Get rid of stalemates

[natty dread]

Something that could be a solution would be "decider games". These are already used sometimes when a stalemate is reached, ie. the players agree to play another game to decide the winner for both games.

If something like this was implemented as part of the site, it would also eliminate the possibility of some player cheating, ie. not following through with the agreement.

In practice, it'd work like this - when a game goes over a certain round limit, the players are given the option to play another game to decide the outcome for both. All the remaining players would have to agree to it. When the decider game would start, the old game would be put on hold, ie. it'd no longer be playable, and it would not count towards the 4 game limit of freemiums. Whoever wins the decider game, would win both of the games and gain points from both. Alternatively, it could be made so that the decider game is pointless, and the winner only gets the points of the first game. Either way, the decider game option could only be used once, ie. if the decider game also goes to stalemate, you couldn't play another decider game. This could be avoided by choosing escalating for the decider game, as is already commonly done in the situation.

[mc05025]

Something that could be a solution would be "decider games". These are already used sometimes when a stalemate is reached, ie. the players agree to play another game to decide the winner for both games.

If something like this was implemented as part of the site, it would also eliminate the possibility of some player cheating, ie. not following through with the agreement.

In practice, it'd work like this - when a game goes over a certain round limit, the players are given the option to play another game to decide the outcome for both. All the remaining players would have to agree to it. When the decider game would start, the old game would be put on hold, ie. it'd no longer be playable, and it would not count towards the 4 game limit of freemiums. Whoever wins the decider game, would win both of the games and gain points from both. Alternatively, it could be made so that the decider game is pointless, and the winner only gets the points of the first game. Either way, the decider game option could only be used once, ie. if the decider game also goes to stalemate, you couldn't play another decider game. This could be avoided by choosing escalating for the decider game, as is already commonly done in the situation.

Although I prefer my idea, I respect the fact that my idea will make a big difference at a lot of games and old players does not want big changes. They like to play the game as they learn it.
So I like that idea and I believe that it is much easier to be adapted.

p.s. the decider game should be at the same map, escalating and with the remaining players and it should be unrated (pointless as natty_dread said)

[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.

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.

Player A has 10 countries and 90 armies.

Player B has 20 countries and 89 armies.

Who is the winner?

[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.

Player A has 10 countries and 90 armies.

Player B has 20 countries and 89 armies.

Who is the winner?

If you are not in round 900 noone
I said the player should rich the number 80000/number of rounds

Something realistic is

Player A 1000 troops gain 20 troops per round
Player B 980 troops gain 25 troops per round

in round 80
(countries have nothing to do, bonus per round is the important thing)

at that case player A will win
Obviously in order to reach the 1000 troops for many rounds he was taken more bonus than player B

It was player 's B mistake that he did not attack player A. He could have attacked him reduce both of their troops and then wait to reach first the critical number of troops because of his bigger bonus

[Queen_Herpes]

Are you saying that the troop bonuses should increase exponentially over time?

[Bruceswar]

If you do not like Stalemates or do not want to deal with one when it happens, get premium. Simple as that! If you are soo worried about your slot, deadbeat out of the game.