Conquer Club

Suggestion idea: allow an 'end game' option for games longer than 6 months and/or 200 rounds

Specifics: after the given allotment of time, the surviving players in obscenely long games can vote (probably by pressing a particular button) to negotiate a peace and end the game. Players can only vote once ever 25 or so rounds, and it requires a unanimous vote to end a game. If a unanimous vote is reached, the scores of the remaining players are averaged, and the eliminated players lose points relative to that average number. The points lost by the eliminated players are then divvied up equally amongst the survivors, who can at least walk away with a point reward for the long months, and everyone finally gets on with their lives.

Why It's Needed: There are some long-ass games going on this site, and there isn't a mechanism in place for when a game reaches an utter stalemate, breakable only by morons, deadbeats, and suicides. And with such a framework in place, it would motivate people in long-ass games to pressure/attack each other based on whether or not they vote to end the game. So it will spark either blissful closure or spurred competition, which is a way better outcome for long-ass games than the current "wait for one of my opponents to die/suffer a blow to the head/get stranded on a deserted island" strategy.

Importance: 2/5 not blazingly important, but would be a nice feature

Sounds likeVote for a Draw

Couldn;t this just lead to bullying by players trying to get out of games? and a whole pile of new reasons for ridiculous negative feedbacks? (didn;t vote for draw, asked for a draw starting in round 3, etc etc).

Maybe ... but only if it is a unanimous decision (which is probavly very rare.... and any eliminated players points should go to everybody as a Condition of the PEACE treaty

I don't have a problem with this idea in principle, but I think everyone should leave with the same amount of points they came in with. In other words, no one should gain or lose points, and that includes the players who were eliminated before the agreement.

When I find a game has been dragging on for a while and it doesn't appear the dynamics will change, I may try to change them through actions on the board. This is the way to resolve issues like this. Be creative.

If you're not going to play to win, you shouldn't get points. In a game with no winner, there shouldn't be any points distributed.

lackattack wrote:Sounds likeVote for a Draw

It does, and why did you change your avy now your not a turtle.

lackattack wrote:Sounds likeVote for a Draw

Yeah, it does, but with the added time framework. And it seems like a lot of the potential abuse for the draw concept would be reduced or even eliminated since we're only talking about the 1% (or even less) of games here that exceed six months in length.

Someone mentioned having the eliminated players potentially vote, which is a bad idea since those players may not even be on the site anymore.

And Keebs, sometimes games get stalemated and there's no way out save for the ways I mentioned in my original posting, none of which I would deem creative. It's really easy to say "play to win", but when there's a three or four-way stalemate with hundreds or even thousands of armies on the board, that is not a game that is going to be won through cunning.

definitely would use this option. i'm in a few of these games now and they suck. of course it should require all remaining players agree.

I like a draw option..no points earned or lost.

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

DiM wrote: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

You seem to look to far into EVERYTHING DiM. You can reach a similar outcome in 3 player terminators, but in all honesty who would really do it and get away with it? Once you reach higher ranks there no cluster of players to hide behind.

gimil wrote:You seem to look to far into EVERYTHING DiM. You can reach a similar outcome in 3 player terminators, but in all honesty who would really do it and get away with it? Once you reach higher ranks there no cluster of players to hide behind.

nope in terminator games you no longer reach that outcome. remember the experiment? remember deadbeats lose points in terminator? so you no longer reach that outcome. yes you can still abuse terminator games. i'm actually surprised people haven't seen it yet. and yes i look far into everything because i don't like cheaters. in this moment there are still ways to cheat and escape punishment because the rules are bad. i just hope someday they'll be changed to destroy all cheaters for good.

DiM wrote:

gimil wrote:You seem to look to far into EVERYTHING DiM. You can reach a similar outcome in 3 player terminators, but in all honesty who would really do it and get away with it? Once you reach higher ranks there no cluster of players to hide behind.

nope in terminator games you no longer reach that outcome. remember the experiment? remember deadbeats lose points in terminator? so you no longer reach that outcome. yes you can still abuse terminator games. i'm actually surprised people haven't seen it yet. and yes i look far into everything because i don't like cheaters. in this moment there are still ways to cheat and escape punishment because the rules are bad. i just hope someday they'll be changed to destroy all cheaters for good.

I stand corrected.

DiM wrote: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

Yes, 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.

Okay, quick lesson: Check out the last page of active games. If people have ideas on how to end those games without moronic play OR deadbeating OR suiciding, I'm all ears.

Lots of people have selected the third option in the poll (which, by the way, borrows from Galaxy Quest), yet I have yet to see any bright ideas on how to resolve intractably stalemated games.

