Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Stalemate Button to appear after round 100

Specifics/Details:

• Players in a long game will have the ability to suspend the current game and play a stalemate game (rematch) with all players alive at that point.
  All players must agree and the button would only appear after round 100.

All players alive.
All players alive at the point of stalemate must agree to stalemate game by pressing a button. If a dead player had pressed it before they where eliminated, they would still be eliminated.
Suspends current game.
Right now, we have to play two games if a stalemate games is agreed on, the site will suspend the current game. This would allow any freeium player who is in the game to play the stalemate game.
Points.
Points will be awarded for only one game. These will be calculated at the beginning of the stalemate game. This will allow high ranks to lose less points to lower ranks.
Stalemate game.
The site will set it up automatically and join all players who where alive at the agreed time (same as the conquer cup). Spoils, map and everything will be the same as before. Eliminated players will be carried over to keep colours and teams intact. A round limit of 50 rounds would be introduced as well.
Conclusion.
At the end of the stalemate game, the winner will get one set of points as determined by the start of the game. Both games will then be logged as finished. The original will be classed as a stalemate and the game log shows this with the new game number for the stalemate game. The new game will show as normal.
Stalemate a stalemated game.
This could happen and would go though the same as above. This could eventually happen where players keep pressing it.
Dead players
These players will only have to a little longer to lose their points. The points they will lose will be determined at the beginning of the stalemate game like all of the alive players.
Stalemate Button
This button would only appear after round 100. Before this we have round limits and the argument goes that those should of been used.


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

• Not sure how it would benefit the site but it would end all deadlocked games. High ranks will not mind as they only lose one set of points.

This actually sounds really cool, probably more fair and resistant to abuse than any of the other suggestions of its type.

How would this affect team and speed games? Moreover, how would the games be connected or linked? Would a new game number be used, and the old one kept or deleted, or would the current game be "reset"? If a new game number, would it link back to old game, and how would it carry over the eliminated players (either show them as eliminated in the player list or another feature on the page)?

i was just looking through as i was certain i@d proposed something similar a few years back....
viewtopic.php?f=704&t=67152&hilit=stalemate+button&start=615

not exactly the same but it is within a thread mixed up with about 10 other dead ideas along these lines ... it reminded me why i gave up posting suggestions.. Sorry, i don't mean to be negative, it's a good idea. But the method of merging threads just keeps everything as one murky nothing, where good intentions and ideas go to die.

xx

JamesKer1 wrote:How would this affect team and speed games?

Team and speed would be played out the same way. Everyone would agree to it and so a second game would be set up.

JamesKer1 wrote:Moreover, how would the games be connected or linked?

Game 1 (stalemated game) would be placed on hold by conquer club. A note placed in chat saying something along the lines of:
This game has stalemated and all players have agreed to play a stalemate game [game number].
Then when the second game is over:
The game is archived. The stalemated game [game number] winner was [player] who won [points].

JamesKer1 wrote:Would a new game number be used, and the old one kept or deleted, or would the current game be "reset"?

New number so the old game can be called up and looked into by admins if need be. Also, players sometimes like to see these things. So the old games will be archived like current games are. The current game would reset in as much as all players alive will be competing. All other aspects will stay the same.

JamesKer1 wrote:If a new game number, would it link back to old game, and how would it carry over the eliminated players (either show them as eliminated in the player list or another feature on the page)?

I would assume that a link from the old game to the new one would be used so from the new to old would be added as well. As for showing dead players, no. Why enter a dead player? So if you are stalemated in a 8 player game, 3 are dead and the other 5 ask for the stalemate game, only those 5 will get carried over. Colours would be assigned in the normal way. This is exactly the same as the conquer cup does it.

@jiminski, things take time and sometimes fresh eyes are all that is needed.

koontz1973 wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:How would this affect team and speed games?

Team and speed would be played out the same way. Everyone would agree to it and so a second game would be set up.

