Conquer Club

TheForgivenOne wrote:

nvrijn wrote:Any player presses it, and the others can respond on their next turn (anonymously). If everyone agrees, the points are split equally as if they were a team. But everyone has to agree.

This part, won't be happening. This would create SOOO many cases of players going into the game, and once eliminating all the other players, call for a tie. Viola! They don't risk losing points, and they all gain.

It's either - There are no ties, or no points are awarded to anyone.

Today I was inspired:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=136570

2006-12-27 18:44:17 - sostlouis: What are you going to do when you get what you *need*? Call it a tie? I don't think so. We are all each other's common foe.

This got me thinking -- would Hitler have truly shared the world with Mussolini (and Hirohito)? Entirely possible.... If sostlouis was not my bitter enemy, I might be tempted to offer permanent truce with him (or, more likely, shad0w -- that is, until both turned on me).

Anyways, this is the rule that was nascent and forming but crystallized by the above statement:

"Declare Tie" is an option that appears to each surviving player in a game that has been reduced to two players. Each player gets the opportunity to select YES to "Declare a Tie" at the beginning (end?) of their turn. If both select YES to "Declare a Tie", the game ends in a draw between them, with each getting half the points they normally would win for winning that game alone, and the honor of dividing the world between themselves and an honorable, worthy emperor. It's what Coke & Pepsi did irl, and Intel & AMD.

Possibly, it could be so that neither player would be aware of the other "Declaring a Tie" until they themselves did so, so you wouldn't be sure unless the other player messaged that he declared a tie, which could be a lie, so whoa! This is hairy!

This is sort of a "gentleman's rule", and could be a nifty option to enable/disable in new games. Basically, if two players work together the whole time, and/or just kinda like the way the board is split up, they can declare peace with each other

rambling on....

Allow an option that gives each surviving player an option to "Declare Truce" at the beginning of their turn with the other surviving player in a game when there are only two surviving players. After one of the two players declares truce at the beginning of the round, they cannot attack for the remainder of the round. At the beginning of the other player's round, the second player recieves a message to the effect of "The first player offers peace; do you agree to split the world between the two of you?" and the option "Yes / No". You may select "no" if you just want to keep playing and attacking the other player. If you select "yes", you may deploy troops and move them around, but not attack. If the first player offers truce and the second player accepts, at the end of the second player's turn, the game ends, and BOTH players are considered to be the "winners", albeit each gets only half the points one would receive if there were only one winner.

You may only attempt to declare a lasting truce with the only other surviving player on the board if it's just you and him (or her). OPTION: having a sliding number between 1 and 9 for maximum number of surviving players that may remain on the board during a truce -- in which case, one may declare truce but all other players must accept truce for the game to end in peace. This is probably better being ONLY for two surviving players.

You dont tie in war. There is a winner or a loser. The only time someone wants to declare a tie is if they know they cant win. This makes a mockery of this whole website!

Hey Lack, can we add this to the list of stupidest things every suggested? lol sure the list is getting to be long, but this appears to be a good candidate!

i agree with wicked
great for cheaters this rule XD

wicked wrote:Hey Lack, can we add this to the list of stupidest things every suggested? lol sure the list is getting to be long, but this appears to be a good candidate!

Done!

TY, TY, I'd like to thank the Academy....

LOL thanks for being such a good sport... and kudos on your award.

Honeslty I think that tie option is not a good idea: in fact 2 players could ally to win a game and share the points after: this is would not be fair, expecially in 3 players games!
So, in my opinion, if you wish to share and divide points, play doubles!

Yes, thank you everyone! If I weren't a good sport, I would've stopped playing this infernally frustrating game a long time ago (as it is, I just don't play freestyle cc anymore lol).

Every replying post on this topic thusfar has been negative, but the pole does show some interest from the silent minority. Maybe we could reach compromise and create a new type of game? Not doubles, not triples, not necessarily terminator....

BEST TWO out of X

This game variant is just like a normal game of RISK, however....

(a) There must be at least four players at the beginning of the game.

(b) When there are only three surviving players left on the board, the game gets tenser, because....

I As soon as one of the three surviving players is eliminated, the game goes into its final round.

II In this final round, each of the two final surviving players gets one more turn. To be "fair", the player who did not perform the last elimination gets to go again last.

III At the end of this final round (which concludes with the last turn of the player who did not eliminate the third-to-last player mentioned in section I), the number of territories for each of the two surviving players is counted up and compared, with ties going in the favor of whoever has the largest continental bonus, then the largest number of armies, then the largest number of cards on hand.

IV Whoever wins this territory count is considered the "winner", and receives full point value for the game.

V The other surviving player is not considered the "winner", but neither does this "second-place" player loose any points.

VI If, somehow, one of the two final surviving players manages to eliminate the other, they get *bonus points* for running their game so tight (if this can be allowed). Not impossible; this only requires running over an already-weakened other player who just spent all their resources eliminating your common foe, or running over your last two competitors consecutivly with the help of turning in cards confiscated from one to bolster forces against the other.

Okay, what does everyone think of that? I think this would be a fun way to play, as it would give players an incentive to keep a third, weak player alive until it became advantageous to eliminate him. This means more fun, right?

for this idea to work we'd have to implement official treaties and alliances and since that is never going to happen, this isn't either

This makes cheating that much easier, whoch would be bad.

The 'silent majority' are the cheaters browsing the forum.


--Andy

[Mod Edit]

JamesKer1 wrote:This suggestion, as well as the others in this thread succeeding it, calls for a Draw option. There are two ways, depending on the route this suggestion takes, that this can be abused.

1. If points were split- 2 friends can make 3 player games, gun for the other person, and then split the points, setting up an easy farming technique. If there was a minimum number of players set to draw, then all that you would need was another person.
2. If no points were transferred- This would make an easy option of ending all games in a draw so you could play no points game without really doing so.

