[GP/UI] Increase Escalating Spoils to Avoid Stalemates

[jiminski]

Do mods actually look at these topics and take into consideration?

Yeah Andy (banana Monkey) already gave words of preliminary support .. so we are 23% there...

[WidowMakers]

I like this idea.

Code: Select all

that's why i think a very steep increase would surely end all stalemates. something like this:
100
100+20
120+40
160+80
240+160
400+320
720+640

WM

[AndyDufresne]

Lack is more keen on trying to solve all "stalemate solutions" at once. But he knows about the topic, so that's all we can do for now. Keep getting some more support.


--Andy

[Timminz]

Keep getting some more support.

I support this idea. Although, I'd like to see the threshold a little higher. I've never been involved in an escalating stalemate, but I have been in a few where the card values got over 100. I don't think it would need to be much higher (maybe 125-150), but I do think that a game has not necessarily gone stale by the time cards get to 100.

[FabledIntegral]

You could always simply include another option, keep the normal escalating option, or have escalating + or something like that.

I still think that just as the person before me said, it's not ALWAYS stale when it hits 100. That's why I suggested making it increase by 10 only (instead of 5), when it hits 100. Then you have 10 more sets (as opposed to the current 20) to get to 200, which then you'll need only 5 sets to get to 300... where now it takes 40 sets to get to turn in 300 (after you get to 100), it would now only take 15. So I do think that's still a substantial increase, without having to do the 100 + 20 ... 100+ 40 ... 100+ 80... etc. idea. It would slowly transition, but the sets would definitely start increasing rapidly when you get 500 area. Someone turns in a set for 500 (as it would go... 280 -> 300 -> 330 -> 360 -> 390 -> 420 -> 460 -> 500), then the next person cashes after and gets 550, then 600. Going from 500 --> 600 within the same turn is pretty fast.

However any option is better than what we currently have! Back at this topic because I just got in another stalemate today amongst 4 people, where one person gave up, and another deadbeated until it was finally resolved.

[jiminski]

You could always simply include another option, keep the normal escalating option, or have escalating + or something like that.

I still think that just as the person before me said, it's not ALWAYS stale when it hits 100. That's why I suggested making it increase by 10 only (instead of 5), when it hits 100. Then you have 10 more sets (as opposed to the current 20) to get to 200, which then you'll need only 5 sets to get to 300... where now it takes 40 sets to get to turn in 300 (after you get to 100), it would now only take 15. So I do think that's still a substantial increase, without having to do the 100 + 20 ... 100+ 40 ... 100+ 80... etc. idea. It would slowly transition, but the sets would definitely start increasing rapidly when you get 500 area. Someone turns in a set for 500 (as it would go... 280 -> 300 -> 330 -> 360 -> 390 -> 420 -> 460 -> 500), then the next person cashes after and gets 550, then 600. Going from 500 --> 600 within the same turn is pretty fast.

However any option is better than what we currently have! Back at this topic because I just got in another stalemate today amongst 4 people, where one person gave up, and another deadbeated until it was finally resolved.

Although i do think the 100 cash mark is 'about' right, I think debate upon it makes sense and it could be a little higher .. not much more though; i would say i perhaps only once been in a game with a cash of more than 120, without one of the cashes being in a chain of kills to end the game.

Regarding the more gradual and flat increase: if you make the increases by only 10 it will make very little difference to Stalemates. To ensure that it does not happen you need to increase the increase or no one will ever gain enough advantage to make a kill.

[jiminski]

Bump for Justice!

[AceArtemis]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[FabledIntegral]

You could always simply include another option, keep the normal escalating option, or have escalating + or something like that.

