Increased value of cards for longer lasting games

So, I've noticed that when a game with the setting of: [i]Increasing Turn in values increase after every turn in.[/i] for the cards goes on longer than say...... value of 120? it's is a stalemate by default (for X percentage of games, with X being high - especially with players who really do want to win and can do some math to see what kind of an attack would not lead to victory). So the problem is, the linear increase of value of cards. The increase should no longer be linear from a certain point (actually rather tricky to define, as it also depends on amount of players in a game...). Or it can remain linear, but the +5 should be changed to +10, +20, or whatever, something. I have not done any math for finding any sweetspots - would first like to know whether other people would agree with such a patch, or prefer to leave it as it is (and run into draws more often). Could of course (really? dunno? I'm no programmer here) also be tweaked to have different moments for change in increase, depending on amount of players, e.g. at 70 for a 3p game, at 80 for 4, 90 for 5, 100 for 6, 110 for 7..... just popping some numbers here ;d I'm all ears for what the community of d12 thinks of this. -Alex

See also: https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/887/exponential-cards I think it's a good idea. The only problem is that currently I don't really get to programming d12, and neither does Cireon. And if we do, we should probably fix that crash when there are loads of ppl getting cards on small maps - which used to be a very rare bug, but suddenly happened like 6 times last two months.

I say after a certain amount the turn in value is random... or... it resets to start as 5, etc.

[quote=Matty]which used to be a very rare bug, but suddenly happened like 6 times last two months.[/quote] I think it started happening because people started playing those crazy games again ;)

I wasn't sure which thread to post in. I'm in favour of an exponential cards setting of some kind. Vexer's proposal: set(n) = set(n-1)*1.2 [size=11px]rounded to nearest integer[/size] Set-------exp------incr 1----------4----------4 2----------6----------6 3----------8----------8 4----------10--------10 5----------12--------12 6----------15--------15 7----------18--------20 8----------21--------25 9----------25--------30 10--------29--------35 11--------33--------40 12--------38--------45 13--------43--------50 14--------49--------55 15--------55--------60 16--------62--------65 17--------70--------70 18--------78--------75 19--------87--------80 20--------97--------85 21--------108------90 22--------120------95 23--------133------100 24--------148------105 25--------164------110 Personally, I think it would work best with the turn in value unchanged from increasing settings until turn in = 50. After 50, each turn in could increase by 1 more than the last did. The specific mechanics by which the turn-in increase is not really important, as long as it is enough to end stalemates without just giving the game to the next guy to turn in. For comparison with Vexer's proposal I've included the turn-in values of mine My proposal: set(n) = set(n-1)+set(n-1)-set(n-2)+1 [size=11px]when n>13[/size] Set. Incr. Exp. 13. 50. 50. 14. 55. 56. 15. 60. 63. 16. 65. 71. 17. 70. 80. 18. 75. 90. 19. 80. 101. 20. 85. 113. 21. 90. 126. 22. 95. 140. 23. 100. 155. 24. 105. 171. 25. 110. 188. EDIT: if you don't want to clog up the create game page with options, this could simply be an option that game attendants can turn on if players report a stalemate. Better still, it could be an option players unanimously agree on activating by pressing a button in the Options tab in-game.