[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[jiminski]

What I am adding is perfectly valid I believe that this a wasted thread on a nonsense Idea so I am commenting on it as I should you are taking a concept that does not exist in this game and tying to create a new gametype on a impossible scenerio there can always be a winner in CC period no if ands nor buts about it. The sad thindg aout you people that support this forget the original name of the game is risk and if you do not take a risk you will not win but the downside of a risk is you may lose but you can always do one or the other so no stalement exists...

Sorry buddy .. you really do not know what you are talking about ...

[Soloman]

What I am adding is perfectly valid I believe that this a wasted thread on a nonsense Idea so I am commenting on it as I should you are taking a concept that does not exist in this game and tying to create a new gametype on a impossible scenerio there can always be a winner in CC period no if ands nor buts about it. The sad thindg aout you people that support this forget the original name of the game is risk and if you do not take a risk you will not win but the downside of a risk is you may lose but you can always do one or the other so no stalement exists...

Sorry buddy .. you really do not know what you are talking about ... in order that you do not draw me into hijacking my own idea! i shall place you on my foe List.

Thank you for the placement due to my pointing out your wasted thread it shows a true level of maturity when someone cannot take any criticism of a idea...There are at least 50 other suggestions in this forum that will add to the dynamics of this site yours seems to be just a waste based upon cowardice and lack of logic and game dynamics I appologize that you do not understand the concept of stalemate and have falsely applied it to this game we all enjoy I hope you learn the definition then post an Idea that will actually be grounded in reality...

[yeti_c]

Stalemates can be won...

Game 1608675

C.

heheh good timing and thanks for you help Yeti! *little yella-fella with rolling eyes*

So Stalemates don't exist and we should not do anything about them other than suicide to give the game to another as Solomon reckons?
And, by definition, as we have that option the Stalemate is an entirely false construct of out own cowardly behaviour?

Well that's just dandy!

Stalemates can and do happen... (and they can be broken (albeit with a lot of hard work and patience!)) it's part of the game when you have such a high level of skill as found on this website...

When you're round a board... you just get bored (or too pissed) and call it a day...

But here - as you only have to play once a day (or even week) then you carry on playing!!

Personally - this is one of the better solutions out there... however there is a problem...

When you say "roll up the points and move to another game" -> which points are you talking about? Just the points from the players who are eliminated? Whose score to you calculate from? (Also there is no need to keep rolling up the points - as you can only score points from eliminated players - so this avoids the abuse).

The way I see it - is that the game becomes paused - and then a new game is started with the remaining players... then when this game is one (or paused) the winner takes the points from the first games eliminated players - and the points from the new game(s) players. That way you don't need to bother about storing current rank values etc... you just calculate it all when the final game is concluded.

C.

[Soloman]

just an fyi here is the text book definition of stale mate Courtesy of Merriam Webster

Main Entry: 1stale·mate
Pronunciation: \ˈstāl-ˌmāt\
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete English stale stalemate (from Middle English, from Anglo-French estaler to stalemate, from estal station, position) + English 1mate — more at installment
Date: 1765
1: a drawing position in chess in which a player is not in checkmate but has no legal move to play

Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through

[jiminski]

thank you Yeti, constructive criticism! (i'll get back to you)

I am sorry to be short with you Solomon but arguing that something does not exist because it doesn't have to (even though it clearly does) seems a waste of energy.

[yeti_c]

thank you Yeti, constructive criticism! (i'll get back to you)

Eagerly awaiting reply.

C.

[Soloman]

thank you Yeti, constructive criticism! (i'll get back to you)

I am sorry to be short with you Solomon but arguing that something does not exist because it doesn't have to (even though it clearly does) seems a waste of energy.

Your argument is moot stalements do not exist here just deadlocks and deadlock only exist because people get scared to take a risk and attack before there opponent is to built up, get over the fact and support ideas that benefit the site not just the too scared to lose points...

[yeti_c]

thank you Yeti, constructive criticism! (i'll get back to you)

I am sorry to be short with you Solomon but arguing that something does not exist because it doesn't have to (even though it clearly does) seems a waste of energy.

