[GP] Vote For Draw

[acrazyfella]

Tie Button:

There are some games that basically become a tie. There is not any strategy to a game when everyone just plops their armies down each turn and continue on to the next game. At this point the game is pointless. There should be an ability for each player to hit a tie button. The points will be divided evenly between the remaining players or everyone just gets zero points. In order for the tie to happen, every player must hit the tie button

Tie button could have certain critieria to meet. Example: minimum 50 rounds.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

- Provides a means for everyone to gracefully bow out of a game.

[TheForgivenOne]

This has been suggested before, but this would further create a problem. 2 friends could create a game, eliminate the third player, then call a tie. Thus giving people more of a problem of Secret Diplomacy, multi's, and thus creating more reports for Multi hunters to deal with.

[Metsfanmax]

This has been suggested before, but this would further create a problem. 2 friends could create a game, eliminate the third player, then call a tie. Thus giving people more of a problem of Secret Diplomacy, multi's, and thus creating more reports for Multi hunters to deal with.

If a tie resulted in no one gaining or losing points, this would be moot.

[TheForgivenOne]

This has been suggested before, but this would further create a problem. 2 friends could create a game, eliminate the third player, then call a tie. Thus giving people more of a problem of Secret Diplomacy, multi's, and thus creating more reports for Multi hunters to deal with.

If a tie resulted in no one gaining or losing points, this would be moot.

I was referring to this

The points will be divided evenly between the remaining players

[acrazyfella]

zero points then? No one wins anything. No reason to try to abuse the tie button

[Metsfanmax]

This has been suggested before, but this would further create a problem. 2 friends could create a game, eliminate the third player, then call a tie. Thus giving people more of a problem of Secret Diplomacy, multi's, and thus creating more reports for Multi hunters to deal with.

If a tie resulted in no one gaining or losing points, this would be moot.

I was referring to this

The points will be divided evenly between the remaining players

And I was referring to this

or everyone just gets zero points

[rdsrds2120]

This has been suggested before, but this would further create a problem. 2 friends could create a game, eliminate the third player, then call a tie. Thus giving people more of a problem of Secret Diplomacy, multi's, and thus creating more reports for Multi hunters to deal with.

If a tie resulted in no one gaining or losing points, this would be moot.

I was referring to this

The points will be divided evenly between the remaining players

And I was referring to this

or everyone just gets zero points

And I was referring to...erm, nevermind.

I think this idea has potential if a little bit more thought had been put into it.

[Kid Moe]

I don't know if this has been talked about and if it has I apologize for bringing it up again.

I am in a couple of games, as I am sure a lot of people are, that are several hundred rounds into the game. Some of them have a few players left and some of them have a lot of players left. After many rounds, I or someone else suggests playing another game and then whoever wins that games wins the one that is "deadlocked".

My suggestion is simple. Place an end game button for each new game. As long as ALL the players that are still alive want to end the game, each player hits his end game button and divide the points of all the players who were eliminated. If someone does not want to end the game they simply don't hit there button and the game could drag out another 100 rounds.

For the sake of an argument let's say 8 players are in a Classic game. 5 players are eliminated and 3 are left and the game is in round 356 and has been deadlocked for sometime. The remaining players decide they want to end the game and all agree to hit there end game button....game is over and the 3 winners will win the points of the 5 losers equally divided. Everybody is happy because they do not have to play another game to decide the outcome of their original game.

[TheForgivenOne]

I don't know if this has been talked about and if it has I apologize for bringing it up again.

I am in a couple of games, as I am sure a lot of people are, that are several hundred rounds into the game. Some of them have a few players left and some of them have a lot of players left. After many rounds, I or someone else suggests playing another game and then whoever wins that games wins the one that is "deadlocked".

My suggestion is simple. Place an end game button for each new game. As long as ALL the players that are still alive want to end the game, each player hits his end game button and divide the points of all the players who were eliminated. If someone does not want to end the game they simply don't hit there button and the game could drag out another 100 rounds.

For the sake of an argument let's say 8 players are in a Classic game. 5 players are eliminated and 3 are left and the game is in round 356 and has been deadlocked for sometime. The remaining players decide they want to end the game and all agree to hit there end game button....game is over and the 3 winners will win the points of the 5 losers equally divided. Everybody is happy because they do not have to play another game to decide the outcome of their original game.

Gotta think of the negatives about this too. Friends could easily team up to eliminate the other players, then "end the game" splitting up the points.

[Kid Moe]

I don't know if this has been talked about and if it has I apologize for bringing it up again.

I am in a couple of games, as I am sure a lot of people are, that are several hundred rounds into the game. Some of them have a few players left and some of them have a lot of players left. After many rounds, I or someone else suggests playing another game and then whoever wins that games wins the one that is "deadlocked".

My suggestion is simple. Place an end game button for each new game. As long as ALL the players that are still alive want to end the game, each player hits his end game button and divide the points of all the players who were eliminated. If someone does not want to end the game they simply don't hit there button and the game could drag out another 100 rounds.

For the sake of an argument let's say 8 players are in a Classic game. 5 players are eliminated and 3 are left and the game is in round 356 and has been deadlocked for sometime. The remaining players decide they want to end the game and all agree to hit there end game button....game is over and the 3 winners will win the points of the 5 losers equally divided. Everybody is happy because they do not have to play another game to decide the outcome of their original game.