Alright, so for team- if we aren't transferring over dead players, I think a lot of work would have to be done for the game engine to set it up with a one person, 3 person, and two person team (i.e. in a three team trips game). Maybe carry over only for teams if its easier to code? I really don't know anything about coding, but it seems like it would be easier.

Speed- My main concern is with a small map (Doodle or Lux) F/S game. I could check the button every turn, and see that no one else checks it, and leave it checked or recheck it before I go do something for a minute since I think it will be a while before the round is up. When I come back, I could see that I'm eliminated from the new game. I'd be pissed and probably never play speed games again. So how could this be fixed? Maybe a timer in between games with a pop up saying that the game was stalemated? Timer length should somehow be connected to round length and number of players IMO.

JamesKer1 wrote:If a new game number, would it link back to old game, and how would it carry over the eliminated players (either show them as eliminated in the player list or another feature on the page)?

I would assume that a link from the old game to the new one would be used so from the new to old would be added as well. As for showing dead players, no. Why enter a dead player? So if you are stalemated in a 8 player game, 3 are dead and the other 5 ask for the stalemate game, only those 5 will get carried over. Colours would be assigned in the normal way. This is exactly the same as the conquer cup does it.

Didn't know CCup already did it. Should be pretty easy to implement then!

jiminski wrote:i was just looking through as i was certain i@d proposed something similar a few years back....
viewtopic.php?f=704&t=67152&hilit=stalemate+button&start=615

not exactly the same but it is within a thread mixed up with about 10 other dead ideas along these lines ... it reminded me why i gave up posting suggestions.. Sorry, i don't mean to be negative, it's a good idea. But the method of merging threads just keeps everything as one murky nothing, where good intentions and ideas go to die.

xx

I think that a lot of mass threads like that are being cleaned up better if you check in the first post, because there was some erroneous merging a while back. I don't think this thread will end up there, or at least hope it won't since it does stand out from that idea. But I agree, sometimes things are overcrowded with too many individual threads and some are a huge mess of different ideas. But, compared to what it could be, I personally think its pretty well done by the Suggs team.

Koontz, some variation of this has been suggested many times before ... Surprised cuz you're usually on top of things in this forum ... Anyway, it's been rejected every time. Not to say that a new look can't be taken by the new management.

But the argument against it is a little nuanced, and I generally agree with it. The basic form of it is that you should have to play out the games you start come hell or high water. This is a pretty good rule of thumb and it works for 99.9% of all the games played on this site. Rarely do players end up in games where there is a true stalemate that has to be decided by other means. And not having the stalemate button forces those players to play it out rather than taking the easy way out. Not allowing this option prevents some forms of abuse. For example, I can see a good player on a complicated map or trench setting who is actually behind convincing someone that the game has "stalemated" and a new game should start. This pushes the bounds of the "diplomacy" that should be allowed on this site.

For the small percentage of games that truly do result in a stalemate, there is the option to do a tiebreaker game. But even that is technically against the rules as the end result is that the losing players must "throw" the original game to the winner of the tiebreaker. Game throwing is against the rules, and so are these tiebreakers.

However, this rule is not enforced in those situations because when used judiciously the tiebreaker game is probably the only acceptable solution (versus a never-ending game). (P.S. I have always been intrigued by this little-known aspect of CC rules.)

In other words, the ethos of the site is so against the idea of ending games by some other means than a person emerging victorious after a battle (however long) within the rules of the game (including round limits) that all other methods are either against the rules or have been rejected.

I like that. I know it's an intangible "sanctity of the game" type argument that others don't care for, but I appreciate that there aren't any easy ways out of those long games. They were grueling at the time, but some of my proudest victories have resulted from games that would probably have been written off as "stalemates" had easier options existed. I have also been in games where we truly did need a tiebreaker, and I appreciate the barriers to creating those tiebreaker games that exist because all the players alive have to truly think that things are locked up to agree to the game.