Your argument is moot stalements do not exist here just deadlocks and deadlock only exist because people get scared to take a risk and attack before there opponent is to built up, get over the fact and support ideas that benefit the site not just the too scared to lose points...

No offence Soloman - but you've made your point... can you drop it now so we can have a discussion about the actual dynamics of the suggestion?!

C.

[GabonX]

I don't like this idea and I'll explain why. Stalemates don't bother me as I have premium. I would rather allow the game to come to a natural conclusion than be forced into a new one. If I were in a game (which I started as most games I play I start myslef) and everyone but me wanted to end the game I would either be forced to agree or I would be ganged up on so that they could do it without me. This makes the outcome of the first game somewhat illegitimate. For freemies this could be even worse as they would be forced into a new game when they may have wanted to play on different settings.

Also, it's already bad enough having to wait for a game where I'm elmininated to end before I lose points. Had I been eliminated before the players agreed to end the game I would have to wait even longer.

I agree that there is no such thing as a true stalemate. If the lack of action bothers you so much your option is to attack, not to ruin my game.

[Soloman]

thank you Yeti, constructive criticism! (i'll get back to you)

I am sorry to be short with you Solomon but arguing that something does not exist because it doesn't have to (even though it clearly does) seems a waste of energy.

Your argument is moot stalements do not exist here just deadlocks and deadlock only exist because people get scared to take a risk and attack before there opponent is to built up, get over the fact and support ideas that benefit the site not just the too scared to lose points...

No offence Soloman - but you've made your point... can you drop it now so we can have a discussion about the actual dynamics of the suggestion?!

C.

Ideas are posted here to be discussed I am discussing it but not in a way that supports the idea, Point being it is open to debate and as long as it is being debated aI will push my position.

[jiminski]

Stalemates can be won...

Game 1608675

C.

heheh good timing and thanks for you help Yeti! *little yella-fella with rolling eyes*

So Stalemates don't exist and we should not do anything about them other than suicide to give the game to another as Solomon reckons?
And, by definition, as we have that option the Stalemate is an entirely false construct of out own cowardly behaviour?

Well that's just dandy!

Stalemates can and do happen... (and they can be broken (albeit with a lot of hard work and patience!)) it's part of the game when you have such a high level of skill as found on this website...

When you're round a board... you just get bored (or too pissed) and call it a day...

But here - as you only have to play once a day (or even week) then you carry on playing!!

Personally - this is one of the better solutions out there... however there is a problem...

When you say "roll up the points and move to another game" -> which points are you talking about? Just the points from the players who are eliminated? Whose score to you calculate from? (Also there is no need to keep rolling up the points - as you can only score points from eliminated players - so this avoids the abuse).

The way I see it - is that the game becomes paused - and then a new game is started with the remaining players... then when this game is one (or paused) the winner takes the points from the first games eliminated players - and the points from the new game(s) players. That way you don't need to bother about storing current rank values etc... you just calculate it all when the final game is concluded.

C.

Well the way i see it, is that the winner of the replacement game takes all the points of all players from both games .
So you will have to have register and store peoples points at the time they make agreement; As you click for unanimity you take a a score snapshot. (you know more than i how easy that is)
to be honest you would have to store all points even if you only took the points of the eliminated players from the first game as you would need to calculate all possibilities. I think if you did not take the original rank people could manipulate their score; throwing games to maximise the double-up?

[jiminski]

I don't like this idea and I'll explain why. Stalemates don't bother me as I have premium. I would rather allow the game to come to a natural conclusion than be forced into a new one. If I were in a game (which I started as most games I play I start myslef) and everyone but me wanted to end the game I would either be forced to agree or I would be ganged up on so that they could do it without me. This makes the outcome of the first game somewhat illegitimate. For freemies this could be even worse as they would be forced into a new game when they may have wanted to play on different settings.

Also, it's already bad enough having to wait for a game where I'm elmininated to end before I lose points. Had I been eliminated before the players agreed to end the game I would have to wait even longer.

I agree that there is no such thing as a true stalemate. If the lack of action bothers you so much your option is to attack, not to ruin my game.

