Is using second, or third game as decider against the rules

[dezzy26]

dont forget to quote eipi who was the one to actually derail the thread
on that not i will no longer post unless it is to do with the thread

[jiminski]

dont forget to quote eipi who was the one to actually derail the thread
on that not i will no longer post unless it is to do with the thread

(heheh why? because you got caught Noob-farming while having a go at us for our gaming sins?)

and my apologies,

On thread:
I can supply the game number in which we agreed to play another game to end the stalemate, once i have discussed it with the other players involved.

[e_i_pi]

Re: me intentionally deadbeating, I'm quite happy to cop it on the chin. It's my first in-game offence (yes, I've received some forum warnings), and the circumstances are somewhat mitigating. Still, the rules are the rules. Whatever the mods decide, I'll live with.

In regards to the wider problem of the "Unwritten Rules" being a very large grey area, it's threads like this that are required, in order to give honest feedback to the mods. IMO, when a subject like this is broached by players rather than by mods, the quality of the feedback is a lot better, albeit more prone to trolling, flaming, etc.

Most of the problems that have been brought up in this and other threads are due to site changes not yet implemented, or site changes taken away due to abuse.

If I'm not mistaken, the surrender button was once part of the game though was subject to abuse and cheating. I think if this wasn't abused and still in the game, then there would have been no problem with me using it in the Forbidden City game.

Also, there is a pending topic in Sugs+Bugs to be able to declare draws in games. If this suggestion was implemented, then the thread(s) about RL and Karlo wouldn't rate a mention, as it would be within the formal structure of the site.

Fastposted by dezzy...
Dude, if I've broken yet another of your perceived rules, start a new thread mate

[AAFitz]

AAFitz: Farming Disscussions...>>>>>>

[jiminski]

xxx-xx-xx 17:30:20 - jiminski: we could set up a 5 man game .. perhaps classic as they are less prone to Stalemate? .. then we make it a winner takes all ... both games with the rest of us commiting suicide while the winner picks up the spoils!

well i reckon the proof I found against me is pretty irrefutable... book me Danno!

[Woodruff]

It seems to me that the rule is being broken, though in a relatively unimportant
way (as long as multi's aren't involved, of course).

Perhaps this could be addressed in the rule?

[joecoolfrog]

Unwritten rules are implemented on an ad-hoc basis, common sense is applied, those trying to stir the pot should learn some...

[Hatchman]

Yay I made a list of some sort!

Listen, I have nothing to hide. I've been involved in quite a few of these tie-breakers. In my opinion, it's the best way to resolve a stalemate until something else is implemented (such as a dramatic increase in card trade-ins after a certain cash plateau like 100).

I happened to be in such a game on another site (which incidentally has a LOT of smart features which it would behoove CC to adopt). At a certain late round in the game, where nothing was progressing, all players were automatically asked to vote for/against dramatically increased cashes in order to resolve the logjam. This was brilliant IMO.

[4myGod]

It seems everyone would agree that this is technically against the rules, since the rule is so general, however it also seems harmless. So I think it's just a mods decision of whatever he/she would want to do about each individual case someone brings up, though if someone brings up a case, then it isn't so innocent. The games you all played were all agreed upon, so they were innocent forfeits.

Perhaps having a "surrender" button that everyone needs to vote on, and if everyone in the game says yes then the player can surrender. As well a "draw" button that everyone in the game can vote on and if everyone says yes then the game is declared a tie.

You will have instances I am sure where like in e_i_pi's case he needs to get out of a game quick, and what if one of the players in the game didn't want him to get out and refused to let him go, so when he clicked the "surrender" button that player said no. Then he is still forced to deadbeat and is still breaking the rules.

Sorry guys, I think I just talk in circles quite often. Hope someone could get my opinion out of that mess.

[jiminski]

Yay I made a list of some sort!

Listen, I have nothing to hide. I've been involved in quite a few of these tie-breakers. In my opinion, it's the best way to resolve a stalemate until something else is implemented (such as a dramatic increase in card trade-ins after a certain cash plateau like 100).

I happened to be in such a game on another site (which incidentally has a LOT of smart features which it would behoove CC to adopt). At a certain late round in the game, where nothing was progressing, all players were automatically asked to vote for/against dramatically increased cashes in order to resolve the logjam. This was brilliant IMO.

hello mate, did you have a look at the threads i posted with a couple of options to resolve Stagnation? (i call it stagnation to avoid the semantical to and fro)
one of them sounds similar to what you played, the other is based around the deciding game option which is under examination at present.

[comic boy]

Yay I made a list of some sort!

Listen, I have nothing to hide. I've been involved in quite a few of these tie-breakers. In my opinion, it's the best way to resolve a stalemate until something else is implemented (such as a dramatic increase in card trade-ins after a certain cash plateau like 100).

