[GP] Vote For Draw

[Shelter417]

Why couldn't draws be an option? That way players who don't believe in draws don't have to play with people who might be willing to draw.

[Simon Viavant]

I'd advocate a draw, but only when it's down to two players, and they both agree to it. Otherwise people might vote draw just to stop someone from winning. How about a draw requires unanimous approval?

[jiminski]

The Point Beaker makes is that it could be used as a tactic.

Many people complain that high ranked players will not play lower ones in public games. Well it happens less and less in Public games for many reasons, a few are:
- Point loss is terrible due to the handicap system; a really high scoring player (5000 points) v cooks at the bottom of the scoreboard would pretty much have to win 100% of the games even in a 6 man esc. (not really possible)
- Unknown players and styles; sometimes new players are fantastic but it only takes 1 who is not versed in the nuances of the game, to 'ruin' a game for an established player with all their preconceptions.
- Deliberate targeting of higher ranking players by low; this is sometimes but not always about points (we all know as we were all cooks once, it can also seem to make sense as the higher rank may appear to be the biggest threat. You may want to challenge them; like the kid and the gun-slinger...heheh what a stupid game this is)

The practice of targeting rank for points and voting for a draw:
if a person has 1-4 multis all they would need to do is kill the high ranker, press the draw button and split the points with no fear of loss.
Even a group of 5 friends could do this... and if they announced the fact that they were going to not attack each other in game chat, it would not even be cheating under the present rules i believe.

[vonForster]

Well, according to what you say jiminski, couldn't 5 friends do that to the higher player anyways, in the only one person wins game? Assuming they join 5 games, each will win one and all will end better than they start. (While it is unlikely this would happen as it would be extremely obvious, they could space the games over time). And as I said before, the objection is generally a good one, but it doesn't leave out the option of not awarding any points.

And for previous posts, any form of draw voting should require unanimous approval. I don't think anyone can have any other option other than a majority of votes, which is still pretty stupid and unrealistic. Shelter's point about draws being an option is good, but I think that draws would be infrequent enough that it wouldn't really matter in most cases if some people are against them. And if a significant amount of people are against draws to where they don't occur in deadlocks where they would anyways, then it still doesn't hurt to have them (assuming of course that the coding for the draw wouldn't be super-complex and slow down/screw up the whole site, which it shouldn't).

[jiminski]

Well, according to what you say jiminski, couldn't 5 friends do that to the higher player anyways, in the only one person wins game? Assuming they join 5 games, each will win one and all will end better than they start. (While it is unlikely this would happen as it would be extremely obvious, they could space the games over time). And as I said before, the objection is generally a good one, but it doesn't leave out the option of not awarding any points.

yeap, of course Forster, most things can and in fact do happen. But the probability of it happening becomes more likely if we add a draw option. Purely and simply due to the ease of pulling the sneaky plan off for the cheater. No orchestration past one game is necessary and points get split - it is a no lose situation, using very little sophistication.

Also it would not necessarily be friends doing it, the majority/strongest players in a game could team-up in Chat and kill the rest, split the points and all within the rules!. .. It certainly would add a new dimension but not one i like the sound of.

Sorry to be a damp squib mate, i like the idea but in my opinion (blame Beaker he pointed it out ) it is very open to abuse... maybe you can think of a way around that?

[Incandenza]

Splitting the points between all left in the game seems sensible based on unanimous vote... i need to think about it though.

I proposed this idea a few months ago here, but the response was kinda lukewarm. I'm still in favor of the concept tho.

[Emperor_Metalman]

If all players agree to a draw, then nobody should gain or lose points.

[killmanic]

I really like the idea for all games since there is 1 game I am in where it will end when someone deadbeats and the only non-premium person in it has had to deadbeat because of the limit of games they can have.

[Timminz]

I really like the idea for all games since there is 1 game I am in where it will end when someone deadbeats and the only non-premium person in it has had to deadbeat because of the limit of games they can have.

Which game is that? I can't seem to find it.

[killmanic]

they havent finished deadbeating yet, and they gave another reason but its pretty obvious they need the slot.
Game 2131602

[Theoharis]

Concise description:

• Add a "propose tie" button that brings a game to a draw if all other players agree.

Specifics:

• In chess, as in real war, there is the possibility of "draw by agreement". One player offers a draw, and the other either accepts or declines. Likewise, in some CC games (especially long games, e.g. after round 50) there could be the opportunity for some "stalemate" games. Imagine a game that is, say, in round 70 and three players are amassing troops in their borders (one I play now, Game 5509539, is a good example). To reach this state, everyone most probably has played it well and therefore the resolution depends not on skill but on either luck or lack of patience. In such cases, a player could perhaps be given the opportunity to call for a draw. In immediately consecutive turns, the other players have the opportunity to accept or decline. If everyone agrees, the game ties, and surviving players share any points gained.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• It adds yet another strategic element, because calling/refusing a draw is a psychological factor that players can note.
• It provides players with the opportunity to have an honourable ending after a long fight, recognising an equal.
• It simulates further real-life conditions.

Note: This in not like the "concede button" discussion, which has been exhausted. I did a search for a "tie button" and nothing came up, but sorry if this is a repost.

[slowreactor]

Unless NO point transactions are made, it is still too easy to abuse - e.g.

3 player game, 2 friends team up on the 3rd guy, kill him, then agree to a draw. The 3rd guy loses points and the 2 friends never do.

slow

[haggispittjr]

sudgested and denied before

[AceArtemis]

I believe this should be implemented, but without any points gained/lost, because nobody won.

