[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[rdsrds2120]

So everyone sits there waiting ... and waiting ... until one guy cracks.

While I agree that this is indeed a problem, a "Tie Button" or anything similar isn't the proper means of handling it. The best idea I've read would be to have a predetermined round ceiling, where one of many possible things happens (I think they're listed in some thread way down somewhere).

-rd

[AdmiralGaal]

They already have this option. It's called "Escalating Spoils." I checked the list, and the only games with escalating spoils that are over 100 rounds are on The Hive, with very few exceptions. It must be something about the map, but the point is, with escalating spoils, there's certainly much lower chance of having a stalemate. I believe Risk has always been escalating in the official rules anyway (until recently that is, when they screwed the whole thing up), but I usually prefer it.

[KingBohica]

I don't know if this has been suggested, so if it has forgive me. But, instead of a "tie or no-tie" game option as previously mentioned, why not have a "round limit" option. It would be mandatory to pick one, but you could pick between say 50 rounds, 100 rounds, and 200 rounds or something like that. If the game exceeds the predetermined number of rounds, it is automatically a tie.

[QoH]

They already have this option. It's called "Escalating Spoils." I checked the list, and the only games with escalating spoils that are over 100 rounds are on The Hive, with very few exceptions. It must be something about the map, but the point is, with escalating spoils, there's certainly much lower chance of having a stalemate. I believe Risk has always been escalating in the official rules anyway (until recently that is, when they screwed the whole thing up), but I usually prefer it.

You went through over 1000 pages? Wow.

And besides, not everyone likes escalating spoils.

[AdmiralGaal]

They already have this option. It's called "Escalating Spoils." I checked the list, and the only games with escalating spoils that are over 100 rounds are on The Hive, with very few exceptions. It must be something about the map, but the point is, with escalating spoils, there's certainly much lower chance of having a stalemate. I believe Risk has always been escalating in the official rules anyway (until recently that is, when they screwed the whole thing up), but I usually prefer it.

You went through over 1000 pages? Wow.

And besides, not everyone likes escalating spoils.

No, I just started with the oldest games to find the highest rounds. And I know they don't like it, I'm just saying, escalating usually solves the problem.

[MartinRiggs]

Eventually someone wins. Its RISK.

[mc05025]

I do like escalating spoils.
Good players+escalating spoils + fog +big map=stalemate (I do not accept to play these settings anymore)

Any suggestion that did try to solve the problems with the games that never finish failed for the same reason the most good suggestions had failed

[Joodoo]

What happens if the total points shared is an odd number (say 83) and there are an even number of players agreeing to an armstice?

[Boler]

I entirely agree with this move and it has 2 easy solutions.
Solution 1:
Don't award anyone any points, but everyone gets an award that's called "I swallowed my pride" to show that they gave in to the fact that no one was better than each other! This way, no one loses or gains points, and it can't be abused.
Solution 2:
Still give points, but only let the option become avalible to people in games over 50 turns long, 200 in speed games.

[Chamomile]

I think making it available only after X amount of turns will go a long way towards preventing abuse. You'd have to be absurdly patient to go in with three players, team-kill the other players, and then camp the game a hundred turns. Also, if the same group of people keep winning the same kinds of game through ties, then I wonder if maybe there's some secret diplomacy going on there.

[redwards]

How about a surrender option. In games were they keep u alive for cards and it drags on and on with no chance of winning. I will guess it is a major reason for dead beats.

[TheForgivenOne]

How about a surrender option. In games were they keep u alive for cards and it drags on and on with no chance of winning. I will guess it is a major reason for dead beats.

Won't be happening. Surrender option has been here, but was abused too much, so it was removed.

[jakevv]

I agree that the only way to prevent abuse would be to go with the "0 Point" option.

This may also solve the problem of extremely unfair drops (drops where skill or luck will not matter --- eg: 2 neutral protected bonuses on a 3 troop/turn map). I have had more than a few opponent agree that this option (0 point option) is needed.

[Frued1]

I am not sure of the programmability of this option, but how about allowing for the "tie" button to appear only in cases of 50 or more consecutive rounds with no one taking additional territories?

And as a side note, the idea of one "team" joining games and the other players not knowing that they are against a team goes against the rules of secret alliances anyways, so those groups would most likely be short-lived

[Herbas]

I had plenty of games which were in big big stalemates. 0 points for a tie always seemed to me the best solution for such games. Once a stalemate kicks in, usually you just wish this game never happened, so a "price" of 0 points for ending it would be just fine.

