[GP/UI] Increase Escalating Spoils to Avoid Stalemates

[Metsfanmax]

I'd be fine with making it a function of player size if that's what it takes to reach a compromise.

What about a trench or adjacent reinforcements, they can also slow down a game. Settings would need to become a factor as well then. So what would you say, all 2/3/4/5 player games that are not adjacent or trench must have this? What would happen if a player did not want to play escalating like this?

Settings don't have to be a factor if we don't want them to be. I think it's much cleaner to have one version of escalating spoils that applies to all games. I'll compromise a little on that if I need to, but I'm not going to turn this into a different version of escalating for every game type.

Actually, I join an escalating game expecting full well that the game will end with a sweep.

Amazing how few escalating games end in full sweeps.

Perhaps more escalating games would end in sweeps if the spoils escalated faster

We're talking about escalating here. I assert that if an escalating game ever reaches a point where the spoils become irrelevant, then it's not really an escalating game. That's what we need to fix.

But you are trying to fix something that is not broken. Escalating spoils work exactly like they are supposed to. More games in flat or no spoils stalemate over esc but at no point has anyone suggested they need changing.

What exactly do you mean by "escalating spoils work exactly like they are supposed to?" I think that is empirically denied by the real possibility of games where the spoils become basically irrelevant. Remember that the current system is analogous to the Risk board game -- but no real life Risk games ever make it into the hundreds of troops on cashes, because people give up and go to sleep before that. The board game instructions had no reason to consider that we would take the concept and apply it to games on larger maps or for longer periods of time, and so there's no reason to think that the variant works 'correctly' in general. We have full control over this site, and we can make the variant whatever we want as long as most people would like the change.

[koontz1973]

Settings don't have to be a factor if we don't want them to be. I think it's much cleaner to have one version of escalating spoils that applies to all games. I'll compromise a little on that if I need to, but I'm not going to turn this into a different version of escalating for every game type.

But settings will become a factor. You cannot make a game without choosing which settings you want.

Perhaps more escalating games would end in sweeps if the spoils escalated faster

No, all it would do is give the players a different way to play the same game. But as it would be unfair, no one would play it.

What exactly do you mean by "escalating spoils work exactly like they are supposed to?"

Just that. Same as flat, nukes and all the other settings we have. Each setting works as they are intended to.

[Metsfanmax]

Settings don't have to be a factor if we don't want them to be. I think it's much cleaner to have one version of escalating spoils that applies to all games. I'll compromise a little on that if I need to, but I'm not going to turn this into a different version of escalating for every game type.

But settings will become a factor. You cannot make a game without choosing which settings you want.

That's not responsive. Settings are only a factor if you can demonstrate that this change would substantially affect certain options more than others.

Perhaps more escalating games would end in sweeps if the spoils escalated faster

No, all it would do is give the players a different way to play the same game. But as it would be unfair, no one would play it.

You're using the word 'unfair' incorrectly. It is perfectly fair, as everyone has the ability to cash at the right time and win. Sometimes that involves playing strategically, like not taking a card on a certain turn, but nevertheless it doesn't benefit any one particular player over another. Which player exactly benefits from this change, and why?

What exactly do you mean by "escalating spoils work exactly like they are supposed to?"

Just that. Same as flat, nukes and all the other settings we have. Each setting works as they are intended to.

The way I see it, no spoils, flat rate and escalating span a spectrum of spoils options. In No Spoils games, your focus is mostly on deployment bonuses (including continents). In Flat Rate games, your focus is about even between deployment bonuses and spoils. In Escalating games, your focus is mostly on spoils. But as it stands, the spoils don't escalate quickly enough in some cases, and you can get to a game state where you might as well be playing a no spoils game for all the difference the spoils make. To me, this demonstrates that escalating does not work as it is intended to.

[koontz1973]

and you can get to a game state where you might as well be playing a no spoils game for all the difference the spoils make. To me, this demonstrates that escalating does not work as it is intended to.

So a truly good player will be able to switch his game around at this point and play differently.

That's not responsive. Settings are only a factor if you can demonstrate that this change would substantially affect certain options more than others.

