Conquer Club

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.

what about keep it same through cash value = 75...starting from 75 set the increment to be 6-7-8-9-....instead 5-5-5-5-... ?
not sure but setting increment to be a fixed new value after reaching a certain value, if it wud brought new problems ?
the 6-7-8-9-... fashion is ignorable increment while having same effect once it is reached to 100 units or something.

in this fashion, say once 150 reached, it is what ? 12 or 13 ? something like that.

betiko wrote: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.

There's already one. It's called "round limit".

maxfaraday wrote:

betiko wrote: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.

There's already one. It's called "round limit".

Sure, but the whole point of escalating is that it is not supposed to drag on forever (and usually it does not). Round Limit games are very useful for options like No Spoils, where there's no easy way out of a deadlock. If an escalating game results in frequent deadlocks, then the setting isn't working properly.

Metsfanmax wrote:

maxfaraday wrote:

betiko wrote: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.

There's already one. It's called "round limit".

Sure, but the whole point of escalating is that it is not supposed to drag on forever (and usually it does not). Round Limit games are very useful for options like No Spoils, where there's no easy way out of a deadlock. If an escalating game results in frequent deadlocks, then the setting isn't working properly.

Round Limit games are also a completely different setting. In a regular game, you play to eliminate your opponents which involves attacking. In a round limit game, every attack you make lowers your chance of victory. They are totally different games and seriously need an overhaul, but that's a different story.

So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?

chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?

Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.

The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?

Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?

Have the code use the general rounding system (ie. Everything above .5 goes up, while everything below goes down?) Either that or just round it up. (Ie. Use his system however have a limiter which restricts it to integers).
Otherwise, I haven't played many games where i've been deadlocked w/ Esc. but I generally support the idea as viable, and making sense. Why because Esc. starts as (4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30...)where it starts to climb. If I remember correctly the spoils w/ said board only reach maybe 45-65? They augmented the amount of troops received per spoils cashed, because I'm sure that either A. Its just easier to go by 5's. B. They realized the need for higher spoils mid-endgame.

DoomYoshi wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?

Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.

Well, natty_dread suggested not starting the escalation until 100, but I'm still comfortable with starting at 50.

Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?

I would go by scientific rules of rounding as a personal preference, but common rules of rounding would be okay if that's easier to program.

50
55
60
66
73
80
88
97
105
116
128
141
155
160
176
193
212
233
256
282
310
341
375
412
453
498
548
603
663

(I did those manually so I round off in each step. However, you could in theory let the computer carry whatever number of decimals behind the scenes and get more precise results.)

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?

Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.

Well, natty_dread suggested not starting the escalation until 100, but I'm still comfortable with starting at 50.

Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?

I would go by scientific rules of rounding as a personal preference, but common rules of rounding would be okay if that's easier to program.

50
55
60
66
73
80
88
97
105
116
128
141
155
160
176
193
212
233
256
282
310
341
375
412
453
498
548
603
663

(I did those manually so I round off in each step. However, you could in theory let the computer carry whatever number of decimals behind the scenes and get more precise results.)

sounds like a winner to me

This will make the most epic Colliseum games.

DoomYoshi wrote:This will make the most epic Colliseum games.

good point,
however collesium map is not even a map in play except certain events;
also, given map examples not more than 10...

once we consider it we have got bit less than 250 maps, if we should set a rule be well fit with 10 maps then isnt it we are a bit of down pushing and ignoring remaining maps, and its possible downside effects over remaining maps ?

maybe, this new escalation should be preferable settings while we keep the conventional escalation still be an option.

If it start when a set is 100 troops I dont see any problem by replacing the normal escalating setting. Could you give one HA?
I dont think I ever played a game that wasnt a stalemate where spoils reach 100. Or only end of the game maybe but then it doesnt matter

MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.

This idea is very important, because it will only affect at the issue and won't change gameplay in any other way throughout the games, turning it into a very interesting feature to implement.

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, is their a concensus about what the new scale would like?

Nobody has opposed the scale from the OP.

