Get rid of stalemates

[mc05025]

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE STALEMATES

In many games with more than 3 opponents (or sometimes 3 are enough) the best for everyone is not to make attacks and just collect troops. That happens more at no spoils games and flat rate games but it is also a posible to find it at escalating games at big maps. The most of them are going to be a stalemate.

At that time there are three ways for a stalemate to end.
First, someone get very bored and lose his turns
Second, someone get very bored and suiside.
Third, the players agree to make an other game and give the stalemated game to the winner of the second game.

In my opinion a stalemate should end in favor of the strongest player. So I will suggest a new rule.

The game ends when a player collect x troops at the round y and it is x*y>50000. If two or more players reach that number of troops at the end of the y round the one with the most troops wins.

So at the average maps (not very small, not very big) and no spoils or flat rate settings, the games will start to be interesting again at the round 50-80. The players will start to fight the strongest but not very much etc etc.

That rule will not make any difference at normal games as the number 50000 is very high.

[Arama86n]

First of all it will at most be added as an option, not a rule.
Also seeing stalemates as nothing but a problem is your subjective view on the subject, not necessarily the way it is.
Of the millions of games played on this site only a handful reach 1000 rounds or more, thus I don't see stalemates as a problem, in fact I rely on others lack of patience and try and use it against them, when I choose to play large FR or NS standard games.
I'd say the really savvy players don't find themselves suicided on as much as others, because they find surperior ways to position themselves in to avoid it.

[eddie2]

will not work

[IcePack]

I strongly dislike this suggestion. If I know it goes x rounds and one with most troops win I'd just sit around even more hoarding my troop.

Stalemates are part of the game, until someone gets good dice or impatient. As a freemium I see how it's annoying to tie up a game but that doesn't mean the game itself your playing is bad cuz it's a stalemate.

IcePack

[mc05025]

I strongly dislike this suggestion. If I know it goes x rounds and one with most troops win I'd just sit around even more hoarding my troop.

Stalemates are part of the game, until someone gets good dice or impatient. As a freemium I see how it's annoying to tie up a game but that doesn't mean the game itself your playing is bad cuz it's a stalemate.

IcePack

Firstly you are right that something like that should be an option.

Well I think that would be one more bad strategy as almost all the games does not end at round 80 and many things happens before that round.

The true question is if a stalemate is a problem.
For me it is as the games ends for reason which have nothing to do with the good strategy. For example if you premium you have much better chances as you do not care. If you are high rated player you have better chances because the others does not suicide on you in order to lose less points or because they respect you, and the patience have nothing to do with the good strategy too.

At other strategy games much more organized there is a limit. For example in chess if the players plays 50 moves without any progress the games ends to a draw.
Well there is no draw in cc so the strongest should be the who wins.

[IcePack]

This is a war game. It's a conquer game. You win by conquer not giving up, if I wanted to play chess I wouldn't be here.

[TheForgivenOne]

If you don't like stalemates, don't play games that result in stalemates? ?

I've been on this site for almost 2 years, and i have only ever been in about 3 games that went 100+ rounds. 1 being a Hive game.

If you hate the fact you get into quite a few stalemate games, stay away from the options that result in stalemates.

[mc05025]

If you don't like stalemates, don't play games that result in stalemates? ?

I've been on this site for almost 2 years, and i have only ever been in about 3 games that went 100+ rounds. 1 being a Hive game.

If you hate the fact you get into quite a few stalemate games, stay away from the options that result in stalemates.

yes I know, if I hate stalemates I can play chess. Come on guy stay to the object.
I do not want to stay out of a lot of settings because of the stalemates. There are not a lot (because a lot of players can not play good enough) games that ends to a stalemate so it is not such a big problem. But I think it is an improvement to set an end at the games.

[TheForgivenOne]

If you don't like stalemates, don't play games that result in stalemates? ?