What will happen in a new game with all the same settings (sans the dead players) that will be different from current game? Usually games stalemate out because there is no incentive to go for an elimination. This seems like it wouldn't change anything and just set people up for a fresh start to a game with settings that may end in stalemate.

If this was to be implemented, I would say that a 50 round limit would be added to the 'decider' game. This would prevent it from happening again and would actually put a true end to the game.

i thought with the introduction of round limits would end stalemates.
could there not be a round limit set to all games say 500 ??
then this suggestion would not be needed just my 2 cents

codierose wrote:i thought with the introduction of round limits would end stalemates.
could there not be a round limit set to all games say 500 ??
then this suggestion would not be needed just my 2 cents

I think that's a great idea. no reason any game should need to take longer than 500 rounds. Grandfather existing games in of course so those individuals do not get torqued off at a new rule.

codierose wrote:i thought with the introduction of round limits would end stalemates.
could there not be a round limit set to all games say 500 ??
then this suggestion would not be needed just my 2 cents

This is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen on the subject. I for one will always be against any kind of stalemate/resign/forfeit/etc. button for the reasons outlined by agent above, but I think a boilerplate round limit of something like 500 rounds is a stellar idea.

perchorin wrote:

codierose wrote:i thought with the introduction of round limits would end stalemates.
could there not be a round limit set to all games say 500 ??
then this suggestion would not be needed just my 2 cents

This is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen on the subject. I for one will always be against any kind of stalemate/resign/forfeit/etc. button for the reasons outlined by agent above, but I think a boilerplate round limit of something like 500 rounds is a stellar idea.

I would support that. And maybe that should be suggested separately.

As far as koontz' suggestion, I would pretty much echo agentcom on this.

chapcrap wrote:

perchorin wrote:

codierose wrote:i thought with the introduction of round limits would end stalemates.
could there not be a round limit set to all games say 500 ??
then this suggestion would not be needed just my 2 cents

This is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen on the subject. I for one will always be against any kind of stalemate/resign/forfeit/etc. button for the reasons outlined by agent above, but I think a boilerplate round limit of something like 500 rounds is a stellar idea.

I would support that. And maybe that should be suggested separately.

As far as koontz' suggestion, I would pretty much echo agentcom on this.

So the consensus is to set an automatic round limit on all games at 500 rounds. That is probably a little high but I can live with that quite easily as it stops all games at a point. After a while, games tend to be a stacking event anyway and at least this gives an end in sight. Will make a separate suggestion for this.

I will answer all critics later today when I have time to sit down and write. But after reading all ideas, I still cannot see a flaw in this and while the idea of a round limit is OK, has even more problems to it.

OK, a bit of a debate has started in this thread over an automatic 500 round limit being imposed on all games. Whilst reading the posts I agreed straight away and went as far as to post a new suggestion for this. But then I saw the unyielding logic of why it was never implemented in the first place. Lets say you have a game with a 500 round limit imposed by the site, but the game is stalemated in round 200, you still have 300 hundred rounds to go. I know you will all say that 500 may be high so lets have it at 300. Too low as games are still being played at this round level, you can debate how high/low it should go. But here is the reason why it should never be implemented:
The wrong player may win the game. Last round of the games end, a player makes an attempt to sweep the board. He gets all territories apart from the very last one. On that last region a player has 200 troops, the sweeping player has 199 troops. According to the round limit options, the player with the most troops wins the game.
So lets see what the objections to the above are then.

agentcom wrote:Koontz, some variation of this has been suggested many times before ... Surprised cuz you're usually on top of things in this forum ... Anyway, it's been rejected every time. Not to say that a new look can't be taken by the new management.

Rejection can hurt but fresh ideas still need to be looked at as if they are fresh and not rejected just because a variation of the same theme has already been so.

agentcom wrote:But the argument against it is a little nuanced, and I generally agree with it. The basic form of it is that you should have to play out the games you start come hell or high water. This is a pretty good rule of thumb and it works for 99.9% of all the games played on this site.

