[GP/UI] Increase Escalating Spoils to Avoid Stalemates

[FabledIntegral]

voteee

[yeti_c]

voteee

I already did.

C.

[jiminski]

fairly clear lead for the fractional increase, it shows that the voters also read the thread i think.

[trapyoung]

i agree with the fractional increase, if it ever gets to cashing 100+ and there's more than 3 players it's pretty much a guaranteed stalemate, but fractional may make it interesting. the only issue i think there will be is that usually when sets are 100+ people have around 300-400 on the board so that's why the stalemate occurs, i'm thinking maybe a drastic increase in necessary but the jump doesn't seem that fair, going from 100 to 150 or so per se. so i voted fractional but i'm not sure it will solve most of the stalemates.

[jiminski]

i agree with the fractional increase, if it ever gets to cashing 100+ and there's more than 3 players it's pretty much a guaranteed stalemate, but fractional may make it interesting. the only issue i think there will be is that usually when sets are 100+ people have around 300-400 on the board so that's why the stalemate occurs, i'm thinking maybe a drastic increase in necessary but the jump doesn't seem that fair, going from 100 to 150 or so per se. so i voted fractional but i'm not sure it will solve most of the stalemates.

yeah we battled it out on that one throughout the thread Trap.
have a look back and look at the various number series. (you can find the 'climax' of the debate, prior to the vote being put up, 2 or 3 pages back)

[gdeangel]

I am not a fan of this idea. I agree you will drive games to conclusion faster, but (1) if your premium, who cares, just go make another game... if you don't like spending the time to keep the game alive, deadbeat or suicide, and (2) there is no such thing as a stalemate in this game... just an unwillingness to take a risk.

[FabledIntegral]

I am not a fan of this idea. I agree you will drive games to conclusion faster, but (1) if your premium, who cares, just go make another game... if you don't like spending the time to keep the game alive, deadbeat or suicide, and (2) there is no such thing as a stalemate in this game... just an unwillingness to take a risk.

1. If it's a speed game - then yes it matters, unless you want to sit at your computer for 5+ hours. So don't try to say premium it matters less. It matters SIGNIFICANTLY more if you're in a speed game - casual I understand you could sit it out. However in a speed game you'd be expected to sit there for HOURS.
2. You're advocating deadbeating/suicide, absolutely brilliant advice by you. I'm glad you contribute to our discussion so much on finding a conclusion.
3. Yes, by definition from dictionary.com, there is a stalemate in this game.
4. "just an unwillingness to take a risk." This game is a strategy site. You're trying to preach that someone should use a poor, thus risky strategy to try and take a win. Doing a move against the odds detracts from this game being a strategy game. Sure - it can come to a conclusion - but if all people in teh game play smart, it will NOT. When somebody advises someone to make a move in one of these situations, it's advising them to make a strategically poor move, as the BEST strategy is waiting for someone ELSE to screw up (which won't happen if people are smart). Nothing you do can possibly benefit really, attacking just screws over yourself and the other person you attack, leaving the other players to solve the stalemate.

[FabledIntegral]

bump - I've been in two stalemates in teh last 4 games I've played involving 8-player escalating speed.

First game I sat around with a slight advantage for like 40 minutes, having around 800 armies compared ot the rest's 600-700 armies. Then some idiot who was tired of playing "trying to make it fair" was going to use 6 stacks of 100 armies each, and auto 200 armies total into each of us.

Well the dumbfuck accidentally autoed 3 of the 100 armies into me and only one into scott-land, which got really poor dice and only killed around 80 of his armies. I lost around 400 armies, allowing him to sweep in, kill grey, then kill me, and win the game.

I'm sick of playing for like an hour of nonsense to have to wait for a person to suicide. This needs a solution. The second stalemate I got in, no joke, I literally said "f*ck it," and deadbeated after being in a stalemate for around 15 minutes to 20 minutes.

This needs a solution.

[jiminski]

hear hear!

[Joodoo]

I don't think this is a good idea mainly because CC is based on RISK, right? If you increase the army cash in escalating then there will be less "risk" around since there's gonna be one huge army against a tiny army...
Risk is about risking your armies, so what if a stalemate comes? Well, you don't just sit there and do nothing besides deploying, you gotta attack or even suicide. Without these elements, RISK wouldn't a game that is dedicated to players who make risks.

[jiminski]

I don't think this is a good idea mainly because CC is based on RISK, right? If you increase the army cash in escalating then there will be less "risk" around since there's gonna be one huge army against a tiny army...
Risk is about risking your armies, so what if a stalemate comes? Well, you don't just sit there and do nothing besides deploying, you gotta attack or even suicide. Without these elements, RISK wouldn't a game that is dedicated to players who make risks.