I still think that just as the person before me said, it's not ALWAYS stale when it hits 100. That's why I suggested making it increase by 10 only (instead of 5), when it hits 100. Then you have 10 more sets (as opposed to the current 20) to get to 200, which then you'll need only 5 sets to get to 300... where now it takes 40 sets to get to turn in 300 (after you get to 100), it would now only take 15. So I do think that's still a substantial increase, without having to do the 100 + 20 ... 100+ 40 ... 100+ 80... etc. idea. It would slowly transition, but the sets would definitely start increasing rapidly when you get 500 area. Someone turns in a set for 500 (as it would go... 280 -> 300 -> 330 -> 360 -> 390 -> 420 -> 460 -> 500), then the next person cashes after and gets 550, then 600. Going from 500 --> 600 within the same turn is pretty fast.

However any option is better than what we currently have! Back at this topic because I just got in another stalemate today amongst 4 people, where one person gave up, and another deadbeated until it was finally resolved.

Although i do think the 100 cash mark is 'about' right, I think debate upon it makes sense and it could be a little higher .. not much more though; i would say i perhaps only once been in a game with a cash of more than 120, without one of the cashes being in a chain of kills to end the game.

Regarding the more gradual and flat increase: if you make the increases by only 10 it will make very little difference to Stalemates. To ensure that it does not happen you need to increase the increase or no one will ever gain enough advantage to make a kill.

It would increase substantially. Right now it increases linearly, the way I propose it, it would now be exponentially increasing (or that's how the long run graph would appear). The only difference is that the dramatic increases don't necessarily happen at 100. For example a game today ended when people were at 235 (speed, 8-player escalating, 7 people left, stalemate). Think about that, that's 27 sets after 100. If we're doing the slow gradual exponential increase I'm referring to, the sets would have been at 860. Compare 235 to 860, and tell me it's not significant. The only point I'm making is that radical changes tend to be bad, it's best to not overshoot it, use a somewhat subtle change, and increase it more when necessary.

[cicero]

FabledIntegral

Look a few posts back and you'll see that DiM has already posted a very steep pattern of changes ... is that set the one that we should give our backing to?

4, 6, 8, 10, 12
(as now - "increase by 2 per set up to 12")

15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, ,90, 95, 100
(as now - "increase by 5 per set")
("up to 100" as modified by DiM's proposal)

120, 160, 240, 400, 720, 1160, 2440, 5000, 10120, 20360 ...
(DiM's proposal - "increase by 20 and then double the increase for every set after that")

Any flaws in that ?

[FabledIntegral]

FabledIntegral

Look a few posts back and you'll see that DiM has already posted a very steep pattern of changes ... is that set the one that we should give our backing to?

4, 6, 8, 10, 12
(as now - "increase by 2 per set up to 12")

15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, ,90, 95, 100
(as now - "increase by 5 per set")
("up to 100" as modified by DiM's proposal)

120, 160, 240, 400, 720, 1160, 2440, 5000, 10120, 20360 ...
(DiM's proposal - "increase by 20 and then double the increase for every set after that")

Any flaws in that ?

It's not that similar in the sense it's radically different from what it is now. My proposal transitions it from a linear to exponential formula while he's radically implements one immediately to the other. As soon as you hit 100, BAM the armies start increasing to hell. Think about it, it would end games IMMEDIATELY. Say you had 5 person stalemate. Each perosn has 200 armies each, next cash value is 100, everyone has 5 cards. Whoever ends up cashing first would get 100 armies, second 120, third 160, fourth 240, fifth 400.... so someone who was able to cash last (or potentially skip a turn) would get 300 more armies than the first person? Even though they both had 5 cards? You want to end that game *immediately*? And then after everyone ends turn (assuming the 400 cash dind't have time to kill someone)... one person gets lucky with a 3 set and no one else does... let's say it was the fourth person... 240 deployment... now cashes 720 armies and sweeps the map. That hardly leaves anything left for strategy or "incentive to kill others," it makes the game 100% reliant on who cashes last, making the game completely devoid of strategy in terms of blocks, positioning, etc.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd be in favor of a less steep proposal, but one that will ensure that something will happen and the game won't go on forever.


--Andy

[FabledIntegral]

So something more like what I proposed...

[cicero]

I'd be in favor of a less steep proposal, but one that will ensure that something will happen and the game won't go on forever.