I completely agree with you here. Games started need to be finished but on the odd occasion, some games are so forced, it becomes annoying.

agentcom wrote:Rarely do players end up in games where there is a true stalemate that has to be decided by other means.

Then why do so many games get started like this. I have played in quite a few myself. Where you get to round 300 and think to yourself that this is not fun anymore. Players start to dead beat just to get out of it. Freeiums are trapped in that game. True stalemates may not happen often as you say, but they are happening and players are devising ways to get around them. This would just give everyone a set way to do it. No sunny esc games on classic as that can disadvantage a player.

agentcom wrote: And not having the stalemate button forces those players to play it out rather than taking the easy way out.

As above, players are playing stalemate games already. Game 13142230 is one such game including an admin and a mod.

agentcom wrote: Not allowing this option prevents some forms of abuse. For example, I can see a good player on a complicated map or trench setting who is actually behind convincing someone that the game has "stalemated" and a new game should start. This pushes the bounds of the "diplomacy" that should be allowed on this site.

Here I disagree with you. All games need to be agreed on by all parties, same as the rematch button does. If you are in a game and a player is able to convince another player of the stalemate, the rest still need to agree. If it comes down to a 2 player match up, then both players would come to an agreement anyway to play one or not. Diplomacy is part of the game and as long as this is open in the chat, then it is no different than 2 players agreeing to kill of a third player through a truce.

agentcom wrote:For the small percentage of games that truly do result in a stalemate, there is the option to do a tiebreaker game. But even that is technically against the rules as the end result is that the losing players must "throw" the original game to the winner of the tiebreaker. Game throwing is against the rules, and so are these tiebreakers.

But these games exist. Players are breaking the rules now but not being punished. I am not saying they should. But what I propose is to allow a second game to start legally and for players to lose one set of point, not two like now. Imagine a high rank josko.ri in a play off game with cairnswk, the amount of troops he loses in two games is a lot. So what reason does josko have to agree to one? None.

agentcom wrote:In other words, the ethos of the site is so against the idea of ending games by some other means than a person emerging victorious after a battle (however long) within the rules of the game (including round limits) that all other methods are either against the rules or have been rejected.

Rules need to be changed as time goes by. At no point when the site started, could all the ways to run the site be thought of. This is just that, a legal way to end games. Players are already breaking the rules.

agentcom wrote:I like that. I know it's an intangible "sanctity of the game" type argument that others don't care for, but I appreciate that there aren't any easy ways out of those long games. They were grueling at the time, but some of my proudest victories have resulted from games that would probably have been written off as "stalemates" had easier options existed. I have also been in games where we truly did need a tiebreaker, and I appreciate the barriers to creating those tiebreaker games that exist because all the players alive have to truly think that things are locked up to agree to the game.

We are the same here. Times are times, allowing players an option to start a new game is just that, an option. It is up to the players to decide if they want to use it or not.

patrickaa317 wrote:What will happen in a new game with all the same settings (sans the dead players) that will be different from current game? Usually games stalemate out because there is no incentive to go for an elimination. This seems like it wouldn't change anything and just set people up for a fresh start to a game with settings that may end in stalemate.

But a fresh game means a new deployment. One of the reasons games become stalemated is players see no option apart from stacking. Games get eliminations early, starting fresh allows that.

patrickaa317 wrote:If this was to be implemented, I would say that a 50 round limit would be added to the 'decider' game. This would prevent it from happening again and would actually put a true end to the game.

OK, I see the reason behind this. But it has been said that round limit games are different from the original but I understand this and added to the OP.

JamesKer1 wrote:Alright, so for team- if we aren't transferring over dead players, I think a lot of work would have to be done for the game engine to set it up with a one person, 3 person, and two person team (i.e. in a three team trips game). Maybe carry over only for teams if its easier to code? I really don't know anything about coding, but it seems like it would be easier.

I see the reasoning. allow the dead players to show up in the new game would be a must then for team games. Changed the OP.

