Conquer Club

If nothing else, given that various stalemate resolutions have been popping up for some time now, would it be possible to get some sort of Official Statement from management as to whether such conceptual resolutions would even be considered?

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

Cheers mate, the anonymity became an issue in the discussion due to fears that people would be bullied into 'Freezing' the game before they wanted! Or worse just ganged up on and eliminated if they did not agree.
To be honest this could happen in the case of people wanting to diplomatically resolve without 'Freeze' facility anyway and i have argued that.

However with anonymity, people simply press the button; there would be a visible record/tally of how many had voted for a replacement game just not who had voted.
So, if they wished to, people could protect themselves simply by saying they had voted 'yes' when in fact they had voted 'no'... if they were to be put on the spot in gamechat!

Incandenza wrote:If nothing else, given that various stalemate resolutions have been popping up for some time now, would it be possible to get some sort of Official Statement from management as to whether such conceptual resolutions would even be considered?

I'd like to know that too Incand!
No Official interjection as yet regarding site interest.

jiminski wrote:

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)

TO you both I am arguing against the idea on multiple levels as it is not needed, not valid and a waste of time. Moderator does not equal right, Not even sure if he was a mod at that point nor does it matter or have any bearing on my dissension with this bad waste of space idea. The stalemate scenario this is based on is a choice not a actual situation that occurs naturally in a game, you choose to build up to ridiculous numbers and not attack, and the consequence for that choice is that your opponents can do the same. There are no redos, or undos in the game live with your mutual choices.

The end result though is someone has to win, this idea creates for a redundant loop of build ups and wasted server space with so many intricate nuances that it is a waste of processing power. You are proposing an unneeded additional strain on a already touch server, and your premise is that is need because a group of people refuse to attack for fear of loss due to a situation in the game they each placed them selves in.

You are essentially asking to bring back the surrender button except all would surrender at once without losing points and start a new game. You make that worse b wanting the site to do this for you and thus further complicate the coding for the site. This idea is inane and a waste of space and sever resources. I will continue to point this out every time you bring it back up...

i remember reading in a post from AndyD (the head Monkey) that Lack was interested in a proposal which would end Stalemates (And their obvious extra strain upon the server.)


is this a contender which the site would consider?

AndyDufresne wrote: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

this quote was from another excellent stalemate suggestion thread (Stalemate for esc.).. which is specifically dealing with escalator.

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

Scott, the thing about that is, I can talk a big game about agreeing to the stalemate decision in chat, but never click the button. Who would know?

lancehoch wrote:

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

Scott, the thing about that is, I can talk a big game about agreeing to the stalemate decision in chat, but never click the button. Who would know?

that's what i'm thinking Lance; it adds a degree of protection if any single player wishes to play a little longer.

(we already had a vote on whether points should be doubled for for the 2 games, as was the first draft, or just 1 games worth as yeti's amendment. the vote was resoundingly in yeti's favour.)

jiminski wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote: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

this quote was from another excellent stalemate suggestion thread (Stalemate for esc.).. which is specifically dealing with escalator.

Nice find. The good thing about this proposal is that it works with all game types, not just escalating.

FabledIntegral wrote:

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

No it won't. The option to stalemate will have utterly no effect on game strategy.

actually youre wrong. It changes it completely. I wont wate my time explaining it to someone who doesnt understand it.

Disagree with this suggestion. It encourages people to be passive, not attack, basically just sit and build.

Its actually even more complex than that. In a no cards game any player knows they cant take over a normal map. They have to wait for someone to make a mistake. Its fundamental. A game with an option to end, means all players know this, and if things arent going well, will naturally aim for a stalemate, to avoid losing points. In many cases, the option will actually lead to more stalemates.

Many appreciate the long games, and useless turns do not bother them. Im in many games that seem never ending, but ive been in many, many more that seemed never ending, and one thing is certain. Every game ends. Its always unpredictable, and it usually happens abruptly after months of patience. Sometimes im the benefactor, sometimes the one who made the mistake, sometimes just powerless to do anything about it. If there was the ability to get out of it, many of those would not have ended. If all no cards games could have that feature, not many would really ever have a winner. It would ruin what many consider a fun way to play the game.

To those who dont enjoy it, there are many ways to end a game, and all of them typically end them quickly... its all about where you want the points to go...

I could end every game im in right now, but I doubt Id get many points, and I would sure make some players happy, but others very, very unhappy.

They all end. As a type of game, it would actually be fun, youd know the only way to win was to take it over quick.. but making all games with the option is just unacceptable, and would be a complete disaster to the no cards game, and to some degree to the other ones too.

Just have fun with the games. If its going on too long and you want out.. make a move...not a stupid one, but a move.. whittle the armies down to the danger zone, and then have some fun trying to win a game that went on for months or many months.

some good points worthy of consideration... i'll be back.