Hello Joo
We don't play risk mate... this game on CC is so far removed from what most of us started off playing as a board game.
the difference is as stark as between 5 card draw poker played around the kitchen table and Internet Texas Holdem.

there are similarities of course.. but the rule changes, level of sophistication and culture of learning which has grown on here makes the analogy not entirely relevant.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't think this is a good idea mainly because CC is based on RISK, right? If you increase the army cash in escalating then there will be less "risk" around since there's gonna be one huge army against a tiny army...
Risk is about risking your armies, so what if a stalemate comes? Well, you don't just sit there and do nothing besides deploying, you gotta attack or even suicide. Without these elements, RISK wouldn't a game that is dedicated to players who make risks.

You are wrong - RISK is NOT about taking risks, it is about playing your odds. You can win a 10 v 50 by luck, but it would still be a stupid move by any player to try it even if they won.

Joodoo - obviously you failed to read the original post. Attacking is not beneficial, nor is suiciding, which is against CC rules. In these stalemate situations, whoever attacks is the one that LOSES. If you attack, you lose, and the other person that didn't attack wins. And the odds of winning by just attacking are pretty much less than 1/100,000. Chances are, you can get in as many stalemates as you like and never win with your logic.

Once again, anyone who thinks that CC or even the board game risk IS about taking risks is just stupid in my opinion. It's a strategy game - and should be played as one.

[jiminski]

I do not play many speedgames (though i have over the last 24 hours)

I just sat in a game which was a natural stalemate:

Game 2972821

the game lasted for 4 hours until eventually 1 of the last 3 players had to leave. .. they basically suicided .. madness ensued and i was the beneficiary.


The game was thrown into stalemate due to a series of factors: deadbeats lengthening the game and then their cards disappearing at inopportune moments; failed kill attempts followed by blocking so as to not lose. followed by perfect multi layered blocks, meaning protection for the 2 weaker players from the stronger.

The dominance of the stronger player meant that for either of the other 2 (of which i was 1) to kill the other would hand the game to the dominant player. and to attack the dominant player would also have caused imbalance.

eventually as i say the game was ballsed up and i won unsatisfactorily and more through luck than judgement!


there must be a better way... i got little satisfaction from this epic and entertaining battle ending this way, even if i did get the points!

[FabledIntegral]

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

[jiminski]

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

70% would like to see a change... anyone interested? ...

If we are worried about the purists and the integrity of the game then it could be a game option.
'Hyper Escalator' or something... i reckon it would be the number one choice for SpeedGames, without necessarily interfering with the Casual.

Then we can put the FreezeGame button in for all other Stalemates in other formats.

[max is gr8]

I know this is quite a big bump but this is still required

[bedub1]

I recently got stuck in one of these. We created another game and used it as a playoff/tiebreaker game. I would be intested in the option for making the continents bonus's worth more. It wouldn't have applied to the game I was in, but there is definitely more reason to take a continent though...although our cash got up to 600+ so the continent wouldn't be too much at that point....

[wolfpack0530]

i voted for exponential increase instead of just 5. stalemates suck. When i get in them, i attack myself out of them. But i try to be fair about it. i try to divide my armies and hit every remaining player equally give or take. Then i am very weak and easy for the take out, but the rest of the players remain evenly matched. usually this mix up creates some action in the game for the remaining players and gives them opportinities for an ending.

[edwinissweet]

Concise description:

signing a treaty button

Specifics:

having a button not to surrender, but to just end a game in peace.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

will allow for endless games to end

[army of nobunaga]

i like this... a button that 100% people can press and get out of a horrible game.

[Incandenza]

Various "ending long-ass games" ideas have been submitted over the years. The silence from management was pretty deafening, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

[edwinissweet]

i know. ive seen alot get shut down because of the abuse factor. But if no one gains points from it, then i dont see how it can be abused.

[Incandenza]

i know. ive seen alot get shut down because of the abuse factor. But if no one gains points from it, then i dont see how it can be abused.

It's not really about abuse, it's that management, by all appearances, either doesn''t think horribly stalemated games are an issue, or doesn't care.

[jefjef]

About the only time a game is stalemated is when you DON'T assault.

Try attacking.

[Incandenza]

About the only time a game is stalemated is when you DON'T assault.

Try attacking.

Such an unbelievably tiresome attitude. Only a dummy attacks when doing so will cost them the game.

EDIT: My suggestion from 2+ years ago
Another good suggestion from almost 2 years ago