JamesKer1 wrote:Speed- My main concern is with a small map (Doodle or Lux) F/S game. I could check the button every turn, and see that no one else checks it, and leave it checked or recheck it before I go do something for a minute since I think it will be a while before the round is up. When I come back, I could see that I'm eliminated from the new game. I'd be pissed and probably never play speed games again. So how could this be fixed? Maybe a timer in between games with a pop up saying that the game was stalemated? Timer length should somehow be connected to round length and number of players IMO.

This one I do not get. If you are playing a 1 minute doodle speed game freestyle, you do not leave your computer.

Your conserns regarding round limit are they already not the concerns for any round limit game. My thought in the suggestion was to give an end in the stalemate how it finally ends in round 500 or what ever is decided does it realy matter it gives an end to the game.

I have had many stalemate games over the years tried many ways to get out of it play a classic cc settings winner wins both games others just deadbeat. usually there is always one that don't agree to settings or the map or or or.

codierose wrote:Your conserns regarding round limit are they already not the concerns for any round limit game. My thought in the suggestion was to give an end in the stalemate how it finally ends in round 500 or what ever is decided does it realy matter it gives an end to the game.

And that is the problem of round limits. Can you imagine playing a game, being the winner only to lose it by a round limit. This is why I rarely play them myself. The number you mentioned was 500. This seems to be a reasonable number, most games are over at this point anyway but at round 200-300 most players will play for the stalemate and stack. No one for the next 2-3 hundred rounds will play the game.

codierose wrote: I have had many stalemate games over the years tried many ways to get out of it play a classic cc settings winner wins both games others just deadbeat. usually there is always one that don't agree to settings or the map or or or.

As for settings, you are right, trying to get everyone to agree to a new game is hard enough, trying to get them to agree on a set of settings is extremely hard. This is the reason I said everything stays the same for the new game. After a few hundred rounds, everyone should be pretty happy with the map and settings. But the current way, you are going to either win or lose two lots of points. If I am the only high ranking player in the game, I would say no to a normal game. Why should I lose 100 points when if I keep going I may only lose 50.

I do not understand anyone's argument against this suggestion, since basically this suggestion is simply an official rule of what everyone else already does.
If you do not want the stalemate to happen you only have not to click on the button. Right now, that's the same. I am in a stalemate game since lot of rounds, I offered tie-breaker, some people refused it we are still stuck in that stalemate game. It has been months. If this suggestion is applied that case will still happen again since everyone still has to accept.
In other games, I offered tie breaker, people accepted it, and we played it, exactly as the suggestion here offers, except we lost twice the points.

Rarely do players end up in games where there is a true stalemate that has to be decided by other means. And not having the stalemate button forces those players to play it out rather than taking the easy way out.

I dunno what you mean by rarely, I think it happens often enough, whatever the settings are. Stalemate doesn't mean that everyone has exactly equal force and bonus. It means nobody can wins the game except someone suicide. And you say throwing the game is against rule, so tie-breaker is somehow against rules. But in a stalemate, if you don't do tie-breaker, you have to either suicide or deadbeat, or somehow force someone to suicide. Still against the rules

but I appreciate that there aren't any easy ways out of those long games.

I don't get that. Those games are boring, they kill the fun of CC. I have some of them in my active games currently, I always feel bored to play them even before clicking on Begin Turn, just seeing them annoy me.

koontz1973 wrote:OK, a bit of a debate has started in this thread over an automatic 500 round limit being imposed on all games. Whilst reading the posts I agreed straight away and went as far as to post a new suggestion for this. But then I saw the unyielding logic of why it was never implemented in the first place. Lets say you have a game with a 500 round limit imposed by the site, but the game is stalemated in round 200, you still have 300 hundred rounds to go. I know you will all say that 500 may be high so lets have it at 300. Too low as games are still being played at this round level, you can debate how high/low it should go. But here is the reason why it should never be implemented:
The wrong player may win the game. Last round of the games end, a player makes an attempt to sweep the board. He gets all territories apart from the very last one. On that last region a player has 200 troops, the sweeping player has 199 troops. According to the round limit options, the player with the most troops wins the game.
So lets see what the objections to the above are then.