I've been on this site for almost 2 years, and i have only ever been in about 3 games that went 100+ rounds. 1 being a Hive game.

If you hate the fact you get into quite a few stalemate games, stay away from the options that result in stalemates.

yes I know, if I hate stalemates I can play chess. Come on guy stay to the object.
I do not want to stay out of a lot of settings because of the stalemates. There are not a lot (because a lot of players can not play good enough) games that ends to a stalemate so it is not such a big problem. But I think it is an improvement to set an end at the games.

I was giving you an option to avoid stalemates?

The site won't be implementing something that will give Player X the win just because he has more troops after troop totals have surpassed Y. Should he deserve the win if he has 1 more troop than the other player?

It's not about "Oh, you are doing better than me even though we are both alive, so you win". It's about who can eliminate all their opponents, or on a few maps, obtain the objective.

[IcePack]

I've been here 6 months and I haven't had one go past 100 rounds. Even a hive match ended earlier. I'm about to have my first.
It's not hard to avoid.

IvePack

[MeDeFe]

At that time there are three ways for a stalemate to end.
First, someone get very bored and lose his turns
Second, someone get very bored and suiside.
Third, the players agree to make an other game and give the stalemated game to the winner of the second game.

Fourth, the players agree to start attacking and keep an eye on each other, making sure everyone keeps up their end of the deal.

[Woodruff]

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE STALEMATES

In many games with more than 3 opponents (or sometimes 3 are enough) the best for everyone is not to make attacks and just collect troops. That happens more at no spoils games and flat rate games but it is also a posible to find it at escalating games at big maps. The most of them are going to be a stalemate.

At that time there are three ways for a stalemate to end.
First, someone get very bored and lose his turns
Second, someone get very bored and suiside.
Third, the players agree to make an other game and give the stalemated game to the winner of the second game.

In my opinion a stalemate should end in favor of the strongest player. So I will suggest a new rule.

The game ends when a player collect x troops at the round y and it is x*y>50000. If two or more players reach that number of troops at the end of the y round the one with the most troops wins.

So at the average maps (not very small, not very big) and no spoils or flat rate settings, the games will start to be interesting again at the round 50-80. The players will start to fight the strongest but not very much etc etc.

That rule will not make any difference at normal games as the number 50000 is very high.

Yuck...hate the idea, but allow me to explain why. Typically, in a stalemate-type situation, the various members of the game will agree to some method for deciding it. It can be anything from starting a completely new game and having a "gentleman's agreement" to have those results determine the old game's results...to agreeing to "attack someone until you lose more troops than you deployed each turn". There are already many ways to easily fix these sorts of things.

[mc05025]

I do not think that there is no problem with the stalemates.
Obviously you have no problem because you are premioum and you do not care at all if a game end to a stalemate or you do not play with good players (so with bad players there is no stalemate) or you are not a good player (so you get out before the stalemate)

But for players who cares about every game there is a big problem I think.
Look at Kiron 's games. He is stack with 2 stalemates and a third stalemate is ready.

In the half of my games (with flat rate setting) there is the fear of a stalemate.

The only solution I can see is playing escalating games or at maps with an object (which is something like what I propose, a condition with which you do not have to kill everybody in order to win).But it is pitty to avoid the most of the maps and that works only for freestyle

[maasman]

I do not think that there is no problem with the stalemates.
Obviously you have no problem because you are premioum and you do not care at all if a game end to a stalemate or you do not play with good players (so with bad players there is no stalemate) or you are not a good player (so you get out before the stalemate)

But for players who cares about every game there is a big problem I think.
Look at Kiron 's games. He is stack with 2 stalemates and a third stalemate is ready.

In the half of my games (with flat rate setting) there is the fear of a stalemate.

The only solution I can see is playing escalating games or at maps with an object (which is something like what I propose, a condition with which you do not have to kill everybody in order to win).But it is pitty to avoid the most of the maps and that works only for freestyle

Escalating does not guarantee there will not be a stalemate.
I really don't mind a stalemate, but then again I'm premium.