I see what you mean about the steepness, but one thing that I think is worth emphasising about a solution of this kind is that it is not necessarily the period of the game where these steep increases actually occur that forces something to happen ... I think the period before the steep increases begin are actually more likely to be the period where strategy changes because players will realise "if I wait any longer we're going to go into meltdown" ... and so pre-emptively take decisive action to resolve the game.

So something more like what I proposed...

One of the strengths of DiM's suggestion is that it is concise to describe. Having said that something less steep would perhaps be preferable, but - I would suggest - will need to be equally concise to describe.

[yeti_c]

Consider:

PreviousCash + (PreviousCash / 5)

100 - 120 - 144 - 172 - 206 - 258 - 310 - 372 - 446

C.

[lancehoch]

Yeti, the only thing I do not like about that is the jumps from 206-258 and then 258-310 have the same increase (52). Is there any way to round differently to change that? Maybe using a ceiling function instead of a rounding function?

[yeti_c]

Yeti, the only thing I do not like about that is the jumps from 206-258 and then 258-310 have the same increase (52). Is there any way to round differently to change that? Maybe using a ceiling function instead of a rounding function?

That'll be a mistake in my typing...

The numbers are off beyond 258 (which should've been 248)

Essentially - it is a logarithmic scale though - the gap always increases... and soon will increase a lot...

This is just a less harsh way than doubled.

C.

[yeti_c]

Corrected sequence is...

100 - 120 - 144 - 172 - 206 - 247 - 296 - 355 - 426 - 511

gaps are

20 - 24 - 28 - 34 - 41 - 49 - 59 - 71 - 85

C.

PS - note to increase steepness - change the divisor of the formula...

[jiminski]

Corrected sequence is...

100 - 120 - 144 - 172 - 206 - 247 - 296 - 355 - 426 - 511

gaps are

20 - 24 - 28 - 34 - 41 - 49 - 59 - 71 - 85

C.

PS - note to increase steepness - change the divisor of the formula...

I think this is a very sensible idea .. perhaps the increase would need to keep increasing in order to give a certain conclusion and ensure a viable take-out attempt.
For example the cash value could escalate as follows: 100, 120, 150, 190, 240, 300.

It would certainly cause more action and diminish the possibility of stagnation. (like increasing blinds in Poker)

The increase at 100 cash value, is probably 'about' right (perhaps it would need to be a little higher to placate some); generally this is where the game reaches the point of no return. Where the kill is not worth the return gained by a cash and all players are dug-in for a stalemate game; locked in prayer for an opponents 3 day loss of Internet, Meteor-strike or death of a dear family pet.

yeah we are roughly in the same ballpark Yeti.
100, 120, 150, 190, 240, 300.

gaps are: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and so on.


As i said before, DiM's series 'may' be too steep... however it does add absolute certainty to an end and as this is the goal it is to some extent a moot point regarding the severity of its incline.

Saying that, based on the above figures, in a 6 man game the person who cashes 100 will meet a cash of 300 from the last to cash in that 'round'.. realistically it should be enough to end the game..

however it might not be!
If the preceding players all cash and block carefully; due to the relatively steep but not explosively steep increase there will almost certainly still be Stalemates... it certainly will change the nature of the game at the cash of 100 but probably not universally end stalemates.

So i think back to DiM explosion?

[jiminski]

So something more like what I proposed...

I do not think yours would definitely end Stalemates due to sophisticated blocking, Fable.

Can you please post a very simple series of increases as Yeti has done?

[hatterson]

Consider:

PreviousCash + (PreviousCash / 5)

100 - 120 - 144 - 172 - 206 - 258 - 310 - 372 - 446

C.

I think something like this is the best idea. Although it is still possible to have stalemates it's much harder.

Essentially it is Cash = Previous Cash * X where X=6/5 You can adjust this easily by increasing X (to say 5/4 or 4/3).

If X=2 then as the game goes to infinity rounds the number of units you will get on a cash in approaches the total number of units deployed in the game so far. That would mean on Round 100,000 if I cash in for 10,000,000 armies then there can't be many more than 10,000,000 units on the map (before I deploy) even if everyone just sat and did nothing up till that point.

