Conquer Club

this is a game of global domination. the end result is to take out everyone and be the last one standing.

also, there is the chance for abuse. you can have people go into a game fairly and then decide, let's just take this other guy out and share the points. definitely would ruin the enjoyment of the game.

I am well aware of the point. I am just saying that it could add another layer of intrigue to an already fascinating game.

I also wonder how much it would be abused, considering that the eventual winner would be giving up a portion of their winnings.

dwilhelmi wrote:I am well aware of the point. I am just saying that it could add another layer of intrigue to an already fascinating game.

I also wonder how much it would be abused, considering that the eventual winner would be giving up a portion of their winnings.

people have been known to farm 5 points at a time.. so the missing out on points isnt really an issue with people that would abuse the system. They would simply find more people to cheat out of their points. I would like to see this implimented, with a pre-set, publicly known tough punishment for those who abuse it.

i just thought of something else..

How about a pre set number of turns, if a game reaches said turn, it just ends with no winner.


or, a surrender button that will cost you the points of losing to the lowest ranked member of the game, but no one gets those points. Your price out of an annoying-never ending game, is your points without having to throw the game..

edwinissweet wrote:i just thought of something else..

How about a pre set number of turns, if a game reaches said turn, it just ends with no winner.


or, a surrender button that will cost you the points of losing to the lowest ranked member of the game, but no one gets those points. Your price out of an annoying-never ending game, is your points without having to throw the game..

That might work... And wouldnt be abused because you dont give points to other player... only thing it could be used for is point dumping

iamkoolerthanu wrote:

edwinissweet wrote:i just thought of something else..

How about a pre set number of turns, if a game reaches said turn, it just ends with no winner.


or, a surrender button that will cost you the points of losing to the lowest ranked member of the game, but no one gets those points. Your price out of an annoying-never ending game, is your points without having to throw the game..

That might work... And wouldnt be abused because you dont give points to other player... only thing it could be used for is point dumping

and i guess all the alive players have to do it, not just one.. because in that case people could just deatbeat and not worry about the point loss.

Anything that gives a get out option for the stalemated games is a good idea in my opinion. This fits the bill just fine!

Concise description:
Allow an "agree to tie" or perhaps a "resign" option ONLY for games that are very, very long.

Specifics/Details:
Once a game reaches a certain number of rounds (maybe 1000 or so.. exact number can be debated) or a certain time limit (4 months, say), a button will appear allowing someone to resign or to request a tie. For the tie to work, all would have to agree.

New Modification: 1. respond before playing -- Either the person would have to respond before playing their turn OR answering would serve as that turn (time limits same as for turns to keep it easy)
2. Allow each person to ask for a tie only once. Perhaps cycle could "repeat" if everyone has requested a tie, but that seems highly improbable (mostly the repeat option would be a fall back in case someone goofed)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
The idea of a "surrender" button keeps popping up, but it would be too easily abused. At the same time, there are games that just stretch on forever. If everyone is OK with that, fine. The problem is sometimes new people join and just don't realize OR even experienced people might get caught in a game they just wish would end. If someone has to go on vacation or such, the only options now are to "suicide" or to try to find a "babysitter". Neither is necessarily all that statisfying. I first said 2 months, then realized I have had quite a few games last that long (fairly common for no spoils, I believe). Even 4 months might be too little. Maybe it should be 6 months or such.

My thought would be that ties would not gain either party points, but even just giving a token number of points (2, say). It could be argued that this might encourage high ranked players who are losing to "bully" low-ranked players. However, this is one reason for the extra long time length. I really don't see anyone using this "tie" option unless there really and truly is a full stalemate.

All this does is give people an option to end a dead-end game when it really IS a deadend, and play more. It would not be required, so anyone who wants to continue still can.

How this differs from other "surrender" type suggestions:
Basically, the time limit and the fact that everyone would have to agree. People are not going to just quit a game for 6 months on a whim (or even 2 months, 4 months probably). Right now, many people just give up and suicide at that point. That sort of ruins it for everyone, not to mention the points issues. I say that if everyone involved wants to quit after playing for 4-6 months... its no big loss to CC, as long as everyone agrees.

Yeah agreed, There's currently no easy way to resolve a stalemate. Should be an either an option for all players to call it a draw, or maybe an option to restart the game excluding players who have been eliminated.

I think the surrender button should be available when there's only 2 players left.

Woltato wrote:Yeah agreed, There's currently no easy way to resolve a stalemate. Should be an either an option for all players to call it a draw, or maybe an option to restart the game excluding players who have been eliminated.

I think the surrender button should be available when there's only 2 players left.

idk if that would work, but i like how it sounds

original idea is the best, edwin get a poll up... it's a good idea.

The thing is that this has been suggested alot before. Like TONS of times. As much as i would like to see this happen, i dont make the calls. The best thing we can do is come up with a a way to make stalemates work and then submit the suggestion. Even then there is a high chance it will just get rejected

edwinissweet wrote:The thing is that this has been suggested alot before. Like TONS of times. As much as i would like to see this happen, i dont make the calls. The best thing we can do is come up with a a way to make stalemates work and then submit the suggestion. Even then there is a high chance it will just get rejected

Turn the game into nuclear after a certain time / number of rounds. It should resolve stalemates. Seriously.
If the game is already nuclear, then reshuffle the cards that are in the players' hands.

