbuilt option into everygame, but an option that is only available after 50-100 rounds?
this way it would:
-- apply to a tiny minority of gamnes making the number of suspicious games that the mods will have to investigate very small.
-- also hopefully make the effort way too large for any players to be bothered trying to abuse the system in this way.

and anyone exploiting this to any real length will be quite apparent by the huge level of games he is active in reaching insane round numbers.

i have no idea how practical this is in a programming sense but seemed like a reasonable solution.

The standing opinion in the Suggestions forum community seems to be that if it only affects a small number of games, it's not going to be implemented, since there are more important things to do.

So far I've only received the bronze medal.

I'm pretty sure War Gear has this option. But I'd much rather duke it out to the end rather than get out the easy way. but if you're freemium, you might want the game to end so you can have that 1 slot back. But the thing that I find to drag the game out longer than game rounds is that players are hardly ever online at the same time. This just makes the game drag on longer, more than number of game rounds.

i can't believe this hasn't been put in suggestions before!!! perhaps you should take it there, i am sure it would be done immediately!! what a wonderful idea!!! in before the move...-el Jesus negro

owenshooter wrote:i can't believe this hasn't been put in suggestions before!!! perhaps you should take it there, i am sure it would be done immediately!! what a wonderful idea!!! in before the move...-el Jesus negro

Considering this is GD and it is about CC, and that the OP did not ask to have it added as a suggestion... I see no reason for a report.
not moved.closed.

Instead of a tie, how about a predetermined round ceiling?

-rd

I think one of the Features of Lack's next update includes one facet of addressing stalemated games...stay tuned over the next couple of weeks!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think one of the Features of Lack's next update includes one facet of addressing stalemated games...stay tuned over the next couple of weeks!


--Andy

there is not a problem with stalemating games. he should put that facet down.

greenoaks wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think one of the Features of Lack's next update includes one facet of addressing stalemated games...stay tuned over the next couple of weeks!


--Andy

there is not a problem with stalemating games. he should put that facet down.

Game 578682
Game 1000001
Game 1026097
Game 1523340

and many more have something else to say about that....

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Game 578682
Game 1000001
Game 1026097
Game 1523340

Those aren't games, those are works of art! They will hang in the CC Louvre one day, and I see no reason to deface them.

greenoaks wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think one of the Features of Lack's next update includes one facet of addressing stalemated games...stay tuned over the next couple of weeks!


--Andy

there is not a problem with stalemating games. he should put that facet down.

The feature will have a larger impact than just addressing stalemates.


--Andy