OK then, trench in Eurasia, it can take you 21 moves to get from one side to the other. That is if you wait till you have 5 cards every time a total of 8 cashes. That is a far higher number than a normal game. So trench would and does last longer than a normal game.

The way I see it, no spoils, flat rate and escalating span a spectrum of spoils options. In No Spoils games, your focus is mostly on deployment bonuses (including continents). In Flat Rate games, your focus is about even between deployment bonuses and spoils. In Escalating games, your focus is mostly on spoils.

I agree 100% on the no spoils and flat rate, but a large escalating game is played many ways. Spoils, blocked routes, stacks and a spread of troops. All of these factors can allow a player to win. But your argument in escalating is that players focus on the spoils mostly is wrong. And in a 4 player escalating game, bonuses come into play a lot more than in the large games as they tend to be easier to get.

Even Doom who suggested the 100 range did not take into account the large game.

I suggested 100 troops since I have never seen a standard sweep game end in that range. Therefore, most users wouldn't recognize the change and there would be less opposition. After realizing that i have never played 12-player sweep game, I concur that perhaps the starting point could be a function of player size.

This either needs to be made for small games only and that is just wrong on so many levels or the 100 starting point needs to be raised higher so only the stalemated games reach it. If it is to be used to stop stalemates, then let it stop them and not touch normal games.

[koontz1973]

Last thing though, why are we trying to solve stalemates one setting at a time?

[Metsfanmax]

and you can get to a game state where you might as well be playing a no spoils game for all the difference the spoils make. To me, this demonstrates that escalating does not work as it is intended to.

So a truly good player will be able to switch his game around at this point and play differently.

Even an average player can adjust to this change. That's not my point. My point is that this isn't really the game they signed up for. Yes, people know it's a possibility right now -- but that doesn't mean people ever want it to reach that point.

That's not responsive. Settings are only a factor if you can demonstrate that this change would substantially affect certain options more than others.

OK then, trench in Eurasia, it can take you 21 moves to get from one side to the other. That is if you wait till you have 5 cards every time a total of 8 cashes. That is a far higher number than a normal game. So trench would and does last longer than a normal game.

Trench always lasts longer than a normal game. It would still last longer than a normal game with this change too, because increasing the escalating cashes doesn't change how fast you can get across the board. So when the two players reach other, they might be rolling with larger stacks but the gameplay is fundamentally the same.

The way I see it, no spoils, flat rate and escalating span a spectrum of spoils options. In No Spoils games, your focus is mostly on deployment bonuses (including continents). In Flat Rate games, your focus is about even between deployment bonuses and spoils. In Escalating games, your focus is mostly on spoils.

I agree 100% on the no spoils and flat rate, but a large escalating game is played many ways. Spoils, blocked routes, stacks and a spread of troops. All of these factors can allow a player to win. But your argument in escalating is that players focus on the spoils mostly is wrong. And in a 4 player escalating game, bonuses come into play a lot more than in the large games as they tend to be easier to get.

Yes, of course the specific settings affect the relative balance of how much spoils matter in a game. That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of having an escalating spoils type is to have a game where spoils play a major role in determining the winner. If there are games where that does not occur, then escalating is not really working right.

Even Doom who suggested the 100 range did not take into account the large game.

I suggested 100 troops since I have never seen a standard sweep game end in that range. Therefore, most users wouldn't recognize the change and there would be less opposition. After realizing that i have never played 12-player sweep game, I concur that perhaps the starting point could be a function of player size.

This either needs to be made for small games only and that is just wrong on so many levels or the 100 starting point needs to be raised higher so only the stalemated games reach it. If it is to be used to stop stalemates, then let it stop them and not touch normal games.

OK, so instead of just being a naysayer, come up with an alternative value where you think it should start

Last thing though, why are we trying to solve stalemates one setting at a time?

My motivation here is to make escalating games work as intended. I would want to do this regardless of whether we have a draw button.

[jiminski]

This would go so much faster is a stalemate button was introduced to the game page. Then everyone would have a way out.

.. i was waiting for this one!

I think you are a bit itchy about your idea being shelved, I can understand that Koontz, i feel your pain!
But one thing does not have to be related to the other.

People who play Escalator often choose that setting to ensure an exciting, relatively determinate resolution... the stalemate thus becomes particularly irksome.