If there is no 500 round limit, you may have ∞ rounds left.

It sucks if the 'wrong' player wins the game but at least there is an end at some point. You can't please all the people all the time. Bottom line is don't play with more than 2 people/teams on a non-round limit game without escalating spoils UNLESS you are willing to get caught in a stalemate.

patrickaa317 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:OK, a bit of a debate has started in this thread over an automatic 500 round limit being imposed on all games. Whilst reading the posts I agreed straight away and went as far as to post a new suggestion for this. But then I saw the unyielding logic of why it was never implemented in the first place. Lets say you have a game with a 500 round limit imposed by the site, but the game is stalemated in round 200, you still have 300 hundred rounds to go. I know you will all say that 500 may be high so lets have it at 300. Too low as games are still being played at this round level, you can debate how high/low it should go. But here is the reason why it should never be implemented:
The wrong player may win the game. Last round of the games end, a player makes an attempt to sweep the board. He gets all territories apart from the very last one. On that last region a player has 200 troops, the sweeping player has 199 troops. According to the round limit options, the player with the most troops wins the game.
So lets see what the objections to the above are then.

If there is no 500 round limit, you may have ∞ rounds left.

It sucks if the 'wrong' player wins the game but at least there is an end at some point. You can't please all the people all the time. Bottom line is don't play with more than 2 people/teams on a non-round limit game without escalating spoils UNLESS you are willing to get caught in a stalemate.

Apparently some esc games are now becoming stalemated. So much so that a thread with a change of spoils for them is stickied in this thread.

agentcom wrote:Koontz, some variation of this has been suggested many times before ... Surprised cuz you're usually on top of things in this forum ... Anyway, it's been rejected every time. Not to say that a new look can't be taken by the new management.

But the argument against it is a little nuanced, and I generally agree with it. The basic form of it is that you should have to play out the games you start come hell or high water. This is a pretty good rule of thumb and it works for 99.9% of all the games played on this site. Rarely do players end up in games where there is a true stalemate that has to be decided by other means. And not having the stalemate button forces those players to play it out rather than taking the easy way out. Not allowing this option prevents some forms of abuse. For example, I can see a good player on a complicated map or trench setting who is actually behind convincing someone that the game has "stalemated" and a new game should start. This pushes the bounds of the "diplomacy" that should be allowed on this site.

In addition to this, a player could convince 2/3 players to agree to a stalemate, and whoever doesn't agree can be targeted. (actually, this is good since it would end the stalemate).

For games with 5 players, maybe this argument would work, but it would still seem to require diplomacy to work around the stalemate--due to the new feature--i.e. teaming up would still occur.


Actually, that's a good thing. It'll break up stalemates, so why not support this feature?

500 Round limit is a cheap fix, but (a) it doesn't resolve the stalemate of 300 rounds after round 200 or so, and (b) it doesn't resolve current stalemates. Koontz's suggest addresses (a) and (b), so it shouldn't be dismissed so readily.

BBS makes a good point here about teaming up on a player. In any size game, be it 3 players or 12, a group can and do gang up on others. This is called a truce and is within the rules of the game (when done openly). And it is one of the ways players use to break stalemates.

Up to now, everyone who has opposed this has not really given a reason why, agentcom has wax lyrical but no one has given any real reason not to do this. But everyone at one time or another has broken the rules to break a stalemate. So should we all ban ourselves?

Time for the old bumping thread time guys.

koontz1973 wrote:
Up to now, everyone who has opposed this has not really given a reason why, agentcom has wax lyrical but no one has given any real reason not to do this. But everyone at one time or another has broken the rules to break a stalemate. So should we all ban ourselves?

There's a reason in there

agentcom wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:
Up to now, everyone who has opposed this has not really given a reason why, agentcom has wax lyrical but no one has given any real reason not to do this. But everyone at one time or another has broken the rules to break a stalemate. So should we all ban ourselves?

