Conquer Club

Androidz wrote:A Stalemate, could be a good idea for none Premies. Since it can end a game which take forever to end.

As i understand if one player don't want this stalemate the game continue so its just an option.

A Stalemate gives the remaining player a share of the points of the ones who lost.

I would like to have this expanision.xD (Im a None PremiexD)

Hello Androidz,

In fact the Stalemate game is just 'frozen' and the remaining players go into a replacement game with the same settings.
The points of eliminated players are held, to be given to the winner of the replacement game.

does that make sense to you?

Yes it does, and that makes the stalemate idea worse. It would be better the way i said. Atleast i think.

When people offers a stalemate then the match ends in a draw normaly, not in a backupgame..which will be be diffcult to establish and will just take place.

Androidz wrote:Yes it does, and that makes the stalemate idea worse. It would be better the way i said. Atleast i think.

When people offers a stalemate then the match ends in a draw normaly, not in a backupgame..which will be be diffcult to establish and will just take place.

well the replacement, should be over more quickly than the frozen game which is simply archived so no more space is taken up.

And establishing it is automated based on who is left alive and the settings of the original game.

How about a surrender button for 2-player games? In a multiplayer game this could cause problems if misused, but in a 2-player game sometimes you know you're beat and just want to end the game quickly.

just suck it up and finish the game. cupcake.

"Surrendering" in a 2 player game is easy. Just attack neutral until you have nothing but 1's left.

this could be a really good way to identify (and ban) cheaters. i think this would be handy in games, and would provide a lot of time saved, and people wouldn't cultivate their disappointed feelings as they have to play a game they know is lost.

i hope this thought might inspire some new ways to think about a possible diplomacy (draw) or surrendering button.

**Rejection Reason**

**Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back**

Threads about this pop up repeatedly, are surrounded with mixed support and debate. Often they actually arrive at a solution for surrendering without abuse... and then they fall into obscurity. Because it's already been rejected.

A surrender button (or as I like to call it, an "insta-deadbeat button") does the exact same thing as deadbeating, except that your opponents don't have to waste 72 hours waiting for it to happen. People going on vacation (or in realtime games, going to dinner) would usually like to spare their opponents the wait, but they have no power to.

Are we going to remove the deadbeating rule, because that is also open to abuse?



To the "people upstairs":
We all know the "reason" that you removed the surrender button in the first place. The reason that we keep bringing it back up isn't because we didn't hear you... it's because you aren't responding to our counter-arguments. It's like you made the decision based on one idea, and then ever since you've been ignoring anything else said about it.

Ditocoaf wrote:... often they actually arrive at a solution for surrendering without abuse... and then they fall into obscurity. Because it's already been rejected ...

yo Dito

So, if you could find the one or ones that actually arrive at a solution, please resurrect the best one - with a post of your own confirming just why the solution is just what the site needs and we can continue the debate ... perhaps even conclude it in the way you would like ...

For now though your suggestion post as it stands contains no real content or idea.

Let's let this one die and continue the discussion in the thread which you're going to constructively resurrect ...

Forfeit a game:

* I think that people should be able to forfeit games. This would prevent people who know they will not be able to continue playing a game to quit and save everyone else the time of having to wait for their turns to run out. It would speed things up quite a bit I feel.

Hello,

forfeiting games will not be made possible because of the possibility of abuse by multis. Also, it is a way around the 4 games allowed by freemies

I understand the first reason.
I resent the second.

This has been rejected so many times before, I find it hard to believe that you even bothered to check before you posted this "new idea."

This suggestion is on Lack's 'pet hate' list.
So, no way it will be considered.
Forget it.

many other sites use some form of Forfeit

eg.: http://kdice.com/#Earl%20Grey

This is a very fast dice game, played in real time by 7 players, where players can "Flag" the place they would be happy with.
Player can also leave the game anytime.
Game is fast.

Score is calculated in 2 parts ( you get 2 scores after every game):

1) dominance in the game score
2) actual game finishing score

So, player who was dominant (had 70% of countries for most of the game) may receive +80 points as dominance score. But, because all other 6 players teamed up against him and wiped him out, so he finished last he may receive -54 as game finishing score.
80-54= +26 --- Player receives a +26 as his score for that game...

So it is possible on that site to lose a game and still receive a +score because of strong play during the game.

That site also has statistic for best player, most dominant player, luckiest player, unluckiest player etc.....
And no Average 3 Rating system.

Hrvat wrote:many other sites use some form of Forfeit

eg.: http://kdice.com/#Earl%20Grey

This is a very fast dice game, played in real time by 7 players, where players can "Flag" the place they would be happy with.
Player can also leave the game anytime.
Game is fast.

Score is calculated in 2 parts ( you get 2 scores after every game):

1) dominance in the game score
2) actual game finishing score

So, player who was dominant (had 70% of countries for most of the game) may receive +80 points as dominance score. But, because all other 6 players teamed up against him and wiped him out, so he finished last he may receive -54 as game finishing score.
80-54= +26 --- Player receives a +26 as his score for that game...

So it is possible on that site to lose a game and still receive a +score because of strong play during the game.

That site also has statistic for best player, most dominant player, luckiest player, unluckiest player etc.....
And no Average 3 Rating system.

is that a reply to the topic (which should be locked soon anyways), or a flame on the ratings system?

BOTH

same difference
same problem
same solution

If it was for speed games understandable for others. No

Mr Bump

I had wondered where this one had gotten too!!!

C.

necro threading a bad idea with limited support great idea you 2.

Soloman wrote:necro threading a bad idea with limited support great idea you 2.

no spam please Soli.
we understand; you do not like the idea.
We do however and unless you have some valid input or criticism to work on, your absence would be your most valuable contribution.

cheers,

jim

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:necro threading a bad idea with limited support great idea you 2.

no spam please Soli.
we understand; you do not like the idea.
We do however and unless you have some valid input or criticism to work on, your absence would be your most valuable contribution.

cheers,

jim

Excuse me am I the 1 that posted Bump or I wondered bala blah blah about this thread Blah? Valid input would be to let this bad idea die and fade to obscurity it deserves to be in. Fictional game scenarios that are given life only by the creative and childish minds of those involved should not be promoted. There are a ton of more deserving ideas in this forum that would improve the site dynamics and not just make more chaos. Let the dead die and sink below the sands of other threads with more merit...

lancehoch wrote:

Soloman wrote: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.

Please see above message from Lancehoch who is a Moderator, Soloman.

And as to the doubts Lance brings up for discussion: (i had answered them previously but they are important.)

The Replacement game would make no difference to Freemium players, as the 'Frozen' game would not count as one of their 4 games!
Also as the settings are the same and the people left alive in the Frozen game are the only ones who are taken into the Replacement game, it is merely a continuation.
A continuation with a greater chance of fast completion. Therefore the Freemium player should benefit because a game slot has a greater chance to be open more quickly.

As to players being targeted who do not 'click the Freeze box' :- we are voting now on anonymity for all players and it looks like the decision to keep playing or not will remain private.
That should discount targeting of players who do not agree with the majority. (the vote must be unanimous and anonymous to Freeze the game and automate a replacement)

Good idea-- however is anonymity that important? You could probably tell from game chat which players are for or against a resolution.