Jatekos wrote:

edwinissweet wrote:The thing is that this has been suggested alot before. Like TONS of times. As much as i would like to see this happen, i dont make the calls. The best thing we can do is come up with a a way to make stalemates work and then submit the suggestion. Even then there is a high chance it will just get rejected

Turn the game into nuclear after a certain time / number of rounds. It should resolve stalemates. Seriously.
If the game is already nuclear, then reshuffle the cards that are in the players' hands.

There is already a discussion of "Natural Disasters" Occurring where the biggest stack is wiped out per turn.

edwinissweet wrote:The thing is that this has been suggested alot before. Like TONS of times. As much as i would like to see this happen, i dont make the calls. The best thing we can do is come up with a a way to make stalemates work and then submit the suggestion. Even then there is a high chance it will just get rejected

Actually, having perused these debates quite a bit over the past 2 1/2 years I have been here, I don't believe this has been suggested. A general "surrender" button, or one after a much shorter time frame.

What got me specifically thinking about this was the fiasco with the original Das Schloss map. In that case, there was an error and I believe they did wind up somehow ending things.

Again, maybe 2 months/1000 rounds is too short a time. Its just that at some point... enough IS enough.

I believe the point of the game is to conquer or win...hence the name "ConquerClub"

THORNHEART wrote:I believe the point of the game is to conquer or win...hence the name "ConquerClub"

I agree. This is no place for wimps to surrender or tie... THIS IS CONQUER CLUB!!!

Woltato wrote:Yeah agreed, There's currently no easy way to resolve a stalemate. Should be an either an option for all players to call it a draw, or maybe an option to restart the game excluding players who have been eliminated.

I think the surrender button should be available when there's only 2 players left.

This is generally called a "tiebreaker" and is done by means of the remaining players starting a new game. Whoever wins the new game is also given the win in the old game.

A surrender button in a 2-player game makes no sense.

I do see some little issues.
When would the tie be considered for instance?

If you have a button, "I want a tie", that you put on or off when you feel like it, it would be a problem when everybody has it turned on except the person to play.
He could first play his turn and then decide if he accepts it.

So, people would have to agree to the tie without changing the game in the meanwhile.

So, people would all have to be online between a turn and the next... which is hard.

karelpietertje wrote:I do see some little issues.
When would the tie be considered for instance?

If you have a button, "I want a tie", that you put on or off when you feel like it, it would be a problem when everybody has it turned on except the person to play.
He could first play his turn and then decide if he accepts it.

So, people would have to agree to the tie without changing the game in the meanwhile.

So, people would all have to be online between a turn and the next... which is hard.

We're talking about games which are in a dead stalemate...one turn wouldn't sway it either way. If it's still close enough to be swayed by a single turn, it would be silly for a tie to be offered.

drunkmonkey wrote:

karelpietertje wrote:I do see some little issues.
When would the tie be considered for instance?

If you have a button, "I want a tie", that you put on or off when you feel like it, it would be a problem when everybody has it turned on except the person to play.
He could first play his turn and then decide if he accepts it.

So, people would have to agree to the tie without changing the game in the meanwhile.

So, people would all have to be online between a turn and the next... which is hard.

We're talking about games which are in a dead stalemate...one turn wouldn't sway it either way. If it's still close enough to be swayed by a single turn, it would be silly for a tie to be offered.

Also, this would be a game that is stalemated for a very long time. I already said that 2 months is probably too early. I will revise it.

The Great Yellow Menace cannot be stopped!

Also, Player, don't forget, it's GabonX's fault the game has those settings. He dropped the game after I accepted the invite.

drunkmonkey wrote:

karelpietertje wrote:I do see some little issues.
When would the tie be considered for instance?

If you have a button, "I want a tie", that you put on or off when you feel like it, it would be a problem when everybody has it turned on except the person to play.
He could first play his turn and then decide if he accepts it.

So, people would have to agree to the tie without changing the game in the meanwhile.

So, people would all have to be online between a turn and the next... which is hard.

We're talking about games which are in a dead stalemate...one turn wouldn't sway it either way. If it's still close enough to be swayed by a single turn, it would be silly for a tie to be offered.

Just a thought, but the option for a tie could be abused. For example, suppose you have an evenly balanced 3-player game where no one wants to risk attacking. If players A and B have already submitted that they would accept a tie, player C could choose to risk attacking after all. He could take his turn and try attacking so that if he got lucky, he would just refuse to accept. If he was unlucky in his attacks, he'd just accept the tie after his turn. Since he would be the last player to accept it, it would go into affect immediately. In other words, player C would be in a "can't lose" situation. I think that someone taking a turn should invalidate everyone else's vote for a tie.

This was mentioned, before. It could be an issue, but it seems easy to solve.

Just require that someone respond prior to taking their turn.

Someone would ask for a tie, before they take their turn. (or maybe after, not sure it matters for the first person) Then when the other players log in, they would see a notice " a tie has been requested do you accept - y/n". Then the person could take their turn.

The other possibility would be that the game could not progress until everyone had responded about the tie.. that is, the tie would act (time-wise) just like a turn, basically delaying the game by a round. If that option is used, then there would have to be something saying "no more tie requests for x more rounds. Else, someone could keep pressing it just to be a pain. In fact, it might be good to limit each player to one request, at least until all have had a chance to ask for a tie once (doesn't seem likely, but who knows?)

I want to come back to the "resign-button". I think especially in speed games that take much longer than considered could it make sense when one of the participants has to go. Probably it would only be useful for 1v1 games and pressing the resign button is much better than just missing three turns.