Also, if my math is correct then each deploy will be roughly (X-1) of the units deployed so far to this point. ie, if it's 6/5 then you'd be deploying 1/5th of the total armies. At 4/3 it'd be 1/3 of the armies.

[yeti_c]

So i think back to DiM explosion?

I disagree - as the scale I have posted is based on logs - it will expand and fill the void - so yes some clever blocking may happen for a few rounds - sooner or later the cash value will be too much to block - and you will die...

I think that DiM's cashing is just too steep... and like previously noted - could lead to people skipping turns etc.

C.

[jiminski]

So i think back to DiM explosion?

- could lead to people skipping turns etc.

C.

Agreed.. but that will happen with either format; if missing a card means even an extra 200 troops in a 6 person game the temptation will be great.

I am just concerned that gradual increase, similar to what i posted on the first page and also to your sequence, may not result in conclusion every time. Certainly more often but in the top games i think, with slightly more careful cooperation and elegant blocking, we may still find we have stalemates......
However even if it were to prove the solution to the majority of but not all stalemates this may still be enough, particularly being as we retain the structure of the latter stages to a greater degree!

Is there a way we could have a test group to try-out the increase options?

[FabledIntegral]

You guys... stalemates don't necessarily have to go to the point where cash exceeds an opponent's armies. Namely if they have two pair and you kill them, you get the cash value + an extra card, etc. Furthermore, if it goes down to a three person stalemate, you only need to make sure that even if you lose on killing someone, you still stay above the third person, which is often possible.

I like Yeti's 6/5's suggestion.

At the same time... the whole 'definitely' ends stalemate, it would improve the situation, I would rather still have the very odd occasional stalemate than completely ruin the game with the explosive sets that are proposed, which I would be very disappointed to see.

[jiminski]

You guys... stalemates don't necessarily have to go to the point where cash exceeds an opponent's armies. Namely if they have two pair and you kill them, you get the cash value + an extra card, etc. Furthermore, if it goes down to a three person stalemate, you only need to make sure that even if you lose on killing someone, you still stay above the third person, which is often possible.

I like Yeti's 6/5's suggestion.

At the same time... the whole 'definitely' ends stalemate, it would improve the situation, I would rather still have the very odd occasional stalemate than completely ruin the game with the explosive sets that are proposed, which I would be very disappointed to see.

I think you are only reading the first line of my posts Fable ... or perhaps no lines at all and i would not blame you.. i even bore myself quite often!!

*Stop reading .... now!*

Far from completely disagreeing with you, my first series of numbers is almost exactly the same as yeti's .. I have however developed a 'doubt' in their validity as the discussion has progressed.
What I am saying is that the combined increases, if not decisively more, will outweigh any single persons increased cash. this will mean that through careful cooperation Stalemates may even be more likely! This has nothing to do with not understanding how a cash and a kill works..
Please Fable, we do not all need 3000+ points to understand the nuances of the game, trust me ^^

As to the definite end, i also say exactly the same thing as you do in your last line; It may be worth our maintenance of non-explosive increases at the expense of a few Stalemates.


The Point is: I am still not sure we have, before our eyes, the perfect cash increase series yet!
We are talking about highly sophisticated Escalator specialists, it may not even be possible to theorise as to the likelihood of a Stalemate panacea, due to adaptation of Strategy under the influences of new rules!
We must also remember that this has to be capable of stopping Stalemate in the Elite, Casual, Sequential* games as well as Freestyle!

Which is why i wondered if we could get some of the top Sequential Escalator* boys to try 2 or 3 cash series options out, before it were to be universally implemented..... We could make them entirely 'open-games' (with strategic conversation between the players) to short-cut the evolution of specific strategy.
not feasible Yeti ?

*I would say that due to the nature of the game; with it's more ritualised game patterns and due to the longer average time to contemplate a move, Stalemates are far more likely in Sequential.