Give better advance options for huge stack games

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

There is a third solution! On the Start Games screen, if trench and escalating are both checked, if the Round Limit radio button is currently “none” change it to “100 Rounds” and disable the “none” button. Let the user check 20, 30, 50, or 100, but if the user tries to check none, light up the 100 circle.

This could be a rather simple change, a subroutine that asks if trench, escalating, and none are all checked, change the Round Limit to 100. Call the subroutine every time the either Spoils, Trench, or Round Limit is changed.

Option 2 is to do that test only when Create is hit and pop up a “you can’t do that” menu if all three options are asked for.

I have no objections

[Metsfanmax]

There is a third solution! On the Start Games screen, if trench and escalating are both checked, if the Round Limit radio button is currently “none” change it to “100 Rounds” and disable the “none” button. Let the user check 20, 30, 50, or 100, but if the user tries to check none, light up the 100 circle.

This could be a rather simple change, a subroutine that asks if trench, escalating, and none are all checked, change the Round Limit to 100. Call the subroutine every time the either Spoils, Trench, or Round Limit is changed.

Option 2 is to do that test only when Create is hit and pop up a “you can’t do that” menu if all three options are asked for.

I have no objections

Another idea is to have like a warning popup if people try to start or join a game with these characteristics, telling them that this combination of settings should be treated as experimental and unsupported by the site. We might even consider turning off points for those combinations.

[owenshooter]

There is a third solution! On the Start Games screen, if trench and escalating are both checked, if the Round Limit radio button is currently “none” change it to “100 Rounds” and disable the “none” button. Let the user check 20, 30, 50, or 100, but if the user tries to check none, light up the 100 circle.

This could be a rather simple change, a subroutine that asks if trench, escalating, and none are all checked, change the Round Limit to 100. Call the subroutine every time the either Spoils, Trench, or Round Limit is changed.

Option 2 is to do that test only when Create is hit and pop up a “you can’t do that” menu if all three options are asked for.

I have no objections

Another idea is to have like a warning popup if people try to start or join a game with these characteristics, telling them that this combination of settings should be treated as experimental and unsupported by the site. We might even consider turning off points for those combinations.

i truly hope you were being sarcastic... i really do...-Bj

[PapaGeek]

Another idea is to have like a warning popup if people try to start or join a game with these characteristics, telling them that this combination of settings should be treated as experimental and unsupported by the site. We might even consider turning off points for those combinations.

What about the games that do not follow any of the standard RISK rules:

Clandemonium where you have portals and landing ports and a Pinnacle that allow non-standard attacks against regions that are in no way in contact with your position!

Circus Maximus where you can only go in a circle.

Das Schlob the most complex of them all that is nothing at all like the game risk that the site was designed to mimic.

I’m definitely NOT asking that any of these games be taken down, or that no points should be awarded for playing them. A few people like them and they should have the right to play them.

All I’m saying is that CC destroyed the concept of an escalating trench game when the changed the escalating rules from the standard Risk rules for some other purpose.

As far as owen’s remark that this only effects 0.0001% of the players on the site, all I can say is look at the statistics for your self:

I did a Game Finder for all Public / Waiting games and it returned 3,781. Add Escalating / Trench to that and it returns 280. Hate to disagree with the ridiculous 0.0001% posting, but 280 / 3,781 is 7.4%. And if you change that to Finished Games instead of Waiting games, you get the full history of the site, 166,769 / 12,313,926 is 1.35% and you have to consider that trench warfare was not part of the site at the beginning which skews that percentage considerably. There is no way to search all finished games after the date that trench was initiated!

As far as the 3 games I mentioned that I definitely DO NOT want taken off the site, I did the Public / Waiting game finder on those maps and Clandemonium has 16 games waiting, Circus Maximus has 4 games waiting, and Das Schlob has 54 games waiting. If the concept here is that we should take down the options or not award points when only 7.4% of the current games that you can join have those options, what does that say about the maps where 0.42%, 0.11% and 1.43% of the players are currently interested in those game boards?

Let's get real here, posting ridiculous stats like 0.0001% and saying things like not awarding points to the actual 7.4% of the players who are interested in certain game combinations is not in the best interest of CC. Why not find a simple solution that clears up the problem that CC created by their super escalating change to the rules of the original RISK game?

Let's calm down the discussion and find a solution to the problem, not get all riled up about things that we personally don't like and throw out comments like disabling things and not giving points. After all, the stats show that 7.4% of the players are interested in those game combinations while less that 1.5% are interested in certain boards. Fix the problems, don't throw things away!

[owenshooter]

Another idea is to have like a warning popup if people try to start or join a game with these characteristics, telling them that this combination of settings should be treated as experimental and unsupported by the site. We might even consider turning off points for those combinations.