The sharp inflation at 100 cash would indeed add a new, exciting dimension which all players can incorporate into their strategy.

[koontz1973]

OK, so instead of just being a naysayer, come up with an alternative value where you think it should start

Not doing it should solve the non issues. I am not going to give a value as I do not think this should go forward at any value.

Here is the problem.
Too early you effect normal games as they are now. This is something I really will fight to keep as it is a setting that I love to play. No one would love for their favourite setting to change no matter what it was.
Too late, no matter how high you set the escalation, it is too late.

People who play Escalator often choose that setting to ensure an exciting, relatively determinate resolution... the stalemate thus becomes particularly irksome.

Again this is not the case. Escalating games can go on for a lot longer than most players think they can and still be very exciting.Game 11287369

Trench always lasts longer than a normal game. It would still last longer than a normal game with this change too, because increasing the escalating cashes doesn't change how fast you can get across the board.

But it changes the way players will play and how the game was designed. Why stack at the border or choke points when you will cash so much higher and knock it down.

Duke made this point in his last post.

reduce the frequency from one in a thousand to one in two thousand

So even the person behind the idea says this would not solve the issue for everyone. So again, I ask, why are we trying to get a thing through that would not solve the issue for everyone, even in the setting you are trying to fix. Show me a fix that will fix the problem and I will support it happily.

Just in case you think 41 rounds is not enough to call it a stalemate, here's the oldest one on the site: Game 3852526

Even the longest game ended without this.
Extreme escalating spoils would be a better thing than this as it would give a new spoil and not mess around with an old one.

[Dukasaur]

I addressed the fact that it is a rare occurance, but on the occassions when it happens it is extremely unpleasant to endure, so if we can even reduce the frequency from one in a thousand to one in two thousand we will be improving the experience for countless members.

So a rare occurrence can now be justified for making a major change to what has been around for a very long time?

It's long overdue for an overhaul.

Escalating spoils were introduced into the original Risk game to eliminate stalemates, which were common with the original flat rate rules. The original Risk game was balanced for a map with 42 terts where, even in the unlikely event that every bonus is held, the average deploy per turn in a six player game is 7 troops each. With those kinds of deploys, the cash from escalating spoils easily breaks up any deadlocks.

Conquer Club, despite it's Risky roots, has moved far beyond that. We have huge, complex maps with 70, 80, 90, 100 terts. Some have more than that. Many of them have numerous bonuses, sometimes overlapping, sometimes compounding supercontinent bonuses, plus autodeploys. On AOR3, if all bonuses are held, the average deploy per player is over 50. That's seven times more than on the Classic map. I can't even hazard a guess as to how much the average deploy per player is on a map like King's Court II. Probably in the hundreds. On these types of maps, the escalating cash is no longer good enough to break up defensive lines and prevent stalemates.

This is a long-overdue adjustment to compensate for the changing landscape in maps.

Unpleasant or not, players get into games knowing full well the game can stalemate. Players have found many ways around this so to change a spoil to stop what occurs once in a thousand games to once in two thousand is not a good enough reason to change it. Stalemates happen far more often in flat, so why not increase those spoils after round 50? Or allow no spoil games to have spoils after round 100?

Players who choose flat rate or no spoils are patient players who don't mind facing the prospect of a stalemate. That is a choice they willingly make.

Players who choose escalating spoils do so because they like games that build rapidly to a crescendo and are over in a reasonable number of turns.

Why not have nukes nuke a region and all around it after 50 rounds.

Not a bad idea. But let's get this upgrade done first, and then we'll see about improving the nuclear experience.

These would all be rejected with the same excuse of round limits. An argument I do not agree with but is more than pertinent for this idea.

I've explained several times why round limits are not a good solution to the basic problem. I don't intend to repeat myself yet again.

Why fix something that is not broken and this is surely not broken? Or if we are going to fix something that is broken, lets fix it all at once and not do half measures.

It is broken. Well, not completely broken, but desperately in need of adjustment. You wouldn't build a skyscraper out of thatched grass just because it was okay for medieval huts. Bigger buildings require stronger materials, and bigger maps require stronger spoils.

