Conquer Club

Three-Player Stalemates

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

What do you think about my solution?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby MoB Deadly on Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:29 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?


I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!


Thanks BBS, I hope it solves things :D
Image
Art by: codierose | High Score: 2550
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class MoB Deadly
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby KoolBak on Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:45 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
KoolBak wrote:I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not :lol: As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers :evil:

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*



I'll never invite you to my birthday party.


Dude! Just because we differ in playing risk doesn't mean we can't have fun at a par-tay! Assuming you're old enough to drink, I'll bring the booze! And bikes and guns if we're a-partying in the woods!! YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Sergeant KoolBak
 
Posts: 6988
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:07 pm

MoB Deadly wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
MoB Deadly wrote:more than 3 players, but if anyone can tell me what to do to end this game I would award them with 10 imaginary Interweb points

Game 8315560

ive tried to talk to them but not much progress is being made. And I dont just want to suicide/throw the game

Can anyone help me think of a beneficial alliance I could make?


I hope my message helped. Feel free to use the game chat as to provide feedback!


Thanks BBS, I hope it solves things :D


I was semi-joking but mostly serious because that post could be very useful.

If the rule is upheld, then the means of communication come with a heavy price. This creates the incentive for the players not to communicate, thus rendering them incapable of smoothing out misunderstandings or reckless moves. Because of this, the situation could break from the stalemate as the tension escalates and the troop numbers drop. Be ready to take advantage of this-----if the rule is upheld.

Besides, it offers a good and humorous (perhaps convincing) reason for killing the first player for speaking.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:53 pm

In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Dukasaur on Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:07 am

Funkyterrance wrote:In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

In real life this doesn't happen. I don't know anyone who's willing to count out 354 wooden blocks. And I'm not sure how many are included in the game, but usually when they start getting low people say, "we have to do more killing" and everyone agrees.
Image
User avatar
Major Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26925
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby fadedpsychosis on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:13 am

KoolBak wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
KoolBak wrote:I hate 3 player games....always feel picked on whether it's true or not :lol: As a bonus, I abhor alliance makers :evil:

*makes note never to play BigBalls in 3 player*



I'll never invite you to my birthday party.


Dude! Just because we differ in playing risk doesn't mean we can't have fun at a par-tay! Assuming you're old enough to drink, I'll bring the booze! And bikes and guns if we're a-partying in the woods!! YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

last wedding I went to one of the groomsmen brought a 50cal and the bride's father set up a cinderblock and had me shoot at it after the party... so much fun
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
User avatar
Private fadedpsychosis
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: global

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Neoteny on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:51 am

BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:32 pm

Neoteny wrote:BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.

Nice, taking the game into your own hands. Best of luck!


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Funkyterrance on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:34 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:In real life when this happens I just fake a seizure on the table and problem solv-ed.

In real life this doesn't happen. I don't know anyone who's willing to count out 354 wooden blocks. And I'm not sure how many are included in the game, but usually when they start getting low people say, "we have to do more killing" and everyone agrees.



Wow, you must have a really old version, mines got little plastic Napoleonic war looking guys.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:53 pm

Neoteny wrote:BBS, your thread has inspired me to make a move in my three player stalemate. I call it "the appeal to fun with negative reinforcement."

Game 10441866

I recently won a four-way stalemate after the fourth deadbeated, it was foggy enough for me to let the other two fight until I could decisively strike for the win. It worked well, but the game above has much more consistent players.


YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:00 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:YES!

FINALLY.

A REVOLUTION IS ABOUT TO OCCUR FOR ALL THREE-PLAYER STALEMATES!


Winds of change a'coming, winds of change.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Neoteny on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 pm

No one has responded yet. They probably won't read it unless I post on their walls. I'll give them a few turns and then hit them up. Otherwise, come T-turn, I'll probably have a pissed off player on my hands.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:00 pm

If they can't be bothered to read chat they deserve whatever they get.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Neoteny on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:45 pm

Well, it's a game, so they'll take what I give them and like it, but my goal is for this to be FUN FOR EVERYONE!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby AAFitz on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:46 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]


    Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).


    *(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)



Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.


throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a game.

It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.

The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.

Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:26 am

Welcome back, AAFitz!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:47 pm

AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:

[In game chat:]


    Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).


    *(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)



Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?


I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.


throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a game.

It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.

The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.

Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.


I agree that throwing a game in this way is not abusing anything per se. I just wouldn't want to be the unlucky person who didn't want to ally with you because it just didn't make sense to him/her strategically.
I dunno, this is one solution I suppose but not a very interesting or fun one. I suppose if you thrive on the sense of empowerment in at least knowing that your decision affected the outcome of the game, however irrational, you could use this method. I still like mine better. It's at least leaving the game to the fates as opposed to someone's ego.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Three-Player Stalemates

Postby Neoteny on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:12 am

So, it has come to this...

First attack went well. Let's see what happens!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Previous

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users