What about the games that do not follow any of the standard RISK rules:

these settings don't "break the machine" and/or create deadlocked build games with no end in sight. these settings did not require additional coding to change the size of the card cashes, to try and fix a problem created by them. sooo, your argument is kind of mute...-Bj

[PapaGeek]

Owen,

To a degree I would sort of agree with you that my argument was kind of mute; if only 0.0001% of the games and players were effected by this request, but the real percentage of games and players effected is over 7.4%, so the argument is not mute. We should be looking for a solution to fix a problem that is effecting a considerable portions of our players, not calling names or saying who cares about them!

Let’s get real here. If you read my entire comment I clearly said I DID NOT want those games taken down. I totally understand that there are parts of the game we all try to avoid, but those part are clearly loved by others. My last comment was a response to your statement that only 0.0001% of the players are effected by the escalating problem created by CC when they decided to super charge how escalating works.

The real percentage of available game, and probably number of players, who are effected by that change by CC is 7.4%, not 0.0001%.

OK, you personally hate the situation that was created by CC. That is fine, there are parts of CC that we all dislike. I’m trying to turn this conversation from, kill it, make it not count, who cares, to a friendlier let’s discuss ways to fix the issue that is effecting 7.4% of the players!

If the percentage of games / players effected was really 0.0001% or even 0.1% maybe I could agree with the who cares attitude, but the stats show that the current number is well over 7%. Do we really want to tell 7% of our players that they don’t matter?

So, to those who are posting comments here that are opposed to trench escalating games, I’d love to here some suggestions on how to fix the problem, not how to tell 7.4% of the players that they don’t count!

[Donelladan]

these settings did not require additional coding to change the size of the card cashes, to try and fix a problem created by them. sooo, your argument is kind of mute...-Bj

For at least the 2nd time, the change in the size of card cash was NOT made for the escalating trench setting.

Initial suggestion of changing the size of the cash

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=192292&hilit=escalating

it was made in 2009.

First game with trench on the site Game 10919899 was in 2012.

So the size of the card cash was made to fix a problem of stalemate of normal ( not trench) escalating game.
Which make the 1st part of your sentence a bit funny :

these settings don't "break the machine" and/or create deadlocked build games with no end in sight.

Any kind of game can become a deadlocked build games with no end in sight.
And before the change in the size of the escalating spoils, even escalating game without the trench option could become a stalemate. It actually happened so often that they changed the size of the escalating spoils for it.

I have no idea on the statistics of games that become deadlocked, it is totally possible that escalating trench game become more often blocked than other game.
But from my personnal experience, before the change of the escalating rules, none of the escalating trench games I played became a stalemate or was even close to be.
The rules change, which was not made for trench, did actually made it way way worse for trench game.

[PapaGeek]

Donelladan,

If deadlock games are the issue, then why not change the default Round Limit for all games to some rather high number like 200 or 250 and eliminate the None setting.

In the game that I am in now that has reached over 200 rounds, all three of the remaining players are tired of the game and have decided to start a parallel game to see which one of us wins that one, then basically the other two will let that winner win the first game also. All of this was done in open chat, no private talk.

Let’s talk about possible solutions instead of giving up.

[Donelladan]

Donelladan,

If deadlock games are the issue, then why not change the default Round Limit for all games to some rather high number like 200 or 250 and eliminate the None setting.

In the game that I am in now that has reached over 200 rounds, all three of the remaining players are tired of the game and have decided to start a parallel game to see which one of us wins that one, then basically the other two will let that winner win the first game also. All of this was done in open chat, no private talk.

Let’s talk about possible solutions instead of giving up.

You are mistaken. I am only replying to owenshooter who is saying that we should do nothing.
I totally agree that smthg should and can be done for this settings.

Also what you decided to do in your game is a usual things, it's often called decider game or tie breaker game. I do it in all stalemate game, and actually I very rarely play until round 100, I don't have the patience for that, I ask for tie breaker much eariler

But concerning what we could do, I totally agree with you on all possible solutions you offered.

[PapaGeek]

But concerning what we could do, I totally agree with you on all possible solutions you offered.

I guess that leads to the next logical question! There have been many suggestions on this thread, so how do we decide which one the majority of players would like, and then how do we get that one implemented?

[owenshooter]

If deadlock games are the issue, then why not change the default Round Limit for all games to some rather high number like 200 or 250 and eliminate the None setting.

ahhhh, look at you, growing up right before the black jesus' eyes!! now this makes sense...-Jésus noir

so proud of you!!!

[Donelladan]

We don't decide anything, maybe the suggestion mod ( I think there isn't even one at the moment) thinks it's important, and talk to the owner about it, then if the owner thinks it can be interesting he develop it.
Otherwise nothing happens.
I think that for 99% of the suggestions nothing happens.
Ofc a lot of them are also bad, or way too difficult to implement.

[IcePack]

My understanding is there won't be additional time spent on this anytime soon.

[owenshooter]

My understanding is there won't be additional time spent on this anytime soon.

in other words, "as usual, the black jesus was right." glad to hear it Icy ol' boy!! glad i could be of service, yet again!!-Jésus noir