[koontz1973]

It's long overdue for an overhaul.

No it is not. And if it was such a big problem, more suggestions, threads in general around the site would of been made. Escalating as a game would not be played if people hated it that much. Where is the clamour from the site over the last few years demanding it be changed? A few people supported this a long time ago, nothing for about 3 years and again it comes back.

This is a long-overdue adjustment to compensate for the changing landscape in maps.

We spend a lot of hours looking over maps to see how games will be played with every setting. Nothing in the foundry has even come close to upsetting the balance with escalating spoils.

Players who choose flat rate or no spoils are patient players who don't mind facing the prospect of a stalemate. That is a choice they willingly make.

Players who choose escalating spoils do so because they like games that build rapidly to a crescendo and are over in a reasonable number of turns.

This is false. I choose escalating because I like it. Not because it will be over in under 10 rounds. Players who choose any game type expect the game to finish with a winner. No one joins a game saying lets make this a stalemate. Players play the games they like and spoils are only one part of the game options they choose.

I've explained several times why round limits are not a good solution to the basic problem. I don't intend to repeat myself yet again.

I agree with you on round limits. I said so that it is an argument that cannot be made for any game.

It is broken. Well, not completely broken, but desperately in need of adjustment.

No it is not broken, not even a little. I hear a lot of people say that if you do not like a setting, do not play it.

You wouldn't build a skyscraper out of thatched grass just because it was okay for medieval huts. Bigger buildings require stronger materials, and bigger maps require stronger spoils.

So you would ban flat and no spoils on all large maps then as they cause the game to be stalemated more often? If you want stronger spoils, come up with a new type.

[Bruceswar]

Koontz you are barking up the wrong tree... This is soo long overdue it is not even funny.

[koontz1973]

Koontz you are barking up the wrong tree... This is soo long overdue it is not even funny.

I very well might be but I am allowed to voice my opinion as well and nothing said so far would make me think this is nothing more than a completely wasted opportunity to do something about it. But I came here to look and I saw this from another poster:

Doubling Bonuses

After 100 rounds the bonuses double
(200rounds triple 300 quadruple etc.)

I'm just wondering what people would think about this. It seems like a good feature to add beyond round limit just to be safe that a game wont go on forever.

Befefits: More options for choosing rules and maybe the longer games people will cut down each others bonus around the 100 round limit for the doubled bonus.

The above option is very extreme, but I think it would be something to consider with this idea. Using both would benefit not only escalating but flat as well. Instead of having the spoils start at a number, why not start them at a round?

So for escalating games, it would go as normal until round 50 (I would prefer 100), at which point in a 4 player game if all players have not been eliminated and have cashed the maximum amount of times, you would get spoils of around 200. Larger games are left alone, small games are only touched when they truly are stalemated. You can then go up with dukes spoil gradient.

How about that for a compromise? Not a spoils number but a round number.

[smithallan]

I agree with this suggestion

[Dukasaur]

I've gone through this thread from the beginning and decided to count up how many people have posted in favour versus how many people have posted against. The results are overwhelming. Forty-four (44) in favour, seven (7) ambivalent or unclear, five (5) clearly opposed.

There are discussions of specific variations of this proposal: mine, FabledIntegral's original proposal, the DiM "big bang" superescalation, yeti_c's formula (essentially indistinguishable from mine, and I suppose since he has priority I should refer to my formula as the "yeti_c formula"), jiminski's redoubling proposal (see page 4) and lancehoch's Fibonacci sequence.

At one point there was a poll, which is no longer available but the results were published:

Considering 37/54 people want SOME sort of change - is this being looked into at all?

That produced a result of 69% in favour, but I think the poster count is more accurate: those who stay around to address the topic are the ones to consider. The poster count, even if we credit the "neutrals" to the "anti" side, is 44/56, or a stunning 79% in favour.