Well, natty_dread suggested not starting the escalation until 100, but I'm still comfortable with starting at 50.

Metsfanmax wrote:The scale from the OP needs to be refined slightly because we will quickly get into fractional troop values. Do we round down? Round up? Or can you construct a system that has no fractional troop values?

I would go by scientific rules of rounding as a personal preference, but common rules of rounding would be okay if that's easier to program.

50
55
60
66
73
80
88
97
105
116
128
141
155
160
176
193
212
233
256
282
310
341
375
412
453
498
548
603
663

(I did those manually so I round off in each step. However, you could in theory let the computer carry whatever number of decimals behind the scenes and get more precise results.)

Rounding at each step is probably better than to carry on the fractions.

However you made a mistake after 155.

It should be 155->171

Love the idea of increasing esc. spoils,, I'd say 10 more after 50 then whatever is decided-- Love it!!

I am having a problem with this suggestion.

@Dukasaur: can you upgrade your scale to start at 100. If we start messing with people`s escalating numbers, there is going to be a backlash. This suggestion does not qualify as distinct enough to be a new Spoils, so it really should replace the current ones. By the time a game reaches 100, most games are not playing, but I know many go between 50-100.

@someone who devs: how will this affect ongoing escalating games when this changes over? This isn`t like breaking Conquer 500 where you can just fix everything.
e.g. The player A spoil is 500. Under the new system, player b gets 1400. How do we prevent that? I am thinking that all new games will be created under a spoil called escalating, but the old system will stick around until all those games are ended. Does this work?

Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.

Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?

DoomYoshi wrote:@Dukasaur: can you upgrade your scale to start at 100. If we start messing with people`s escalating numbers, there is going to be a backlash. This suggestion does not qualify as distinct enough to be a new Spoils, so it really should replace the current ones. By the time a game reaches 100, most games are not playing, but I know many go between 50-100.

Ok, start at 100. I don't have a problem with that if it leads to greater acceptance.

Anyway, I don't have any programming stuff any more, but if someone has a QBasic compiler and can run the table for me, it's really simple.


LET c=100
DO WHILE c<1000
PRINT c
c=CINT(c*1.1)
END DO

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.

Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?

We'll have to take care of the first post or give the first post to you... I would actually prefer the latter on situations like this so that the person who is involved with the suggestion currently can receive credit for it and keep it up to date themselves. In honesty, there are probably too many for the mods to keep every one of them perfectly up to date. That being said, I've updated the OP.

chapcrap wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.

Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?

We'll have to take care of the first post or give the first post to you... I would actually prefer the latter on situations like this so that the person who is involved with the suggestion currently can receive credit for it and keep it up to date themselves. In honesty, there are probably too many for the mods to keep every one of them perfectly up to date. That being said, I've updated the OP.

I can understand Dakas's ire (though do not agree completely that it's an inferior version to what was developed in the original .. it's virtually identical but no need to fight) and, as most of the original contributors died of natural causes a few years back, it makes sense that the 'original poster' is alive to husband the front page of the thread .. (the use of "hyperbolic" is damn good marketing too )
NB. Perhaps, and this will definitely not be me as i haven't many years left ... Perhaps, someone can make a separate Suggestion that: "Suggestions can not take longer than the average lifespan of a human being to initiate"?

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:MERGED Dukasaur's topic with a significantly older topic, and stickied. This has a lot of potential.

Thank you. Unfortunately, the BB software is pretty inflexible and puts the oldest post first, which in this case unfortunately contains an inferior version of this suggestion. We've found out now from experience that BW will only look at the first post to determine what the suggestion is. Have you guys planned a way around this?

Yes, it's our policy now to make sure the OP contains the consensus version of the Suggestion before it's submitted. Therefore this would have happened eventually, but thanks to chap for taking care of it.

I am still at a loss here. How is having spoils increase after 100 going to stop stalemates? And are stalemates now an unaccepted part of the game? Players have always found ways round stalemates before, even Dukasaur in the OP has said in a game he was stalemated in got resolved.