Incandenza wrote:

DiM wrote: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

Yes, 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.

200 rounds is not that bad. 2 players can do 200 rounds in 3 days.
but let's assume the longer and harder part. 6 months.

you and me start 500 3player games. probably within 2-3 days we will be the only ones remaining active since we killed the 3rd player.

then we play turns whenever we feel like it as long as we don't deadbeat for the next 6 months.
assume an average of 10 points per victim split in half that's 5 points for you and 5 for me. times 500 games that's 2500 points for each. add that to my score and i'll be conqueror and you general. easy as pie. it is abuse and no matter how hard it is people will still do it and they won't care if others will say they have no lives. generally people that brag with their scores have no lives.

Incandenza wrote:Okay, quick lesson: Check out the last page of active games. If people have ideas on how to end those games without moronic play OR deadbeating OR suiciding, I'm all ears.

Lots of people have selected the third option in the poll (which, by the way, borrows from Galaxy Quest), yet I have yet to see any bright ideas on how to resolve intractably stalemated games.

no game is a stalemate unless people chose it to be a stalemate. recently i finished a game in round 193. it lasted 5 months. when i joined it i was a private. when it ended i was a major. the most troops were 600 i think, which is pretty low. even if in many turns no terits were taken many troops were lost in attacks.

i also have an active game at round 257. 6 months and at this point we have just 1500 armies. same thing happens. battles go on even without conquering.

so the solution is to not get complacent. keep attacking.

for example attack a guy in his 100 army defence and leave him with 20. then the guy who comes after you will be tempted to take that terit. the victim will feel infuriated and they'll start a war. then come and reap the reward.

DiM wrote:you and me start 500 3player games. probably within 2-3 days we will be the only ones remaining active since we killed the 3rd player.

then we play turns whenever we feel like it as long as we don't deadbeat for the next 6 months.
assume an average of 10 points per victim split in half that's 5 points for you and 5 for me. times 500 games that's 2500 points for each. add that to my score and i'll be conqueror and you general. easy as pie. it is abuse and no matter how hard it is people will still do it and they won't care if others will say they have no lives. generally people that brag with their scores have no lives.

I see your point, and I'm aware of the fact that you've made a hobby of ferreting out devious cheating methods (for which I commend you), but something tells me that if two people tried to run this scam, someone in authority would notice, especially given how long it would take to come to fruition. And even if those people somehow managed to keep it under wraps, the mods would definitely come running when the people's scores spiked once the six months was up.

Basically it just seems like it would be a crashingly unsubtle, brute-force hack of the scoring system, even more so than someone dumping all their points to a friend via a bunch of thrown 1v1s. And I don't think that the fact that someone can exploit a concept in a way that's certain to get them caught is a good enough reason to deem the concept unworthy... Otherwise, lack should disable the PM system, since it can so obviously be used to form secret alliances. And to prevent multis he should insist that all games are played in person.

DiM wrote: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.

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

Dim, you really are being paranoid here. With the current system you could do the same in 2 days. Instead of voting for a draw after 6 months on 500 games, simply take turns in winning.

Besides, How long do you suppose you would get away with that without your victims complaining about you being a multi/secret alliance. You would be blocked from playing with each other and your score will be reset,

Incandenza wrote:Lots of people have selected the third option in the poll (which, by the way, borrows from Galaxy Quest), yet I have yet to see any bright ideas on how to resolve intractably stalemated games.

Well, if I were playing you I could feasibly play until you die of old age.

Seriously though, there comes a time when the armies are so high that the odds of victory are so high that it becomes almost certain that you can plough through the other guy and have enough to weaken the last player beyond feasible counter attack, but it just takes ages to get there.

If you want to accelerate the game play, you could perhaps have an option to build on one terit for n turns... but that shund s ore like something you could get a plugin for, not a site supported feature.

Incandenza wrote:

DiM wrote:you and me start 500 3player games. probably within 2-3 days we will be the only ones remaining active since we killed the 3rd player.

then we play turns whenever we feel like it as long as we don't deadbeat for the next 6 months.
assume an average of 10 points per victim split in half that's 5 points for you and 5 for me. times 500 games that's 2500 points for each. add that to my score and i'll be conqueror and you general. easy as pie. it is abuse and no matter how hard it is people will still do it and they won't care if others will say they have no lives. generally people that brag with their scores have no lives.

I see your point, and I'm aware of the fact that you've made a hobby of ferreting out devious cheating methods (for which I commend you), but something tells me that if two people tried to run this scam, someone in authority would notice, especially given how long it would take to come to fruition. And even if those people somehow managed to keep it under wraps, the mods would definitely come running when the people's scores spiked once the six months was up.

