[GP] Negotiated peace in obscenely long games

[PLAYER57832]

I can see some benefits if no points are gained or lost. HOWEVER, I can also see where folks might abuse this option and force someone who is actually winning into a draw in order to not lose points. So, there would have to be some limits. Maybe this can only be used for games over 1 month or two months ... .or depending on the game board.

[khazalid]

this idea is bad and it leads to a lot of abuse.

let's say me and a friend of mine start a 3p game. we form an alliance kill the 3rd guy then vote for a draw. free points for us. if the guy is similar rank that's 10 free points. start 500 such games and you quickly break any highscore ever achieved.
yes even if it involves voting a draw after 200 rounds it's still going to be abused since we're talking about free points and people will do anything for free points.

the people that voted yes are either too blind to see the abuse possibility or on the contrary they saw it and kept quiet hoping they'll get a shot at cheating. shame on you for either reason :D

nYes, you could potentially abuse this, but the whole point is that the game would have to be six months or 200 rounds long... and if people ere willing to wait that long for a handout, then they have no lives... :D

The time element is tailor-made to ensure that any potential abuse would require such an effort as to make the concept moot.

after 1 player is eliminated in a 3 player game youd expect little but all out attacks seeing as its effectively now a 1v1. it would be so ridiculously easy to spot abuse that surely nobody (ok, maybe a small puddle of the internet's primordial ooze..) would bother trying. think about it, player x eliminated after 5 rounds and then players y and z deploying or attacking eutrals or tokens of each other for any length of time = bust.

[AAFitz]

the problem with it, is it changes the game entirely... the goal is to win at the begining, but once it was obvious to a player he couldnt win, he would simply aim for a draw... then, suggest the draw... when the strongest player refused, it might turn every player to killing him.. therefore no longer would the game be about winning...

what would be better than this, would be maximum round games as an option. that way everyone would know going in what to expect. they would be played completely different, as escalating games and flat rate games are played differently...

but some will always like the concept of a no cards game.... 6 very good players that in theory should be able to keep the game going indefinitely, if they truly do not want to lose, but they all end, and technically they all end because of mistakes more than one player playing brilliantly not to say it never happens... for the most part, someone attacks another player too much, and the other player takes over. The key, is being the other player.

[DiM]

this idea is bad and it leads to a lot of abuse.

let's say me and a friend of mine start a 3p game. we form an alliance kill the 3rd guy then vote for a draw. free points for us. if the guy is similar rank that's 10 free points. start 500 such games and you quickly break any highscore ever achieved.
yes even if it involves voting a draw after 200 rounds it's still going to be abused since we're talking about free points and people will do anything for free points.

the people that voted yes are either too blind to see the abuse possibility or on the contrary they saw it and kept quiet hoping they'll get a shot at cheating. shame on you for either reason

nYes, you could potentially abuse this, but the whole point is that the game would have to be six months or 200 rounds long... and if people ere willing to wait that long for a handout, then they have no lives...

The time element is tailor-made to ensure that any potential abuse would require such an effort as to make the concept moot.

after 1 player is eliminated in a 3 player game youd expect little but all out attacks seeing as its effectively now a 1v1. it would be so ridiculously easy to spot abuse that surely nobody (ok, maybe a small puddle of the internet's primordial ooze..) would bother trying. think about it, player x eliminated after 5 rounds and then players y and z deploying or attacking eutrals or tokens of each other for any length of time = bust.

and according to what rule do you think this would be a bust?

i don't see any rule that says in 1v1 you must constantly attack the other guy or it's cheating.

and trust me 1v1 stalemates are very possible. imagine having a no cards game and each guy has the same troops and same bonus. no matter what they do they'll always be equal in strength. and yes dice offer an advantage to the attacker but it would take just a bad string of rolls in the auto attack and it's game over. why risk it when you're sure free points come from a draw? i wouldn't, especially with my crappy dice.

risk losing/winning 40 points?
or go for the safe option of 10 points?

2 prudent persons would surely go for the 10 points without any suspicion of abuse.

[DiM]

what would be better than this, would be maximum round games as an option.

now this is something i like. a maximum rounds.
which makes me wanna go and suggest it.

edit// here's the suggestion:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39770

[Shai]

To The death!

[Teutonics]

What about speed games that go on & on & on? Most people, who sign up for a speed game, don't expect to be still playing 6+ hours later. The real world intervenes and people have got to get some sleep, go to work, etc. The guys with no lives can play on forever, but most folks can't be tied down to their computers for so long.