There's a reason in there

If you mean the hell or high water line, not sure how that affects things as it is commonly and openly broken on a daily basis. But if a good reason to not doing this, one that an argument against it cannot be found then I would drop this. But I thought long and hard over this and still cannot find a reason to not do this.

koontz1973 wrote:

agentcom wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:
Up to now, everyone who has opposed this has not really given a reason why, agentcom has wax lyrical but no one has given any real reason not to do this. But everyone at one time or another has broken the rules to break a stalemate. So should we all ban ourselves?

There's a reason in there

If you mean the hell or high water line, not sure how that affects things as it is commonly and openly broken on a daily basis. But if a good reason to not doing this, one that an argument against it cannot be found then I would drop this. But I thought long and hard over this and still cannot find a reason to not do this.

To reiterate: this suggestion would condone and even encourage a way of ending games that is not in the spirit of the game. It seeks to solve a problem that is exceedingly rare. In my experience, over about 4000 games, I've only gone to a tiebreaker game a couple of times. Even if I don't play a lot of the games that end in stalemates, this is still instructive.

Looking at the site overall, out of 16,000 active games, the number that appear to have reached a stalemate number in the hundreds, I'd say. That includes "intentionally stalemated" games like Game 1026097 (the oldest game on the site). Now think about how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other games get completed. Again, this is a very rare problem.

By allowing a stalemate button, you may "solve" this very minor problem. But there may be other costs, like the potential for abuse. Also, there's the chance that you will take away the instances where there is an epic battle spanning hundreds of rounds where the victory goes to the player able to stick it out and strategize over the long run.

I feel like I'm basically just repeating my previous post. I don't think that we're going to agree on this one koontz. That's my reason and I'm not alone in thinking that it's a "good reason." But to hold the bar at finding a reason for which "an argument against it cannot be found" is a little bit of a high threshold that I won't be able to meet.

agentcom wrote:To reiterate: this suggestion would condone and even encourage a way of ending games that is not in the spirit of the game. It seeks to solve a problem that is exceedingly rare. In my experience, over about 4000 games, I've only gone to a tiebreaker game a couple of times. Even if I don't play a lot of the games that end in stalemates, this is still instructive.

So then the button could pop up at a round number. Lets say 100. Most games before that are pretty OK on the majority of settings. That would mean that after the last round limit limitation, the button would appear. Edited the OP to show this.

agentcom wrote:Looking at the site overall, out of 16,000 active games, the number that appear to have reached a stalemate number in the hundreds, I'd say. That includes "intentionally stalemated" games like Game 1026097 (the oldest game on the site). Now think about how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other games get completed. Again, this is a very rare problem.

But if it is that rare, why do players feel the need to play play off games? And why has a thread in this forum been stickied for an escalating spoils refinement that is supposed to stop stalemates. In that thread the argument goes that this is a bigger problem and the refinement needs to be done.

agentcom wrote:By allowing a stalemate button, you may "solve" this very minor problem. But there may be other costs, like the potential for abuse. Also, there's the chance that you will take away the instances where there is an epic battle spanning hundreds of rounds where the victory goes to the player able to stick it out and strategize over the long run.

All settings and all things on the site have the potential for abuse. To say some would abuse a setting is not a reason to stop it. Same way some abuse the forums, we do not close them, we ban the person. Abuse is abuse and we have a whole department to deal with it. If some one abuses a setting, a player can report them. As for the long games and epic battle, we get them as some players like them so do not play play of games. For those players, they would not touch a button like this.

agentcom wrote:I feel like I'm basically just repeating my previous post. I don't think that we're going to agree on this one koontz. That's my reason and I'm not alone in thinking that it's a "good reason." But to hold the bar at finding a reason for which "an argument against it cannot be found" is a little bit of a high threshold that I won't be able to meet.

Fine, we will not agree, but far more in the thread do agree than disagree. I feel that your argument against this is more personal than logical.