Firstly can we clear up this silly stalemate argument please!?
The reason it is a Stalemate is because in certain games you simply can not attack without handing the game to another player thus precluding your victory!
The only way to solve this is through a diplomatic solution whereby, for example, controlled and reciprocal attacks are made by each opponent. the other way is by finding an acceptable conclusion to the game as suggested in this thread.

To argue that it is not a Stalemate is semantically pedantic and also it ignores the prevailing logic that: to break the Deadlock is suicide; now this may not be a simplistic Stalemate but i assure you it is a very real and complex one.


To your point:- I understand your view regarding being forced into giving the game up and i do not wish to spoil your or anyone elses game, my proposition is to help not hinder!
However, surely this is absolutely no different to now! If you get 1 person tabling a 'stalemate' solution in gamechat: 4 agree, you are stubborn and do not agree; they could just as easily kill you and adhere to the tabled solution without you!
My suggestion really makes no difference to that possibility.

Regarding Freemiums: If the Stalemate game is Frozen it is in effect over, i see no reason why this shouldn't free up another game-space which is allotted to the replacement. (indeed it will have to in many cases in order to play the decider) So again it makes no difference to them, as they would otherwise be locked into another game of the same settings. And unless they fall into another Stalemate they will have a free space more quickly.

Your last point is much the same.. the whole point is that a new game will be over faster than playing out the stalemate, which by definition has no natural end in sight! Therefore your points will be subtracted more quickly.

[FabledIntegral]

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

[lancehoch]

Ideas are posted here to be discussed I am discussing it but not in a way that supports the idea, Point being it is open to debate and as long as it is being debated aI will push my position.

I am sorry Soloman, you are not debating. You are arguing semantics. And yes, you are right, but that is not the point. The point is, there is a valid suggestion here that is currently being hashed out. If you are not arguing for or against the actual way the suggestion is being implemented, you are not on topic.

As for the merits of the suggestion, I agree with Gabon. This would hurt freemium players and people who do not agree to the stalemate decision.

[jiminski]

Ideas are posted here to be discussed I am discussing it but not in a way that supports the idea, Point being it is open to debate and as long as it is being debated aI will push my position.

I am sorry Soloman, you are not debating. You are arguing semantics. And yes, you are right, but that is not the point. The point is, there is a valid suggestion here that is currently being hashed out. If you are not arguing for or against the actual way the suggestion is being implemented, you are not on topic.

As for the merits of the suggestion, I agree with Gabon. This would hurt freemium players and people who do not agree to the stalemate decision.

thanks mate, (and you for your post too Fable)

Please see my post above and let me know if this addresses your worry for Freemium etc.

[lancehoch]

thanks mate, Please see my post above and let me know if this addresses your worry for Freemium etc.

It does, but it also does not. I understand that I will be in the deadlocked game for a while, but I signed up for that game. Now, I am getting another game, not necessarily what I signed up for... different number of players in all likelihood. Also, I might want the practice of getting out of those situations either by negotiation or by force. It is a well formed suggestion, I just do not agree with it. And, about the person who currently disagrees with the second game option, or whatever the negotiations in game are, currently the person just has to ignore chat and others will not know if they do not agree or if they have not looked. There are ways to avoid negotiations. But if there is a checkbox right there, people know that you are avoiding it (or they are lying which could be used as a great strategy...).

[jiminski]

thanks mate, Please see my post above and let me know if this addresses your worry for Freemium etc.

It does, but it also does not. I understand that I will be in the deadlocked game for a while, but I signed up for that game. Now, I am getting another game, not necessarily what I signed up for... different number of players in all likelihood. Also, I might want the practice of getting out of those situations either by negotiation or by force. It is a well formed suggestion, I just do not agree with it. And, about the person who currently disagrees with the second game option, or whatever the negotiations in game are, currently the person just has to ignore chat and others will not know if they do not agree or if they have not looked. There are ways to avoid negotiations. But if there is a checkbox right there, people know that you are avoiding it (or they are lying which could be used as a great strategy...).