[bruno fountain]

I think there should be an option to allow all to agree to tie the game. At the moment I am in a game that is in round 82 and is going nowhere. There was 4 of us but it has been only 3 playing for weeks now. It is the chinese checkers map (5493648) which now looking at it with 3 players is a map that to easily stalemates. The way my game is currently going the three of us left would all accept a draw as we have all mentioned how it is repetitive and going nowhere at all.
I have read the post and accept that people could always team up and then split points. If people are going to go to these lengths of cheating they could effectively do the same thing now but just do two games and make sure they then deadbeat to there mate in one after eliminating the foe. If the points issue of an eliminated player is the problem maybe no points should change hands at all. Another option that might help this situation and would aid in getting a winner. Is an option allowing people to suggest that cards could change from either no spoils or flat rate to escalating. Of course this would have to be accepted by all playing the game. But It would be a lot harder for an escalating game to get to this state of stalemating.

[pmchugh]

Unless NO point transactions are made, it is still too easy to abuse - e.g.

3 player game, 2 friends team up on the 3rd guy, kill him, then agree to a draw. The 3rd guy loses points and the 2 friends never do.

slow

I don't think that would happen any more than 2 friends teaming up on a third guy and letting each other win alternative games. Much more likely is that people would use this feature to practise without giving away points, where everyone agrees prior to joining to end as a tie before the last territ is taken.

[Gypsys Kiss]

Unless NO point transactions are made, it is still too easy to abuse - e.g.

3 player game, 2 friends team up on the 3rd guy, kill him, then agree to a draw. The 3rd guy loses points and the 2 friends never do.

slow

I don't think that would happen any more than 2 friends teaming up on a third guy and letting each other win alternative games. Much more likely is that people would use this feature to practise without giving away points, where everyone agrees prior to joining to end as a tie before the last territ is taken.

which would come under 'gross abuse' would it not..............and easily checkable

[MeDeFe]

Unless NO point transactions are made, it is still too easy to abuse - e.g.

3 player game, 2 friends team up on the 3rd guy, kill him, then agree to a draw. The 3rd guy loses points and the 2 friends never do.

slow

I don't think that would happen any more than 2 friends teaming up on a third guy and letting each other win alternative games. Much more likely is that people would use this feature to practise without giving away points, where everyone agrees prior to joining to end as a tie before the last territ is taken.

which would come under 'gross abuse' would it not..............and easily checkable

Then imagine an 8 player game, 6 left, one person wants to battle it out because they are principled like that. The other 5 kill the guy and agree to a tie.

Besides, any stalemate can be broken, there are a lot of methods for doing it.

[frankiebee]

If youre in a stalmate, just make some alliances to get things moving !
It's not against the rules to make agreements in the chat about eliminating somebody !;)

[Titanin]

I think that a "Tie button" it is a very good idea... Maybe only available after 40-50 turns. I am playing a game in "Chinese Checkers" map, and the simetry of this map is making the game going nowhere.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

there is no such thing as a tie. Just players refusing to attack/move.

[haggispittjr]

if you guys had premium, you wouldnt mind having a realy long ass game cause it doesnt take up one of your 4 spaces.

[Halmir]

Concise description:

• An honourable alternative to a feeble Suicide option. Stalemate is a bad dull thing, but deadbeating out of a game is worse. However, if most remaining players want to call it a day, why not enable this?

Specifics:

• My suggestion is to add a Split the Pot option (a term originating from my card playing days, where those remaining players contesting the hand at Poker, Brag etc, agreed to end that hand and divide up the money in the middle equally, as they all judged themselves to be roughly equal but couldn't be bothered to try some outrageous bluff technique!).
• Once you click on the Split the Pot option, it shows as a flag against your name and also in the text log. Once an appropriate number of players all click this (I'd say 5 out of 6, 6 out of 7, etc i.e. we just need a clear strong majority) the game ends. Some form of safeguard is needed to stop a bunch of near-dead guys choosing this to stop the big guy from stomping them. I would suggest that this can't be used if the 5 out of 6 (for example) have less troops/territories than those who haven't voted for it. If you can convince the currently winning player to end it, then it can happen.
• You then lose a % of the points you could have lost, if you had lost to the lowest ranked player. This one needs some more work also but the concept is that it will cost you some points so that it's not used frivolously, but not a total 100% loss, so it's worth doing just to get on with other games.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Some games drag on, far beyond the enjoyment of most players. If there was a consensus to end it by mutual agreement and get on with our other games, is that not better?

[jimboston]

I think it would have to be 100% of players still in the game.

That's how you do it in poker.

[dwilhelmi]

Concise description:

• Allow for players to enter into a treaty that will end the game
• The points would then be distributed among all players in the final treaty, based off of percentage of the board controlled

Specifics:

• Place a "Suggest Treaty" button next to the "Begin Turn" button
• If you choose "Suggest Treaty", your turn will be skipped. The next player will then have an "Accept Treaty" button next to their "Begin Turn" button.
• If the second player declines the treaty, they may then begin their turn.
• If the second player accepts the treaty, and there are more than two players left, it will move on to the third player, who may also accept or deny.
• All remaining players must agree to the treaty in order for the game to end.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Allow for more diplomacy opportunities - instead of suiciding, a losing third player can enter into a deal with one of two evenly matched players to give that player the edge.
• Provides a way out of stacking games
• More closely mirrors real world conquest scenarios, where deals can be and are made.
• By forcing a player to skip a turn in order to suggest a treaty, it will reduce people from attempting it too often, and shows a sign of trust in your opponent - a key component of real world treaties as well.