AAFitz wrote:Its actually even more complex than that. In a no cards game any player knows they cant take over a normal map. They have to wait for someone to make a mistake. Its fundamental. A game with an option to end, means all players know this, and if things arent going well, will naturally aim for a stalemate, to avoid losing points. In many cases, the option will actually lead to more stalemates.

Many appreciate the long games, and useless turns do not bother them. Im in many games that seem never ending, but ive been in many, many more that seemed never ending, and one thing is certain. Every game ends. Its always unpredictable, and it usually happens abruptly after months of patience. Sometimes im the benefactor, sometimes the one who made the mistake, sometimes just powerless to do anything about it. If there was the ability to get out of it, many of those would not have ended. If all no cards games could have that feature, not many would really ever have a winner. It would ruin what many consider a fun way to play the game.

To those who dont enjoy it, there are many ways to end a game, and all of them typically end them quickly... its all about where you want the points to go...

I could end every game im in right now, but I doubt Id get many points, and I would sure make some players happy, but others very, very unhappy.

They all end. As a type of game, it would actually be fun, youd know the only way to win was to take it over quick.. but making all games with the option is just unacceptable, and would be a complete disaster to the no cards game, and to some degree to the other ones too.

Just have fun with the games. If its going on too long and you want out.. make a move...not a stupid one, but a move.. whittle the armies down to the danger zone, and then have some fun trying to win a game that went on for months or many months.

I very much agree with this statement and have made it in my arguments against this idea. The fact Lack wants to find a solution says to me more so he is tired of the wasted server space devoted to Games where no-one wants to move. A real world solution that would motivate everyone would be to have a round limit and if no-one has won by that point all lose points. I guarantee that would light a fire under the butts of all involved with this extremely drawn out games. But other wise this idea is prone to a continual loop of redundant fear games where all people do is build up and never worry about attacking or losing points as they can always just start over again...

jiminski wrote:some good points worthy of consideration... i'll be back.

Jim - what the hell is going on in this thread?

C.

Crikey Fitzy you are a right Drama-Queen!

Anyway, i do take your/Wicki's excellent points and will try to deal with both together.

Firstly this proposal seeks only to aid a genuine situation which many of us have had to resolve via various diplomatic options. We do not seek to undermine the very foundations of CC and all that is good and holy..

I agree that some games in a 'deadlock' can resolve themselves; with exceptional play, suiciding or death in the family... i try to encourage the latter if i can.
However some, due to the nature of we sad, chair-bound battle-boffins, never find a natural resolution. Sometimes a diplomatic solution is required.
(This issue may well be quite specific to the types of Games, i do concede that! As you know, stalemate is very real in Escalator games due to the card aspiration, conflation and end cash being outweighed by the existing troops: the kill kills you.)

What happens to resolve the irresolvable takes on a variety of incarnations, for example:
-each player attacks down below a certain troop count each round
-the player with the most attacks prior to agreement is declared winner* (honestly .. i can give you game-links)
-call a halt to the game and play another (winner takes all points)

The best i have come across is the latter. We have tweaked it in this thread and i was over-ruled. Originally i liked the idea of double points to the victor of the deciding game but, as i agreed later, it is far more susceptible to abuse. What we have in this draft is not!
It simply gives the points to the victor to the equivalent of one full game.

To focus our minds let me say that I think your fears are almost exclusively reserved to the No card game.
i will discount their relevance to Esc., if you fight that corner you are 'bordering' on being wrong mate. Flat rate can sometimes find itself in a drawn out game on large maps, where conclusion is possible to the trained eye but nowhere near imminent.

However, i think you are over-stating the impact of having a formalised structure to facilitate diplomatic resolution!

That's all it is, it just makes it easier and more fair to end the game as all parties wish to. - i have seen players bullied into handing the points over in a game (not least in the option where the most aggressive player, pre-diplomacy, is declared winner*.)

This proposal simply gives a mechanism to end the game fairly, in a position where the game would be ended in any case. Are you honestly saying that games are not ended diplomatically anyway?
Of course they are!


Resolution options as it stands:
1. The biggest bully gets their 'diplomatic' way regarding end-game.
2. No one ever reaches agreement and you end up in a bitter dispute and eventual suicide (your preference I take it, personally it is not mine ... different tunes let's have a fiddle!)
3. All decide they want to end but no one can decide on how .. the game is drawn out and drawn out.. until eventually all agree due to terminal boredom.
4. One player does not agree to diplomatic solution, all other players kill the player and settle on the 'now' unanimous solution.


Surely we can do better than this? .. or in reality do you like all these aspects of the game?


Your fears
People will not be allowed to play out the game if they wish to.
- Well the vote is anonymous and must be unanimous; so if even one player, let's call him BB.Phitz, (fantastic bluesman) wishes to play on, he can without retribution!