Well in fact there is no reason why anyone should know who has voted for an end or who has not voted.
It is only necessary to know how many players have voted and when unanimity is reached. Indeed if that were a worry it could be completely closed until the point where the game is 'frozen' and you are entered into the new game.
The only way people will know how you voted is via Gamechat and who is to say who is telling the truth? And so you can avoid chat in the same way as before. (so if you wish to learn how to elude this trap you can dictate the passage of the game.)

As to it having different numbers of players and not being what you signed up for: if the settings are exactly the same and you take the layers who are left into the new game there is very little difference from carrying on with the stalemate game .. except you may get some action

[lancehoch]

Well in fact there is no reason why anyone should know who has voted for an end or who has not voted.
It is only necessary to know how many players have voted and when unanimity is reached. Indeed if that were a worry it could be completely closed until the point where the game is 'frozen' and you are entered into the new game.
The only way people will know how you voted is via Gamechat and who is to say who is telling the truth? And so you can avoid chat in the same what as before.

But thats the key, if people start marking the box and I do not want a truce what I would do is say, hey, who is the jerk who did not do that. The last person to reply will probably get taken out. The game would not end. Then we would all realize someone was lying...rinse, lather, repeat.

[Soloman]

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

[jiminski]

Well in fact there is no reason why anyone should know who has voted for an end or who has not voted.
It is only necessary to know how many players have voted and when unanimity is reached. Indeed if that were a worry it could be completely closed until the point where the game is 'frozen' and you are entered into the new game.
The only way people will know how you voted is via Gamechat and who is to say who is telling the truth? And so you can avoid chat in the same what as before.

But thats the key, if people start marking the box and I do not want a truce what I would do is say, hey, who is the jerk who did not do that. The last person to reply will probably get taken out. The game would not end. Then we would all realize someone was lying...rinse, lather, repeat.

hehe i think that is another point
I came up with a way to solve the problem of targeting a player not in agreement (which could pose the same problem without the check boxes) i.e. that people could kill you if you did not agree and you changed the argument..

Your point is fair none-the-less!

But if you say you can avoid chat, then you can easily avoid a tick box next the 'note to self' tick box.

So we are back to openness and exactly the same situation as if it were an informal Stalemate solution. All it does is makes it more standardised and easier.
I have seen so many dodgy solution where people get taken advantage of (based on number of attack at the start of a game and so on!) ... this could make it a little fairer i hope, if we got it right.

[jiminski]

.......

Solomon why have you come here to have a fight!? And you are talking about an issue you have clearly not experienced.

The reason that some higher ranks empathise is that the very good players find, through near perfection of play, that they are in a disproportionate number of Stalemates.

you are arguing for arguments sake. Please, if you can add something constructive you are very welcome, otherwise you are just wasting our time mate.

[Soloman]

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

Solomon why have you come here to a fight!? And you are talking about an issue you have clearly not experienced.

The reason that some higher ranks empathise is that the very good players find, through near perfection of play, that they are in a disproportionate number of Stalemates.

you are arguing for arguments sake. Please, if you can add something constructive you are very welcome, otherwise you are just wasting our time mate.

LOL my argument is constructive just not in your favor, The validity of my point is not lost on you the game was designed to reach an end through strategy and chance a lot of players refuse to accept the chance part and come up with Ideas such as this to attempt to circumvent it, flawless strategy means nothing with out good luck on the risky dice and if the dice go against you your strategy is caput no matter how flawless you believed it to be.

This is a bad Idea I have posted many reasons past the logistics of the word stalemate as to why it is bad. The only way this idea would ever be valid would be if a board or gametype was created where you never recieved any additional armies past what you recieved at the beggining and had to attempt a win with that fixed amount in that case a stalemate could be achieved and this would be a valid idea without that this is again just a wate of review time and a detraction from other valid ideas that would enhance and add to the site.

I guess the problem you have with what I am saying comes down to your perception that you should always have the chance to negotiate a victory or way to delay so you can possibly get a victory. I understand the desire to win and have the same desire, but I do not share the delusion that all games are mine to win and that if given enough time I will win. I accept the factors of chance and risk in the game may be my undoing. I am not stating you actually said you believe this but that it is implied with ideas such as this. So in conclusion I still say bad idea, ripe for abuse not grounded in reality nor the spirit of the game...

