Moderator: Community Team
scottp wrote:A comprehensive "program" to improve the game - including penalties for deadbeating, and an option to forfeit (at whatever point in the game, not just when it's down to 2 players, as in the rejected thread you cited) at a reduced penalty - is a far cry from "just a surrender button".
scottp wrote:[*]incentivizes players to play out their remaining turns, avoiding large blocks of newly created "neutral player" territories on the map
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.
He knows the truth of the matter stalemate only exists in the minds of those who support this idea...besides him this thread was dead any ways...jiminski wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.
heheheheh MeD, Either you have read the thread and are taking the piss and if not, piss of and read the thread..
MeDeFe wrote:Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.
AAFitz wrote:This is fine, but it has to be an option at the beginning of a game...
the option to stalemate will fundamentally change the game strategy from the beginning, so there needs to be an option for those who prefer to let the game play out, no matter what, or how long, and those who simply dont want to be bothered with long games
AAFitz wrote:This is fine, but it has to be an option at the beginning of a game...
the option to stalemate will fundamentally change the game strategy from the beginning, so there needs to be an option for those who prefer to let the game play out, no matter what, or how long, and those who simply dont want to be bothered with long games
oaktown wrote:there is nothing I would like to see more around here than a way to move out of stalemates (I'm stuck in half a dozen right now), but the suggestion at the top of this thread seems a bit too complex. It'd be far simpler to just have way to change a flat rate or no card game to an escalating cards game. The vote should have to be unanimous, as well as anonymous, and the set value should start at a low number (four?) so there's no advantage to the player who happens to take his turn after the switch-over.
It could even be coded so that this option isn't available until the game hits 100 rounds... let folks play it out for a while before changing the landscape.
oaktown wrote:there is nothing I would like to see more around here than a way to move out of stalemates (I'm stuck in half a dozen right now), but the suggestion at the top of this thread seems a bit too complex. It'd be far simpler to just have way to change a flat rate or no card game to an escalating cards game. The vote should have to be unanimous, as well as anonymous, and the set value should start at a low number (four?) so there's no advantage to the player who happens to take his turn after the switch-over.
It could even be coded so that this option isn't available until the game hits 100 rounds... let folks play it out for a while before changing the landscape.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users