[Metsfanmax]

Concise description:

• Allow active players in a game the ability to request a draw, with no points being awarded to any player if the draw is accepted

Specifics/Details:

• Each player would have a checkbox on their game page that allows them to request a draw. If, at any time, all active players have checked this box, the game is immediately declared a draw and ended. No points are awarded to any player.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Myself and many others in this forum have noted that this removes the abuse issue of other draw suggestions. However, there hasn't actually been a separate thread for this yet.

[40kguy]

I like the idea just a few suggestions

offten times when i feel like ending the game or making it a draw, It is a statement with some people eliminated. How about we spread those points out to the people who can still win. For example me tdans and jsnyder are in the game, but ljex blitz and lindax are eliminated, we split up those points.

[TheForgivenOne]

I like the idea just a few suggestions

offten times when i feel like ending the game or making it a draw, It is a statement with some people eliminated. How about we spread those points out to the people who can still win. For example me tdans and jsnyder are in the game, but ljex blitz and lindax are eliminated, we split up those points.

Again, this won't be happening. I've had to repeat this over and over and over again over the last few days. This is too easily open up for abuse.

[40kguy]

I like the idea just a few suggestions

offten times when i feel like ending the game or making it a draw, It is a statement with some people eliminated. How about we spread those points out to the people who can still win. For example me tdans and jsnyder are in the game, but ljex blitz and lindax are eliminated, we split up those points.

Again, this won't be happening. I've had to repeat this over and over and over again over the last few days. This is too easily open up for abuse.

OK then go back to his way.

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

• Allow active players in a game the ability to request a draw, with no points being awarded to any player if the draw is accepted

Specifics/Details:

• Each player would have a checkbox on their game page that allows them to request a draw. If, at any time, all active players have checked this box, the game is immediately declared a draw and ended. No points are awarded to any player.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Myself and many others in this forum have noted that this removes the abuse issue of other draw suggestions. However, there hasn't actually been a separate thread for this yet.

The only potential concern I can see for this "no points awarded" variation is that freemium 4-game limit. This suggestion enables them to get out of a stalled game faster.

Personally, I think that's to CC's credit. I don't think it would cause a freemium member to choose "not to" purchase premium; and it might give a player extra incentive to support the site.

An added benefit to the suggestion is, it enables high-build games to end without anyone violating the rules about losing intentionally (i.e, reduces temptation/risk of player suicide or deadbeat.)

[Metsfanmax]

The only potential concern I can see for this "no points awarded" variation is that freemium 4-game limit. This suggestion enables them to get out of a stalled game faster.

This is true, but the number of times this will happen to the average player is rather small, since most of the time at least one person will be playing for a win and not a draw.

[patrickaa317]

How about any player that accepts a tie loses 5 points? Those who were already eliminated lose 0. It'd be enough to discourage a lot of ties. I'd do that on a regular basis just to make it so I don't have to take my turns and it sure beats deadbeating or just suiciding.

And I think it would have to be an option only once a game hits 100 rounds.

[KingBohica]

I don't know if this has been suggested, so if it has forgive me. But, instead of a "tie or no-tie" game option as previously mentioned, why not have a "round limit" option. It would be mandatory to pick one, but you could pick between say 50 rounds, 100 rounds, and 200 rounds or something like that. If the game exceeds the predetermined number of rounds, it is automatically a tie.

Or better yet, instead of a tie, whoever is the biggest (either most armies or territories) when the turn limit is reached is the winner. Would encourage people to do something rather that just squat.

[TheForgivenOne]

I don't know if this has been suggested, so if it has forgive me. But, instead of a "tie or no-tie" game option as previously mentioned, why not have a "round limit" option. It would be mandatory to pick one, but you could pick between say 50 rounds, 100 rounds, and 200 rounds or something like that. If the game exceeds the predetermined number of rounds, it is automatically a tie.

Or better yet, instead of a tie, whoever is the biggest (either most armies or territories) when the turn limit is reached is the winner. Would encourage people to do something rather that just squat.

Sometimes the biggest army isn't the best thing. Owning more territories/ bigger bonus may be the better thing in the long run.

[The Cheat]

This is a terrible idea ... if you don't like the standoffs, play escalating; if you don't like escalating, don't be the first to crack and attack in a Mexican standoff ...