[GP/UI] Increase Escalating Spoils to Avoid Stalemates

[edwinissweet]

bummer

[Incandenza]

After prodding from Andy, I'm bumping this to see if I can possibly get some of the new suggs mods to put their eyes on the original concept. Given that we still lack a framework for settling very very long stalemates (other than deadbeat/suicide/doing something dumb), it's a discussion worth having, if only to do due diligence so that people who come up with their own negotiated settlements don't get into trouble for game-throwing.

[PLAYER57832]

What about speed games that go on & on & on? Most people, who sign up for a speed game, don't expect to be still playing 6+ hours later. The real world intervenes and people have got to get some sleep, go to work, etc. The guys with no lives can play on forever, but most folks can't be tied down to their computers for so long.

I once proposed that there be an option for speed games to be converted to casual games, either with a vote OR after a couple of hours. The idea was rejected, as I remember it.

[Army of GOD]

I think the only way this should be implemented is that if there is no point changes at all. I just see another way people can cheat the system. If the main purpose of this sugg is to end long games, then points shouldn't really matter anyway.

[jefjef]

i like this... a button that 100% people can press and get out of a horrible game.

We already have a button for this. It is labeled AUTO ASSAULT.

Want to end a game? Play the damn thing.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the only way this should be implemented is that if there is no point changes at all. I just see another way people can cheat the system. If the main purpose of this sugg is to end long games, then points shouldn't really matter anyway.

I agree. Also, it has to be a truly LOONG game. I don't know what would be appropriate for speed games, but it seems that if a regular game has gone on for 6 months or so, you are not talking about quitters. It seems if they all want to stop, other than one suiciding, there ought to be a way.

Options I can see:
1. vote to end. No points, all must agree. Button only appears after x time or #of turns. (I submitted a more detailed explanation earlier).

2. some random "event" : earth quake was suggested, nuking random territories, etc.

3. change spoils -- no spoils to spoils or increase spoils significantly, etc.

4. Speed only - switch to casual after x # rounds.

5. don't worry about points and just start the attacks.

6??

[ljex]

i like this... a button that 100% people can press and get out of a horrible game.

We already have a button for this. It is labeled AUTO ASSAULT.

Want to end a game? Play the damn thing.

yes, the perfect idea piss someone off and lose points in the process

[Incandenza]

i like this... a button that 100% people can press and get out of a horrible game.

We already have a button for this. It is labeled AUTO ASSAULT.

Want to end a game? Play the damn thing.

So your solution is to suicide? Gotcha. The point here is to find alternatives to suiciding.

I think the only way this should be implemented is that if there is no point changes at all. I just see another way people can cheat the system. If the main purpose of this sugg is to end long games, then points shouldn't really matter anyway.

I think there should be some dispensing of points, if for no other reason than to keep the suggestion reasonably centered and not start straying into "no points games" territory, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

[jefjef]

i like this... a button that 100% people can press and get out of a horrible game.

We already have a button for this. It is labeled AUTO ASSAULT.

Want to end a game? Play the damn thing.

So your solution is to suicide? Gotcha. The point here is to find alternatives to suiciding.

I'm not suggesting suiciding ya arrogant $#!. That would be throwing a game. That I do not or have ever done.

What I am saying is to play the freaking game. Do attacks that may give an advantage.

I do not have build games. Heck I rarely have a game go past 14 rounds cuz I don't sit on my mangina building stacks like those who are even suggesting this seem to be doing.

[Incandenza]

Dunno why you're so hostile, though that seems to be your default state. It's been my experience that singles game between skilled players with no cards or flat rate can often (not always) devolve into stalemate, where there really are no good ways of attacking for advantage, and even if you do, the remaining players will ensure that you don't get too far ahead (ell, I once had an escalating game on 2.1 get deadlocked, because there's no point in going for a killshot against someone with 2000 troops when cash is only at 600 or so). I am not the only person who's had this experience. Why is this such a foreign concept for you?

Actually, you know what, I kinda get the impression that you're not really going to bring anything to this conversation, so if you're just going to keep repeating this self-aggrandizing "I'm too brilliant to end up in stalemates and everyone that does is a pussy", rather than trying to find a workable solution, then kindly make your way over to the Off-Topics forum where people don't mind when you shit all over their thread.

[Commander62890]

I am all for this. It is a great solution for all of the stalemated games out there.








jefjef, you keep saying the same thing over and over. We hear your point... please stop. There aren't many good players that share your views...


For clarity, I'm sure you're okay at 1v1s and team games, but your attitude towards the type of game that this suggestion targets is naive.

[jefjef]

I am all for this. It is a great solution for all of the stalemated games out there.

jefjef, you keep saying the same thing over and over. We hear your point... please stop. There aren't many good players that share your views...


For clarity, I'm sure you're okay at 1v1s and team games, but your attitude towards the type of game that this suggestion targets is naive.

LMAO! If you consider players who can only play into a "stalemated game" as a guide for being good... well...

How about an E ticket sugg.

LIKE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT AN E-TICKET AND REQUESTING GAME DELETION.

As long as all parties agree and a certain amount of rounds have been played - problem solved.

[Incandenza]

Except for the fact that management is on record as saying that they won't delete stalemated games, that'd be a really bitching idea.

Seriously, save everyone some time and sod off if you're not going to contribute.