Posters clearly in favour of at least some version of this proposal:
FabledIntegral
jiminski
DiM
Kemmler
bbqpenguin
AndyDufresne
Incandenza
negoeien
steve monkey
khazalid
cicero
Seulessliathan
WidowMakers
Timminz
yeti_c
hatterson
Soloman
trapyoung
max is gr8
bedub1
wolfpack0530
Dukasaur
KoolBak
chapcrap
agentcom
nebsmith
everywhere116
Criticalwinner
DoomYoshi
deantursx
MoB Deadly
pickleofdoom
cvlngnir
Metsfanmax
waauw
betiko
HardAttack
rishaed
Fazeem
Donelladan
Eddygp
MagnusGreeol
Bruceswar
smithallan


Posters unclear or ambivalent:
lord voldemort
lancehoch
AceArtemis
Joshua Hayden
natty dread
72o
zimmah


Posters clearly opposed:
gdeangel
JooDoo
maxfaraday
greenoaks
koontz1973

I think this suggestion has demonstrated enough support through the years to be Submitted.

[chapcrap]

I think this suggestion has demonstrated enough support through the years to be Submitted.

I don't disagree, but is the current suggestion in the OP the correct form/version?

[Dukasaur]

I think this suggestion has demonstrated enough support through the years to be Submitted.

I don't disagree, but is the current suggestion in the OP the correct form/version?

I'm happy with it as is.

Of course, as noted above, a lot of different versions were considered at one time or another. Natty dread and DoomYoshi both posted in favour of a milder escalation which only begins at 100, instead of 50 as I presented. I'm willing to go with 100 instead of 50 if that will get this proposal passed, but if it makes little difference then I would prefer the 50 as the neater solution. For one thing, the first step in starting at 50 results in 55, which is what the existing system provides, so it would be the smoothest transition.

Other posters, including DiM, lancehoch, and jiminski had more radical escalations to propose, so we have to consider their ideas as well.

I would say that my proposal as written stands fairly neatly between the milder escalations proposed by some and the steeper escalations proposed by others. Let's get it passed and if it turns out that it needs tweaking let's cross that bridge at the Beta test stage.

[Metsfanmax]

It needs to start at 100 because of what koontz pointed out about how this could affect 9+ player games.

[Dukasaur]

It needs to start at 100 because of what koontz pointed out about how this could affect 9+ player games.

Okay, change 50 to 100 then.

[koontz1973]

It needs to start at 100 because of what koontz pointed out about how this could affect 9+ player games.

Okay, change 50 to 100 then.

And change 100 to 0. Guys, we have been over this and no one has said that my large games will not be effected. Support, what support, a few players have asked for this over the years. If it was a major problem or really needed addressing, it would of been done before now. But with lack being slow in the update department, that is excusable, but where are all the escalating spoil bitching threads? This has no support apart from a few over many years. The thread itself is only 17 pages long and that includes multiple threads and multiple ideas.

This is a small patch for a large problem.
The escalating spoils would now give more troops to a player giving them a higher percentage to making the sweep.

I suggested a compromise a few posts back which no one commented on.

So for escalating games, it would go as normal until round 50 (I would prefer 100), at which point in a 4 player game if all players have not been eliminated and have cashed the maximum amount of times, you would get spoils of around 200. Larger games are left alone, small games are only touched when they truly are stalemated. You can then go up with dukes spoil gradient.

That produced a result of 69% in favour, but I think the poster count is more accurate: those who stay around to address the topic are the ones to consider. The poster count, even if we credit the "neutrals" to the "anti" side, is 44/56, or a stunning 79% in favour.

69% in favour, one name in favour on that list has said he does not support this so your lists are wrong. Those 69% have been in favour of some change, not yours. Some of those are not even on the site anymore. You even have me as clearly opposed, I am not opposed to this idea, I just want it to not effect my games. Change this so it does not effect me or the rest of the large map 8+ player escalating game players and then you will get me to shut up. Till then, I will be vocal about this.

[Dukasaur]

Enough is enough. Do I come into your map threads and filibuster endlessly for you to do things my way? You've carried on this filibuster through five pages now, you're not saying anything new except more unsubstantiated (and mutually contradictory) allegations that the proposal either won't solve the problem or that the problem doesn't exist. Which is it now: is it that the problem doesn't exist or that the problem exists and this proposal won't solve it?

You're entitled to have an opinion but ceaselessly expressing the same opinion for five pages borders on cyberbullying. You can have your opinion, but the following people disagree:

I think this is a very sensible idea .. perhaps the increase would need to keep increasing in order to give a certain conclusion and ensure a viable take-out attempt.
For example the cash value could escalate as follows: 100, 120, 150, 190, 240, 300.

