Conquer Club

I like the idea.....especially cause "Hyperbolic" is such an awesome word

I like the idea because I was just thinking about it yesterday!

I don't know about your setup, but cashes should get increasingly larger as they go. It will definitely stop a stalemate.

If the higher increases start after 100 then it'd be fine, but even regular escalating games (ie. not stalemated ones) often get cashes over 50 so changing those wouldn't be such a good idea.

natty's right. Needs to start after 100 or 150.

I also would suggest this as a change to the current escalating system.

I don't like this idea.
There's already a way to end a stalemate: diplomacy.

"Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent."

maxfaraday wrote:I don't like this idea.
There's already a way to end a stalemate: diplomacy.

"Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent."

Unlike max, I support this idea.

I do agree that one way to end these games is diplomacy, but of a different format. The other day I was in a speed game that reached stalemate despite escalating spoils. We started another game and the winner got to win the other game, too.

As to the OP are you suggesting changing all escalating games or creating a new spoils type: "hyperbolic." I support either idea, but would prefer a new game type with "hyperbolic" spoils starting from the very beginning. Would make for some pretty interesting early developments as people may decide to forego cards that would force them to turn in. Idk. Whole idea sounds interesting.

I like it as a separate game option to kick in when the sets reach 100.

This is technically an exponential system, not a hyperbolic one, but it is still a good idea.

I think we should implement this starting at 75 armies. If we started at 150, that would be an extra 15 armies; where at 75 it would only be an extra 7 (or 8 if we rounded up). I guess having an option to start at 75/100/150/200 would be great too. This would give enough time for diplomacy, while still making an impact.

everywhere116 wrote:This is technically an exponential system, not a hyperbolic one, but it is still a good idea.

+1

This is interesting, but it doesn't seem like it would make it as a stand-alone spoil setting I think.


--Andy

I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

deantursx wrote:I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

That's a map flaw, and up to the user to play that one..... It's a well-known fact that City Mogul just transcends all boundaries.

Criticalwinner wrote:

deantursx wrote:I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

That's a map flaw, and up to the user to play that one..... It's a well-known fact that City Mogul just transcends all boundaries.

Okay what about Hive, World 2.1, and First Nations Americas? They all have a huge chance of deadlocking...Also, 3-player on any map has a good chance of it

Conquer Rome...

Support.

The PoD supports the exponential system for large maps.

Hyperbolic spoils could be useful for maps that look like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyperbolic_tiling_omnitruncated_3-7.png

AndyDufresne wrote:This is interesting, but it doesn't seem like it would make it as a stand-alone spoil setting I think.


--Andy

It's not intended as a new setting. It's intended as a fix of the existing Escalating setting.

Dukasaur wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:This is interesting, but it doesn't seem like it would make it as a stand-alone spoil setting I think.


--Andy

It's not intended as a new setting. It's intended as a fix of the existing Escalating setting.

Mmhm. It'd be interesting to see how much real support this has, since it would really change the way escalating games are played once you get towards the higher cashes. Since escalating is pretty fairly popular setting, there are probably a lot of opinions on it.


--Andy

the current escalating spoils are not broken and don't require fixing.

as a separate spoil option it is too similar to what is currently available to achieve implementation.

I would be in favor of increasing the cashes at a higher amount.

Most games that I have played in do not get to 100 for the cash. The games that this will primarily effect are those that are starting to stalemate.

This would definately help in the Trench Warfare games on the big maps. I am in one now that has no end in sight.
Game Game 10920177

World 2.1, Trench, Escalating

My suggestion of "Exponential Spoils" is a completely different spoils game altogether, totally changing the strategy and making the game much more exciting. Check it out and provide feedback please:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177563

deantursx wrote:

Criticalwinner wrote:

deantursx wrote:I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

That's a map flaw, and up to the user to play that one..... It's a well-known fact that City Mogul just transcends all boundaries.

Okay what about Hive, World 2.1, and First Nations Americas? They all have a huge chance of deadlocking...Also, 3-player on any map has a good chance of it

Exactly. Even Fractured China.

DoomYoshi wrote:Conquer Rome...

That too.

greenoaks wrote:the current escalating spoils are not broken and don't require fixing.

Maybe not "broken" but certainly not perfect. Escalating spoils are supposed to prevent deadlocks, but we do see deadlocked games on the larger maps. When there's stacks of 1600 sitting around, cashing for another 400 isn't enough of a game-changer to get things going again.

Dukasaur wrote:

deantursx wrote:

Criticalwinner wrote:

deantursx wrote:I agree that this needs to be done. City Mogul 4 player escalating for example...that almost always deadlocks because the spoils don't compare to the autodeploys, but with more rapidly increasing spoils those games would be more likely to finish.

That's a map flaw, and up to the user to play that one..... It's a well-known fact that City Mogul just transcends all boundaries.

Okay what about Hive, World 2.1, and First Nations Americas? They all have a huge chance of deadlocking...Also, 3-player on any map has a good chance of it

Exactly. Even Fractured China.

DoomYoshi wrote:Conquer Rome...

That too.

greenoaks wrote:the current escalating spoils are not broken and don't require fixing.

Maybe not "broken" but certainly not perfect. Escalating spoils are supposed to prevent deadlocks, but we do see deadlocked games on the larger maps. When there's stacks of 1600 sitting around, cashing for another 400 isn't enough of a game-changer to get things going again.

Hm, I missed this suggestion while I was on hiatus from the site, but I like it. As long as we put the change in late enough that it doesn't affect the majority of escalating games, but does act to prevent stalemates, this would be a good fix to escalating. 100 seems like a reasonable target, or perhaps 200.