Gotta think of the negatives about this too. Friends could easily team up to eliminate the other players, then "end the game" splitting up the points.

That can be monitored like everything else though

[TheForgivenOne]

I don't know if this has been talked about and if it has I apologize for bringing it up again.

I am in a couple of games, as I am sure a lot of people are, that are several hundred rounds into the game. Some of them have a few players left and some of them have a lot of players left. After many rounds, I or someone else suggests playing another game and then whoever wins that games wins the one that is "deadlocked".

My suggestion is simple. Place an end game button for each new game. As long as ALL the players that are still alive want to end the game, each player hits his end game button and divide the points of all the players who were eliminated. If someone does not want to end the game they simply don't hit there button and the game could drag out another 100 rounds.

For the sake of an argument let's say 8 players are in a Classic game. 5 players are eliminated and 3 are left and the game is in round 356 and has been deadlocked for sometime. The remaining players decide they want to end the game and all agree to hit there end game button....game is over and the 3 winners will win the points of the 5 losers equally divided. Everybody is happy because they do not have to play another game to decide the outcome of their original game.

Gotta think of the negatives about this too. Friends could easily team up to eliminate the other players, then "end the game" splitting up the points.

That can be monitored like everything else though

So we just get something for the C&A mods to watch more? This would probably target high ranks more. Not like it happens now, but lower ranks players could propose a truce in chat to target the higher rank player then share the points. Then if we were to make this a rule, that you can't target just based on rank, well, there would be a lot of complaints saying players were targeting just to share points. Thus again creating more work for the mods.

[drunkmonkey]

I would suggest no points are given or lost for the game. If you didn't win the game, you don't deserve the points. Other than that, I'd like the option. However, I'm almost positive this has been suggested and rejected in the past.

[Kid Moe]

I would suggest no points are given or lost for the game. If you didn't win the game, you don't deserve the points. Other than that, I'd like the option. However, I'm almost positive this has been suggested and rejected in the past.

I kind of like the idea of no points after you mentioned it drunkmonkey, just end the game and move on this way it takes away the urge to cheat

[rdsrds2120]

I think the concept of an 'End the Game' button has been rejected before...many times, just not in this context.

[drunkmonkey]

I think the concept of an 'End the Game' button has been rejected before...many times, just not in this context.

I understand rejected a "concede" button, but something should be done to end stalemates. When it gets to the point that no one in the game is enjoying it, why not give an option to end it?

[pipsqueak]

I hate stalemates.
Can we have an "offer draw" button?
Any player still in the game has the right to offer a draw.
If all other players still in the game accept the offer, the games is over, victory points are calculated based on who has been knocked out/left in, and are shared equally (or weighted by rank as usual?) between the survivors.
If any player declines the offer the game continues as normal.

[TheForgivenOne]

I hate stalemates.
Can we have an "offer draw" button?
Any player still in the game has the right to offer a draw.
If all other players still in the game accept the offer, the games is over, victory points are calculated based on who has been knocked out/left in, and are shared equally (or weighted by rank as usual?) between the survivors.
If any player declines the offer the game continues as normal.

This has been rejected many times before. Would make it easier for 2 players in a game to team up, knock out a player, and take the draw to share the points.

[pipsqueak]

ahh, ok. though I guess if people want to cheat that's easy enough anyway, just do the same thing as you describe and take it in turns to win?

[ben79]

if it wasn't for the people '' that love the points so much '' all the best suggestions would be accepted ...

[pipsqueak]

but wait ... you would only need the button when there are at least three players still in the game (you can't really get a stalemate with two players can you?). Would take a major conspiracy for three to gang up against one and they would soon get caught if they made a habit of it?

[Caymanmew]

but wait ... you would only need the button when there are at least three players still in the game (you can't really get a stalemate with two players can you?). Would take a major conspiracy for three to gang up against one and they would soon get caught if they made a habit of it?

not really join a 8 player game with friends and take out the other 5 lots of points not obvious

[rdsrds2120]

If in place of stalemate games, maybe. Those just never end up anywhere. Of course, it wouldn't be for free use and restrictions would have to be made.

-rd

[pipsqueak]

ok, one more try - sounds quite easy to me to write some software that scans the results to look out for the same three players keep claiming stalemates together. One quick warning issued and that's that? In fact far easier to spot that than 3 players joining an 8 player game, wiping the others out and then sharing the wins over a lot of games?
Also, the draw offer would only need to kick in after, say 30 rounds which would make it quite boring to try and cheat it.

[TheForgivenOne]

No, you would be making the Multi Hunters do this work. We don't have automatic software scanning for stuff like Ratings Abuse, Secret Diplomacy or such.

[mc05025]

No, you would be making the Multi Hunters do this work. We don't have automatic software scanning for stuff like Ratings Abuse, Secret Diplomacy or such.

I like the idea

Be a button to offer draw only after round 50 for example and only if there are 3 or more players

If three people are friends and want to make some points by cheating they can do it very, very easily. No way you can stop them. I can think a million ways for three people play at the same game and always win one of them