[waseemalim]

Two add my two cents:

The problem is not just that these games become a drag on people who play it. But that it also discourages quite a few people to take on games like these. I haven't played a no cards standard game in years because I tend to get sick after 50 rounds. Sure I can out-wait other people, but I don't have much fun doing so.

This is something that needs attention, I think it will improve the experience for a lot of people.

[angola]

Two add my two cents:

The problem is not just that these games become a drag on people who play it. But that it also discourages quite a few people to take on games like these. I haven't played a no cards standard game in years because I tend to get sick after 50 rounds. Sure I can out-wait other people, but I don't have much fun doing so.

This is something that needs attention, I think it will improve the experience for a lot of people.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm stuck in a few stalemate games right now and would love a solution for them to end.

Normally I'd suggest a game on a different map, but as Incandenza said you can get in trouble for throwing games - plus, these are tournament games, so we have to finish on these maps.

I like the idea of points being spread out, though. If I have to sit through 100 rounds of stalemate, I better get some points. If I don't get any points, hell, I might as well keep deploying and see what happens.

[AndyDufresne]

What sort of impact would this have on the Cheating/Abuse side? That is something probably to discuss as well---if it makes it easier for abuse to occur, if it makes no difference, if it makes it harder, etc.


--Andy

[Incandenza]

What sort of impact would this have on the Cheating/Abuse side? That is something probably to discuss as well---if it makes it easier for abuse to occur, if it makes no difference, if it makes it harder, etc.


--Andy

A major component of this would be a minimum round number, say 75 or 100. The idea would be to make it almost impossible for all but the most insanely committed to abuse in any way.

[AndyDufresne]

What sort of impact would this have on the Cheating/Abuse side? That is something probably to discuss as well---if it makes it easier for abuse to occur, if it makes no difference, if it makes it harder, etc.


--Andy

A major component of this would be a minimum round number, say 75 or 100. The idea would be to make it almost impossible for all but the most insanely committed to abuse in any way.

Right, the minimum round number idea has been floating around in a number of topics. The biggest issue around that, is dedicated multis could blow through rounds like that in an hour or less. Would it further add to Cheating? Or would this possible addition of cheating, be counteracted by the removal/limiting of other cheating (like abusing the use of 'point decider games' or throwing other games to end a stalemate?).

Are there any other ideas, aside from Round Limits, that could make something like this work, without giving cheaters a quick route to points?


--Andy

[sherkaner]

Combine it with a time limit? Something like 40 days and 75 rounds? (Speed games are a different category anyway.)

[danryan]

I agree with a time limit and a round limit at which point games can be finished. I am in a ton of stalemated games, which happens mainly due to equally matched players despite what some nitwits may say. No reason that a mechanism to solve these has to result in abuse.

[Army of GOD]

If we're involving points, I like think it should be a time minimum (6 months?), not a round minimum, otherwise it'd be too easy to abuse.

I'm still for a no point transfer though.

[shocked439]

I think The higher ranked player should still be penalized.

What about a button that once all active players have agreed by pushing the game ends, the points are assinged as if each player had won. Making the lower ranked players have a net gain and the higher ranked player a net loss but ending the stalemate

[AndyDufresne]

I'd keep complicated point changes out of the suggestion---since it'll decrease the likelihood of anything coming to fruition.

The best option may be a 'canceling of points' where there is no exchanged, but I'm not even sure if that is complicated from a coding stand point.


--Andy

[Bruceswar]

I'd keep complicated point changes out of the suggestion---since it'll decrease the likelihood of anything coming to fruition.

The best option may be a 'canceling of points' where there is no exchanged, but I'm not even sure if that is complicated from a coding stand point.


--Andy

Having been in my fair share of stalemated games, they can range anywhere from a month to over 3 years + (at current) I just ended a game that started early 2009 and still have 1 running from 2008. Anyhow point is that there is no truely fair way to end a game like this. In a singles game, all those alive should split the points of all the dead. In a team game, all the remaining teams should split the points of the dead teams. If no teams or players are dead, then the game must act as if it were void and no points given to anybody. As for how long and how many rounds it should be. Well that is up for debate. All it takes is one nut to get tired after 50 rounds and suicide you. It has happened to me many times. I have seen games running 6 months end on the count of someone getting tired and suiciding into people, giving someone an easy win. Also what about the person who fought hard at the start to get a lead, only to have it be voided out? There are lots of angles we need to examine here. As for abuse, mark this one off as not gonna happen. Only a fool would even attempt it.

[Dukasaur]

In Escalating Spoils games, once the cash reaches 50 it increases by 10% of the previous cash, instead of a steady progression by 5s.

This will be genuinely Escalating spoils: after 50 there will be a hyperbolic instead of the current arithmetic (straight line) progression.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
There is a generally-accepted belief that escalating games don't stalemate. Unfortunately, more and more often we are seeing escalating games that do stalemate, or at least take a very long time to play. The old progression was designed when most of the maps were wide-open maps like Classic or Hong Kong. Maps have gotten bigger and more complex. They have many dead ends for players to hide in, and numerous bonuses that make the spoils less important. Larger armies are needed to break open the defensive lines that are causing stalemated games on maps like the Hive, Supermax, Conquer Rome, Das Schloss, and even World 2.1.