All games will become more defensive; build games, people will play for a stalemate!
- I don't see it; formalising an already existing method of conclusion will not change the structure of the game.
Unanimous calling of stalemate can only come in the face of true gridlock, no one courts it, but it is called when all parties see that no progress is on any horizon.

I agree the type of person who plays no Cards has a much more long-term perspective; what is acceptable for longevity and conclusion is on a different scale to the escalator sprint team. So they do not vote for the game to be Frozen. (Unanimous and anonymous)

Nothing changes except the fairness of the method for conclusion - agreed upon by all parties, exactly as in the informal alternative, except that any dissenter will not be lynched due to the now possible anonymity.

If you are saying that formalising an already accepted method of diplomatic cessation somehow magically transforms all no card players' raison d’être? i refute this as fanciful.
If they are not in for the longer-haul then they would have chosen a different format. And anyway the addition of the tick-box does not fundamentally alter the nature of that or any format.

However, I do believe that the ease of the freeze will make the average ('3 is the universal average') game shorter or there would be no point to this exercise.

Allegorically, before the remote-control, people changed TV channels far less (well there were only 2 channels but you get the point) the remote made it easier, so people did it more. The remote control did not create the need to turn over.. oh no! Crap American sitcoms and advertising did that!
So i agree, in some cases games will end faster than before.

But in a no card game i have honestly never been in the position where i thought the game could not end. There is almost always a way to win for someone. If that is the case then you will only in the most obscure of circumstance get every player to vote to freeze the game.

The guy who thinks he can win will not vote yes - simple.


So you say the players work to counter the dominant player to achieve deadlock and that average games will be lengthened - But players work together against the dominant force in no cards anyway; they do so to postpone their imminent death with a view to victory!
This is the case for no cards at least as much as in any other game style, so i am not seeing how this will change the way people play.

there is also a slight *cough* fundamental inconsistency to your premise: you are fighting to keep games longer but one of your reasons to not have the automated Freeze, is that it would lengthen games and make them more strategic and less aggressive... you are saying you do want long strategic games or you do not want them?

Anyway that is just facetious! The proposal, although i am sure not perfect by any means, is a working progress which aims to make it easier for players to unanimously end the madness.

At the point where Resolution Options 1-4 become an issue, the proposal seeks to give another option to speed it up. An option no single player has to take if they do not want to.


This is a possible solution to an existing problem, it does not somehow create the problem.
If all players see no resolution in sight, why not give them an easier way to end the torture?

Again this concept is ripe for wasted server space, Ratings abuse and Chat bullying.To top it off the scenario has been disproved as a inevitable by multiple people of various ranks. This scenario only happens by choice and even then when someone makes a different choice they do not necessarily lose there conformity to spirit of the game in some cases pays off. Overall this is bad idea based on bad choices by scared players and ultimately I hope it will not detract from good ideas that have more merit to the site...

have you read the updated draft on the front page Soli? i think you will be pleasantly surprised as it addresses many of your points.

Forgive me, but I'm so exhausted of reading this thread, that it is far from certain that I'm able to write a good post right now...

Heavy sentence, isn't it? Well, how do you think I feel after reading 8 such pages? (not very carefully, must admit)

I just LOVE the idea about 'Freeze Game' check box and new game. However, I have two brutal amendments (Whether I'll be able to give good reasons right now - we'll see /I really AM exhausted/; but if I fail now, I'll be more convincing tomorrow):

Amendment A
Already eliminated players must be included in new game

Otherwise, possibility of abusing is intolerably high ("Let's first finish with yellow - then we'll see...")
I mean, if players are not ready to abandon "already earned loot", they're not really sick of the game. So let them continue it then. After several dozens (or hundreds) of additional turns - they just might change their minds...
(Collateral benefit - a new game is identical to the original one)

Possible amendment to amendment A:
Dead beats excluded (I'm to tired to think of it now)

Amendment B
'Freeze Game' check box shows up only after certain, consensually accepted number of rounds

Sorry, I'll have to elaborate this one tomorrow, must go now... (you are of course free to criticize now, no need to wait )

Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I'm so exhausted of reading this thread, that it is far from certain that I'm able to write a good post right now...