[mc05025]

That is true. It just reduse the possibilities. And in a small map a stalemate is very difficult.

[JoshyBoy]

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE STALEMATES

The problem with stalemates? There is none. There can only be a problem with the stalemate if the player has a problem with it. So cry me a river.

Oh by the way, I loved the Asterix comics, awesome avatar!

[Evil Semp]

I think saying the player with the most troops over simplifies who the strongest is. Player A has 1 more army then player B, but player B has 10 more countries. Who is stronger?

I don't like this idea.

[owenshooter]

so, you want to somehow get rid of poor play on the site? never going to happen... stalemates, intentional missed turns, troop building and poor play are just some of the reasons i moved to primarily team games after one week on CC... you can never eliminate poor play, so this suggestion will never work...-the black jesus

[mc05025]

I think saying the player with the most troops over simplifies who the strongest is. Player A has 1 more army then player B, but player B has 10 more countries. Who is stronger?

I don't like this idea.

I did not get satisfied with your answers at all.

First of all the strongest player is the one who take for a long period the most bonuses. And that will be the one who reach that high numbers of troops first. Of course the others are going to attack him in order not to win the game and here is all the fun.

Well, if you do not want to solve a problem it is not going to get solved by itself owenshooter. That what I am doing. I am trying.

As I understand noone premioum is going to like that idea because they like win games because the others get bored.

And I can not understand why you have problem with that winning condition and not with the winning conditions of some maps. It is pretty much the same.

[Woodruff]

so, you want to somehow get rid of poor play on the site? never going to happen... stalemates, intentional missed turns, troop building and poor play are just some of the reasons i moved to primarily team games after one week on CC... you can never eliminate poor play, so this suggestion will never work...-the black jesus

You believe stalemated games are a sign of poor play? I'd have to disagree strongly with you in that regard.

[JoshyBoy]

I did not get satisfied with your answers at all.

Well, that's just tough. None of us give two monkey's nuts about "satisfying you".

As much as me and the black jesus don't see eye-to-eye most of the time, I agree wholeheartedly with him, and you should listen to him.

so, you want to somehow get rid of poor play on the site? never going to happen... stalemates, intentional missed turns, troop building and poor play are just some of the reasons i moved to primarily team games after one week on CC... you can never eliminate poor play, so this suggestion will never work...-the black jesus

[mc05025]

please do not be off topic Joshy.
and grow up

[JoshyBoy]

please do not be off topic Joshy.
and grow up

Please show me how my last post was off topic. I was providing you with a solution to your "problem". I think it is you who needs to grow up and listen to heads wiser than yours.

You're welcome.

[mc05025]

Well, that's just tough. None of us give two monkey's nuts about "satisfying you".

Sorry I thought that that was off topic.
and if you agree with someone just say it. Do not give any further advises neither say your opinion about who is wiser
end of story, I will not reply again

[JoshyBoy]

Well, that's just tough. None of us give two monkey's nuts about "satisfying you".

Umm... that wasn't my post. This was.

I did not get satisfied with your answers at all.

Well, that's just tough. None of us give two monkey's nuts about "satisfying you".

As much as me and the black jesus don't see eye-to-eye most of the time, I agree wholeheartedly with him, and you should listen to him.

so, you want to somehow get rid of poor play on the site? never going to happen... stalemates, intentional missed turns, troop building and poor play are just some of the reasons i moved to primarily team games after one week on CC... you can never eliminate poor play, so this suggestion will never work...-the black jesus

Oh and by the way, who do you think you are?

Do not give any further advises neither say your opinion about who is wiser
end of story, I will not reply again

I can post what I bloody well like, especially when I am trying to help an idiot who won't listen to sound advice. I'm glad you won't reply again, I'm getting sick of reading your off topic posts, as you try to "police" this thread.