Conquer Club

i saw people suggesting draws ties forfeits and stuff like that. each suggestion has it's flaws. mainly abuse related flaws.

but AAFitz came up with something better in the discussion in the Negotiated peace in obscenely long games thread.

the idea is simple. any game ends at round 200 or 300 or some commonly agreed number. to be honest i'd keep that number as low as possible. 150-200 is a reasonable amount of rounds. plenty of time to end the game. if it takes that long then for sure it's a stalemate.

the nice part is that at the end each player loses points. yes you read correctly. every player loses points including those that have been eliminated earlier.

i have 2 ideas for the actual loss:

1. a fixed amount. needs to be big enough to avoid abuse so i say go for max. go for 100 points. what abuse am i talking about? well let's say a colonel is in a stalemate with 2 cooks. if the loss is just 10 points then he'll do whatever possible to keep the stalemate. he can't afford losing to a cook. but if the loss is 100 points then he must do something to win.

2. calculate as if each player lost to a generic 1000 points player. still very punitive but not so much.


main advantages:
1. no more stalemates
2. a slight decrease in inflation (points are lost but not gained)



and the form

* Suggestion Idea: max no of rounds in a game
* Specifics: max 200 rounds
* Why it is needed: read above

An idea for max rounds in a game was suggested a while ago, but it was shot down (by members, not by lack officially) because of all the "What ifs"...I.E. what if you were just on the verge of winning at Round X-1, but didn't quite finish, but then when Round X came along...the game ended.

The idea has benefits and drawbacks, I'm not sure which side out weighs the other.


--Andy

stop playing no card / flat standard games
and 6 / 8 player dubs

what about build games?

Because there is a certain Spamalot Build Game that has been going for only 46 days, but it is already in round 92.... Putting a 200 turn cap on that would keep it under 3 months, and that is no where near enough time for what we are planning.

I vote NO.

Cause if you did limit the rounds, there will be lots of angry builders out there.

Maybe it could be an option?

The only way I could see myself using it is if I am headed for a vacation. But, I mostly play short, 2-player games anyway....

I can see this being an option only - i.e. game creator sets a limit (or none)...

But the very fact that it has to be an option will rule it out - as Lack doesn't like superfluous options.

C.

AndyDufresne wrote:An idea for max rounds in a game was suggested a while ago, but it was shot down (by members, not by lack officially) because of all the "What ifs"...I.E. what if you were just on the verge of winning at Round X-1, but didn't quite finish, but then when Round X came along...the game ended.

The idea has benefits and drawbacks, I'm not sure which side out weighs the other.


--Andy

to be honest i looked in the to do list but didn't see anything similar. could i get a link to the old thread to read why it was rejected?

as for your example then i have just 1 thing to say. if you got to round 200 and didn't yet kill the opponents then you clearly are either building or too scared to attack.

plus if everybody knows at round 200 game ends and 100 points are lost i doubt anybody would simply sit around and build and do nothing. the whole mentality will change and people will be more aggressive especially as they approach the 200 rounds limit.

wcaclimbing wrote:what about build games?

Because there is a certain Spamalot Build Game that has been going for only 46 days, but it is already in round 92.... Putting a 200 turn cap on that would keep it under 3 months, and that is no where near enough time for what we are planning.

I vote NO.

Cause if you did limit the rounds, there will be lots of angry builders out there.

yeah right and i'm sure lack want to promote the build games. the very games that don't fit the spirit of risk and most of all put the most stress on the server. smart argument

yeti_c wrote:I can see this being an option only - i.e. game creator sets a limit (or none)...

But the very fact that it has to be an option will rule it out - as Lack doesn't like superfluous options.

C.

not as an option. it would be stupid to have it as an option because nobody would bother clicking it.

DiM wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:what about build games?

Because there is a certain Spamalot Build Game that has been going for only 46 days, but it is already in round 92.... Putting a 200 turn cap on that would keep it under 3 months, and that is no where near enough time for what we are planning.

I vote NO.

Cause if you did limit the rounds, there will be lots of angry builders out there.

yeah right and i'm sure lack want to promote the build games. the very games that don't fit the spirit of risk and most of all put the most stress on the server. smart argument

Nope. I asked him about it a few weeks ago, and he says it puts no noticable load onto the servers, nothing more than a normal game.

He also says there is a system in place to protect the servers from huge auto-attacks. so, no worries, build games cant hurt anything.

maybe as a option but not on every game

wcaclimbing wrote:

DiM wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:what about build games?

Because there is a certain Spamalot Build Game that has been going for only 46 days, but it is already in round 92.... Putting a 200 turn cap on that would keep it under 3 months, and that is no where near enough time for what we are planning.

I vote NO.

Cause if you did limit the rounds, there will be lots of angry builders out there.

yeah right and i'm sure lack want to promote the build games. the very games that don't fit the spirit of risk and most of all put the most stress on the server. smart argument

Nope. I asked him about it a few weeks ago, and he says it puts no noticable load onto the servers, nothing more than a normal game.

He also says there is a system in place to protect the servers from huge auto-attacks. so, no worries, build games cant hurt anything.

you're partially right. it doesn't put a lot of pressure when it is playing normally. but any build game has got to end at some point. now imagine an autoattack of 1mil vs 1 mil armies. wanna bet the servers will crash?

that would mean more rolls are drawn from random.org in one attack than CC is doing in a week or something like that. i don't know the most recent numbers.

Do they really have to end with an auto-attack DiM? I think if it were me I would be more interested in preserving 1million men on the board even if it just meant we all deadbeated.

firth4eva wrote:Do they really have to end with an auto-attack DiM? I think if it were me I would be more interested in preserving 1million men on the board even if it just meant we all deadbeated.

why??

wouldn't it be easier to take a screen shot of the millions of armies and then do the autoattack? that's what i would do.

I think its a good idea DiM. Taking away points will discourage people from trying to get a long game.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I really like the idea to stop really long games, but the whole idea of "stopping inflation" annoys me.

Ditocoaf wrote:I have to laugh whenever I hear about "inflation" of points.

1) The reason why there's more people above 2000 points? There's more people playing. There's also a lot more people under 2000 points.

2) No matter what, there's never going to be more than 1000 points per player. If there's a whole ton of points going to the top, then there's even more people stuck at the bottom. For every Colonel, there's at least three cadets and cooks.

and my favorite...
3) In a 15-rank system (not counting new recruits)... On the top end, we have a completely unused rank (Field Marshall). On the bottom end, we have roughly a quarter (again, ignoring new recruits) of the population in the bottom two ranks.

How can anyone argue that there need to be less points in the system? I could make a case that there are too few. In a perfect system, the most populous rank would be more towards the middle, not the very bottom.

but back on-topic.
I support the option that each player looses points to a 1000-point player. the other option is just too drastic. But perhaps there's even another option for how the stalemate would work... I'll give this some thought (and read through this thread).