I happened to be in such a game on another site (which incidentally has a LOT of smart features which it would behoove CC to adopt). At a certain late round in the game, where nothing was progressing, all players were automatically asked to vote for/against dramatically increased cashes in order to resolve the logjam. This was brilliant IMO.

The problem I can see with this,is that if players know there will be an automatic increase, then it might lead to negative play in the middle rounds. Although seen as the obvious current solution,nobody really enjoys tiebreaks and consequently you often see a bold play designed to force a win, my fear is this will happen less often and games will become more tedious. I can also see a dilution in skill here because the first to cash after a large increase would gain a huge advantage, going last in say an 8 player game would be almost terminal, freestyle would be even worse given that speed would become even more crucial.

PS Im not sure we really need a fix because tiebreak games are not against the rules ( despite what the know nothings are saying ) Even the 1 v 1 games , to redistribute points , are not point dumping though technicaly they break the rules, dont blame the players though as a simple point reset system could easily make this sort of thing redundant.

[Hatchman]

You're right about the sudden dramatic cash increase. If CC were to go with larger cash increments, each increase would have to be only slightly larger than the previous one.

[e_i_pi]

This should be in Q&A with the other threads that got moved over there (that were in the same vein) ?

[AAFitz]

This should be in Q&A with the other threads that got moved over there (that were in the same vein) ?

Possibly, unless we are all found guilty and banned.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

This should be in Q&A with the other threads that got moved over there (that were in the same vein) ?

Possibly, unless we are all found guilty and banned.

let the bannings begin

[Hatchman]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

I reviewed the games. there is no deadlock. each player is capable of begining turn, deploying armies, and attacking another player.

[AAFitz]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

I reviewed the games. there is no deadlock. each player is capable of begining turn, deploying armies, and attacking another player.

Well, yes, they are all capable of making a bad turn, and hanging people and thereby throwing the game.....but thats against the rules too.

[Blitzaholic]

just play the games out all, games are not meant for ties, play til their is a winner, if it takes a year oh well, you do not like it, do not join those kind of games. if all players agree in game chat to a stalemate which does not happen often, then you could post in forum to the mods and perhaps they could decide, but I would encourage all to try to finish the games out as fairly and honestly as you can. respects, blitz

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

I reviewed the games. there is no deadlock. each player is capable of begining turn, deploying armies, and attacking another player.

Well, yes, they are all capable of making a bad turn, and hanging people and thereby throwing the game.....but thats against the rules too.

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

begin to isoloate a color for elimination.

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

[AAFitz]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

I reviewed the games. there is no deadlock. each player is capable of begining turn, deploying armies, and attacking another player.

Well, yes, they are all capable of making a bad turn, and hanging people and thereby throwing the game.....but thats against the rules too.

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

That is because the best move for any given player, is not to attack.. The only winning move is not to move, and any good and smart player knows this. The way to win the game is to be the one not attacked, and not attack, until there is a winning move. Technically, most games should never end, because it is the bad moves that end the game, not the good ones. To suggest a smart player should make a bad move just to end it, is ridiculous.

Hell, I believe you were possibly the original, put in a pile strategy and wait for everyone else to attack each other player. I picked the strategy up from you...lol

[comic boy]

Yeah ok... So everyone who's been involved in a game 2 or a game 3 to resolve a deadlocked game 1 is subject to disciplinary action??

I reviewed the games. there is no deadlock. each player is capable of begining turn, deploying armies, and attacking another player.

Well, yes, they are all capable of making a bad turn, and hanging people and thereby throwing the game.....but thats against the rules too.

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

begin to isoloate a color for elimination.

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

Heres an idea JR, leave the escalating game advice to those of us that actually know how to play, whats your recent record against top players ?

[Hatchman]

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

begin to isoloate a color for elimination.

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

"slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board" <-- And who decides which player is to be eliminated?

"form alliances" <-- Very ethical.

You must be bored JR.

Here JR: Game 5006429. Give us your solution.

[Blitzaholic]

I would suggest comic boy, poo-maker, joecoolfrog, maniacmath17, scott-land, etc. post a reasonable solution, they have tons of experience in this type of game play and are the very best at this game type, with that said, I support rl_orange, he is a very honorable player and also solid in this game play, and I have played with him and against him many times and he made a choice that sounds reasonable and fair to me, but we do need to come with a solution that most can agree upon, so let us focus on the solution rather than the problem.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

begin to isoloate a color for elimination.

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

"slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board" <-- And who decides which player is to be eliminated?

"form alliances" <-- Very ethical.

You must be bored JR.

Here JR: Game 5006429. Give us your solution.

tag team red

pink takes nullarbor and moves all giving green no easy card. now he is forced to attack to gain one
yellow takes carins isolating red to 4 countries