Heavy sentence, isn't it? Well, how do you think I feel after reading 8 such pages? (not very carefully, must admit)

I just LOVE the idea about 'Freeze Game' check box and new game. However, I have two brutal amendments (Whether I'll be able to give good reasons right now - we'll see /I really AM exhausted/; but if I fail now, I'll be more convincing tomorrow):

Amendment A
Already eliminated players must be included in new game

Otherwise, possibility of abusing is intolerably high ("Let's first finish with yellow - then we'll see...")
I mean, if players are not ready to abandon "already earned loot", they're not really sick of the game. So let them continue it then. After several dozens (or hundreds) of additional turns - they just might change their minds...
(Collateral benefit - a new game is identical to the original one)

Possible amendment to amendment A:
Dead beats excluded (I'm to tired to think of it now)

Amendment B
'Freeze Game' check box shows up only after certain, consensually accepted number of rounds

Sorry, I'll have to elaborate this one tomorrow, must go now... (you are of course free to criticize now, no need to wait )

Hello Zem,
hmmm .. you know at first i was completely against your first point ... but there could be something in it. My initial thought was that ordinarily the dead players are long gone by the time a game is deemed a stalemate so it seems a little unfair to those who took them out to be faced by these zombie foes again.
Also players can gang up on anther at any point in a normal game anyway so i don't see why the freeze option should exacerbate this. (if you go back one page i write quite a lengthy post in response to AAFitz and Wicked which touches quite a lot on this.... hehe read it tomorrow when you are not so exhausted! )

As to the vote box coming up after a certain period of time: it is a thought i have been toying with myself and i think that it could be a sensible addition.
The problem is that different forms of the game have very different points at which the game is deemed a long one- most 6 player Escalator games are done by round 13 or so. Whereas no card games are barely started by then.... also it depends greatly upon how many players are in the game.

So although it is a nice thought it may add too great a complexity...

Anyway these are my initial thoughts and i will ponder both of your points a lot more, as they do deserve to be pondered!

The refinement posted by Yeti and in the first post seems like a wonderful idea to me.

jiminski wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I'm so exhausted of reading this thread, that it is far from certain that I'm able to write a good post right now...

Heavy sentence, isn't it? Well, how do you think I feel after reading 8 such pages? (not very carefully, must admit)

I just LOVE the idea about 'Freeze Game' check box and new game. However, I have two brutal amendments (Whether I'll be able to give good reasons right now - we'll see /I really AM exhausted/; but if I fail now, I'll be more convincing tomorrow):

Amendment A
Already eliminated players must be included in new game

Otherwise, possibility of abusing is intolerably high ("Let's first finish with yellow - then we'll see...")
I mean, if players are not ready to abandon "already earned loot", they're not really sick of the game. So let them continue it then. After several dozens (or hundreds) of additional turns - they just might change their minds...
(Collateral benefit - a new game is identical to the original one)

Possible amendment to amendment A:
Dead beats excluded (I'm to tired to think of it now)

Amendment B
'Freeze Game' check box shows up only after certain, consensually accepted number of rounds

Sorry, I'll have to elaborate this one tomorrow, must go now... (you are of course free to criticize now, no need to wait )

Hello Zem,
hmmm .. you know at first i was completely against your first point ... but there could be something in it. My initial thought was that ordinarily the dead players are long gone by the time a game is deemed a stalemate so it seems a little unfair to those who took them out to be faced by these zombie foes again.
Also players can gang up on anther at any point in a normal game anyway so i don't see why the freeze option should exacerbate this. (if you go back one page i write quite a lengthy post in response to AAFitz and Wicked which touches quite a lot on this.... hehe read it tomorrow when you are not so exhausted! )

As to the vote box coming up after a certain period of time: it is a thought i have been toying with myself and i think that it could be a sensible addition.
The problem is that different forms of the game have very different points at which the game is deemed a long one- most 6 player Escalator games are done by round 13 or so. Whereas no card games are barely started by then.... also it depends greatly upon how many players are in the game.

So although it is a nice thought it may add too great a complexity...

Anyway these are my initial thoughts and i will ponder both of your points a lot more, as they do deserve to be pondered!

Disagree with A completely.

B however could be worked...

You could have a number entry box on the start game screen - defaults to empty - which means "Freeze" could be enacted at any time.

Game Creator will then enter a number of rounds before Freeze can be enabled.

One thing I think that the Freeze option gives you - is that with a bit of Sportsmanship - if a game starts with a player having an awesome drop - then a Freeze could be enacted at the start - which would toss that game - and restart it with a different drop. (Obviously - unanimously & anonymously.)

C.

ZeakCytho wrote:The refinement posted by Yeti and in the first post seems like a wonderful idea to me.

thank you Zeak! we are giving it a go anyway, let's see where we get to

Yes i too think, with a little refinement, Zemljanin's set round for the availability of 'Freeze' Option could be a really nice addition.
And one which would absolutely ensure that the integrity of the game is maintained.


I am just brain-storming really but perhaps the person who sets up the game could chose what round the Freeze tick boxes would appear.
This does not mean any one has to take the option only that it is available for the vote.

so For example Fitz could chose that the box did not appear until round 200 in no cards.
I could chose that the box is available, in a 6 man esc game, after round 20.

hmm yes i think this is quite an exciting development.

Ok new vote (anonymous is the way forward.. but you did not hear it from me!)to see if giving the option of setting the round at which vote boxes appear is a goer.