It would certainly cause more action and diminish the possibility of stagnation. (like increasing blinds in Poker)

I think that this is an excellent idea, as I've been agitating for some sort of solution to various types of stalemate for some time now.

Good idea, stalemates are happening now with monotonous regularity.

the point is, before 100 cash (or there abouts) you still have a chance for the game to end 'naturally' with a series of kills or a mistake/ bad dice on a kill attempt.
the problem is that in some games (higher ranking games in particular; due to a plethora of reasons including: skill, intelligence, fear of condemnation, embarrassment at being yelled at and/or cursed by a virtual gypsy!) the worth of a kill becomes superseded by its cost. This usually occurs at around the 100 cash mark. (few people have disagreed so far.)

the suggestion seems to be a good solution which allows the game a chance to end but bloody well ends it at the point of no return,

sounds like a great idea, always +5 has given us a lot of stalmates, i guess this is the best solution i have heard so far.

I like the idea because I was just thinking about it yesterday!

I don't know about your setup, but cashes should get increasingly larger as they go. It will definitely stop a stalemate.

I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

The PoD supports the exponential system for large maps.

This would definately help in the Trench Warfare games on the big maps. I am in one now that has no end in sight.
Game Game 10920177

World 2.1, Trench, Escalating

I like this idea, I keep getting stuck in escalating games lately, especially in combination with trench.

I like the idea. If an escalating reaches 100 cash it s not normal and it s been stalling for a few rounds. It does need a fix.

Good day sir.

[koontz1973]

Do I come into your map threads and filibuster endlessly for you to do things my way?

I welcome your opinions on any map thread, mine or otherwise. If you have a valid comment, I will make the change to the map. That is the way map threads go.

either won't solve the problem or that the problem doesn't exist

It will not solve the problem as it has been said that the problem does not exist as all games that are started should finish come hell or high water no matter what.

The basic form of it is that you should have to play out the games you start come hell or high water. This is a pretty good rule of thumb and it works for 99.9% of all the games played on this site. Rarely do players end up in games where there is a true stalemate that has to be decided by other means.

But I agree that a problem does exist and a solution needs to be found. I just do not think this is the right one or large enough in scope.

Duke, lose your temper if you want, I really do not care, but at no point have you said that my games will not be effect in a detrimental way. I love playing 8+ player escalating games on large maps and this will effect my games so I am sorry that you feel I have no right to an opinion here but I really do. I have not said the same thing over and over, I have offered a solution to this on two occasions. One of which was to start this at 100 which everyone says is a good idea and the other, you have not commented on. All I am really asking for is to change this from a spoils number to a round number. Why can this not be done?

I am open to a healthy debate on this but really, saying what you just said and the way you said it is beneath you. I am neither cyber bullying or trolling. I am just trying to find a solution to the problem you say exists without it harming games that are not stalemated. This was your intention in the first place, to stop stalemate games and not to effect games that are playing out normally.

As for the large game as well, what would be the consequences to this change have on battle royal games? There you have even more than 12 players.

[Metsfanmax]

Duke, lose your temper if you want, I really do not care, but at no point have you said that my games will not be effect in a detrimental way. I love playing 8+ player escalating games on large maps and this will effect my games so I am sorry that you feel I have no right to an opinion here but I really do. I have not said the same thing over and over, I have offered a solution to this on two occasions. One of which was to start this at 100 which everyone says is a good idea and the other, you have not commented on. All I am really asking for is to change this from a spoils number to a round number. Why can this not be done?

I'm quite honestly confused by what you're asking for. I posted that we need this change and I even edited the OP accordingly, and then you responded to my post saying we shouldn't do this.

Either way, your opinion has been noted.

[Woltato]

this is a great idea. I find it's pointless playing on large maps with only high rank players. It nearly always ends in a stalemate. It requires someone playing badly to break the deadlock. exponential spoils would resolve this problem.

[MrPinky]

I like this idea also.... exponential should be exponential somehow..... now it just turns into something linear .....

[chapcrap]

SUBMITTED