Basically it just seems like it would be a crashingly unsubtle, brute-force hack of the scoring system, even more so than someone dumping all their points to a friend via a bunch of thrown 1v1s. And I don't think that the fact that someone can exploit a concept in a way that's certain to get them caught is a good enough reason to deem the concept unworthy... Otherwise, lack should disable the PM system, since it can so obviously be used to form secret alliances. And to prevent multis he should insist that all games are played in person.

yorkiepeter wrote:Dim, you really are being paranoid here. With the current system you could do the same in 2 days. Instead of voting for a draw after 6 months on 500 games, simply take turns in winning.

Besides, How long do you suppose you would get away with that without your victims complaining about you being a multi/secret alliance. You would be blocked from playing with each other and your score will be reset,

ok both of you say that those who would do that will be punished. why?
there's no secret alliance since the 2 players announce it in chat and there's no problem in the fact that they both click the draw button since it's been 6 months and still a draw. so they decide to push it and end the stale mate. there's absolutely no cheating involved. and the only "punishment for those players is negative feedback. it would be just another way of bending the rules in your favor just like the double turns in freestyle. it is an abuse but you can't be blamed for cheating. it would be a totally legit way of cheating.

and to yorkiepeter, yes indeed it is possible to do something similar now. but it would require more precision because deadbeating in terminator games no longer gives you the chance to not lose points.
in order to bend the rules at this moment you need 2 players of ~the same score and you need to keep stats of the wins and losses to distribute the points evenly. it is doable and it is in no way punishable right now.

what the draw button does is eliminate the need to keep stats and do calculations, it eliminates the need of both players having the same score and it offers the chance of even more points won.

think it like this. i have 2500 points. in the current system i need another player with 2500 points and i need that player to be constantly +/- 100 points from my score. assuming our victims have an average score of 1250 we'll gain 5 points per person per game.
with the draw system i can very easily get as a partner somebody with 500 points. and assuming the same 1250 average victims we would get 8 points per win. plus i don't have to worry about the score of my parner.

Technically speaking, 1v1 point dumping violates no rules, and yet people have had their scores altered or even reset because of them. Just because a particular action does not involve a multi or a secret alliance doesn't mean that said action won't be punished by a score reset...

Also, yorkie has a point. If your position is that, since it's not a secret alliance it's totally legal, then why don't you and I start 500 3-man games tomorrow, declare in round 1 that we're allies, and split the games down the middle? How do you think the mods, and the community in general, would react to that?

And I'm sure that there's a few complete fucking shut-ins that might try to exploit the potential 6-month rule, but even if they did it, even if they got away with it, no one would consider their scores legitimate. It would be like blatantly stealing an election: you might be president, but no one is inclined to follow your lead.

Here's my question: aside from the potential (and ridiculously laborious) abuse, do you think the idea has merit?

im sure some players would take the option, but I wouldnt waste a year deploying in a game, just to call it a draw unless every other player was begging me to.

Im not knocking the idea, I just wouldnt happen to use the option, unless I was almost certain to lose, which in any big game, is almost never certain except in the case where every other player wants to end it....then standing up to them might be a bit of a stretch... they will just kill you....which means that if you get a stronghold, and have better position, the draw feature may cost you some games.

Just the option being available will change the dynamic of a game, knowing that you can just opt out in a couple hundred rounds will give you incentive to make it a build game, if your position isnt that great.

In my opinion, letting them play out is the best.

I've been in some long ass games on here and seemed like they were going nowhere. But they were going somewhere, just very slowly. Eventually they ended and it feels damn good to win a game like that. These are some of my favorite games. Much more fulfilling in victory over the slaughter in 8 rounds.

Personally, I don't care if the draw/peace option is there, but I would never take it. So I voted GFY.

I'd rather not have a draw. I hate ties really, really badly.

I also happen to be in 3 long games. 1 on turn #540, 1 on turn #300, and 1 on turn #226. Now, all of them are in a huge stalemate right now. At the same time, I can see possibilities of a strategy for somebody winning the last 2 games. It may require 300 more turns, but it can be done.

The 1st game though? Unless somebody becomes incredibly stupid or an alliance happens (which won't happen), this game will never end. The armies are too even, and the bonuses offered in the game are not good enough in order to try to take more continents. The only way for the game to be over is either somebody suiciding a large part of their force or for somebody deadbeating.

So I'd be in favor of a draw option, even though I'd only take it in the most dire of circumstances. I'd also agree that the draw option shouldn't come up for at least 200-300 turns.