This suggestion has been considered REJECTED, however, it is still open for debate due to the new administration.

Ok, this might sound silly and some of you are sure to flame away but here it is.

It would be nice to have an "Offer Draw" option as some games can take eternity, especially when it's down to 3 players (the 2 weakest attack the strongest).

Points of those eliminated could be split between the winners.

i think it could me misused for cheating and making secret allies 'attractive'. example:

let's say i play with s.o. i know and make an secret alliance with him. i would play like normal but trying to take only the other 1, 2 or more players out exept of my men. then we would share the points at the end and would be happy etc.

-> no -

so, fight or die like a man until the very end. if 3 players are fighting at the end, the biggest just has to risk sth and will win (or - if he's unlucky - loose)

this has been rejected before.

nxt time, read lacks "to do" list under "REJECTED"

worst.thread.ever.

Yeah, I suggested this some time ago, with (something like) the following caveats:

The game may not end in a draw if there are more than two players left on the board.

When only two players are left on the board, each gets an optional phase at the end of their turn, after the fortification phase:
OFFER DRAW? (Y/N)

If one of the two surviving players Offers a Draw to the other at the end of their turn, the other player gets a message from the game that the other player has offered a draw, a short reminder of what will happen if the offer is accepted, and subtle encouragement to refuse the draw and continue warring until only one player is left. The player then begins an optional preemptive phase at the very start of their turn before their Army Placement Phase:
ACCEPT DRAW? (Y/N)

The player to whom the draw was offered is by no means required to accept it, and may refuse the offer at the beginning of their turn, play their turn normally, then make their own offer of a draw to their opponent at the end of their turn. This can go back-and-forth until one player accepts another's offer or simply eliminates them, without any material effect on the game.

If a player accepts another's Offer of a Draw, the game ends immediately. Each of the surviving players may then pretend there was a big parade, a peace summit, a ball, and huge parties EVRYWHARE. Oh, and they can ____ each other's ____, because they're probably both ___ for ending the game in a draw (according an earlier thread, this apparently is the unanimous feeling held by the Conquer Club Community towards this 'Draw Offering' suggestion).

Zero points are awarded to the two survivors of a game that ends in a draw. I repeat: Neither of the two surviving players wins[i] ANY points in a game that they agree to end in a draw; but, neither do they loose points. Everyone else looses HALF the number of points they would if the game ended normally (with one survivor). This would probably prevent abuse.

This idea was practically unanimously panned for being against the spirit of the game. I still think it should be implemented as a new game option disabled by default, just because.

monK_ wrote:i think it could me misused for cheating and making secret allies 'attractive'. example:

Good point, i always forget about cheaters.

[Mod Edit]

JamesKer1 wrote:This suggestion, as well as the others in this thread succeeding it, calls for a Draw option. There are two ways, depending on the route this suggestion takes, that this can be abused.

1. If points were split- 2 friends can make 3 player games, gun for the other person, and then split the points, setting up an easy farming technique. If there was a minimum number of players set to draw, then all that you would need was another person.
2. If no points were transferred- This would make an easy option of ending all games in a draw so you could play no points game without really doing so.

This suggestion has been considered REJECTED, however, it is still open for debate due to the new administration.

My basic idea is to allow the option for the remaining players in a game to draw. There is a similar thread discussing this in team games, but I propose to extend it to all game types. All remaining players would be required to vote for the draw, and can withdraw said vote at any time. If the vote for the draw is passed, then the players either:
A) do not gain/lose any points if no one is eliminated
B) evenly split the points of the eliminated players

To prevent abuse and cheating, there could be a minimum turn requirement, so it will realistically only apply to games that have stalemated beyond hope. It seems unrealistic that a couple people/one person would spend the time required to cheat for the profit to be worth the reward. If this still doesn't seem like a good solution, then no points change hands, although I think it is unfair that those who stayed in the game are treated the same as those who were eliminated. The whole purpose of the idea is to help those of us who get stuck in never-ending games and don't want to have to throw them or work out an elaborate method of ending the game through negotiation.

Just play a tie breaking game with the players still alive. The players who lose the tiebreaker suicide against each other in the original game, and the winner gets to mop up. Easy Peasy.

Actually the idea quite appeals to me!

Splitting the points between all left in the game seems sensible based on unanimous vote... i need to think about it though.

there is another excellent idea which seeks to end Stalematesin Escalator games but i think the 2 ideas could perhaps still work together.

I think it would be open to manipulation. Knock out one high ranking player, then everyone else just vote for a draw.

and what happens if one person never votes for a draw (such as yours truly)? Negative feedback for not doing so? Added to Foe lists perhaps? I just think it opens the door to more problems than it solves.

BeakerWMA wrote:I think it would be open to manipulation. Knock out one high ranking player, then everyone else just vote for a draw.

and what happens if one person never votes for a draw (such as yours truly)? Negative feedback for not doing so? Added to Foe lists perhaps? I just think it opens the door to more problems than it solves.

You may be right Beaker.... i am not sure about the foe list and so on... you could have the same thing with someone refusing to make a a deal in a stalemate.. so i am not sure it changes that much.

As to the manipulation... you make a pretty good point and it may be enough to make the idea unworkable.

how about instead of a draw we get armageddon??

Beaker makes a good point, about the manipulation which I did not consider. I think that is a good argument against awarding points.

On the second objection though, I don't think that neg feedback ignore list etc would be a huge problem. This solution is meant for games that come down to only a few players in an unworkable stalemate. If only one of say 4 players will not vote for the draw, they could just all eliminate said player, and if no points would be lost it would not do that player any harm anyways.