[jiminski]

Can we agree to disagree, so i and others who understand this problem can 'attempt' to resolve it please?

you are not being constructive in the least!
how can you hold a constructive position if you refute that the problem we are trying to solve actually exists!?

I am very happy to try to answer criticism, as i have done with every other poster! Indeed this is the point to these threads; to attempt to fine-tune an idea and see if it is viable to the best of our ability on the field of debate!

Perhaps you have not come here expressly to be difficult but your lack of understanding of the specific scenario precludes any sensible discourse.
Perhaps you want to change the whole philosophy and gaming style of the high ranking players? well that is a little presumptuous and rude don't you think?


So this really is the last time i will speak to you unless you have something other than, "you play the game wrong, change that instead!!" or a 500 word diatribe saying: "Stalemate is not the correct terminology"

Not helpful at all buddy.

[Soloman]

LOL my argument is constructive just not in your favor, The validity of my point is not lost on you the game was designed to reach an end through strategy and chance a lot of players refuse to accept the chance part and come up with Ideas such as this to attempt to circumvent it, flawless strategy means nothing with out good luck on the risky dice and if the dice go against you your strategy is caput no matter how flawless you believed it to be.

This is a bad Idea I have posted many reasons past the logistics of the word stalemate as to why it is bad. The only way this idea would ever be valid would be if a board or gametype was created where you never recieved any additional armies past what you recieved at the beggining and had to attempt a win with that fixed amount in that case a stalemate could be achieved and this would be a valid idea without that this is again just a wate of review time and a detraction from other valid ideas that would enhance and add to the site.

I guess the problem you have with what I am saying comes down to your perception that you should always have the chance to negotiate a victory or way to delay so you can possibly get a victory. I understand the desire to win and have the same desire, but I do not share the delusion that all games are mine to win and that if given enough time I will win. I accept the factors of chance and risk in the game may be my undoing. I am not stating you actually said you believe this but that it is implied with ideas such as this. So in conclusion I still say bad idea, ripe for abuse not grounded in reality nor the spirit of the game...

Can we agree to disagree, so i and others who understand this problem can 'attempt' to resolve it please?

you are not being constructive in the least!
how you you hold a constructive position if you refute that the problem we are trying to solve actually exists!?

I am very happy to try to answer criticism, as i have done with every other poster! Indeed this is the point to these threads; to attempt to fine-tune an idea and see if it is viable to the best of our ability on the field of debate!

Perhaps you have not come here expressly to be difficult but your lack of understanding of the specific scenario precludes any sensible discourse.
Perhaps you want to change the whole philosophy of the high ranking players? well that is a little presumptuous and rude don't you think?


So this really is the last time i will speak to you unless you have something other than, "you play the game wrong, change that!!" or a 500 word diatribe saying: "Stalemate is not the correct terminology"

Not helpful at all buddy.

My problem is you and I guess other igh ranking players are trying to create a condition that cannot exist in this game and want to create a solution for an impossible position that only exists in your minds not in constraints of the game. It is a huge waste of resources to even discuss this since it does not exist in the reality of the game a stalemate occurs when you cannot make a move not when you choose to not make a move.

You whole premise is based on fear of risk and while I will admit that in a lot of cases that has benefitted you higher ranks do to your ability to not deter from just building up till everyone is ridiculously powerful this mentality creates the base for this non issue. I have seen in this game an attack against 9 troops with 50+ attacking and the attacker lost that battle it is the nature of the game. Your ideology ignores that fact and acts upon fear and attempts to create a situation where you believe you have no moves when you do if you just take the chance as the game was designed to be...

[jiminski]

I truly hate to use this as a line of argument but you honestly do not understand... i have attempted to explain that this is a reality and not just a construct of our cowardice but your obtuse reasoning clings to the belief that you do understand the problem. Your perception that we are fundamentally wrong in our outlook upon the game, makes your constructive input impossible.
Honestly, trust me, you do not know what we are talking about and i am not saying that to maintain control, gain victory over you or even to be mean it is simply the truth and we need to move forward please.