• 7 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
anuorre wrote:
Perhaps we can get creative with different ways to kickstart games that are approaching a stalemate. Some ideas:

- increase in the turn in cards increment (for increasing card setting)
- auto-trigger a troop reduction (across all players) once a player hits a certain number of troops (thinking 5000 troops, 99% reduction) , instead of adding troops at the beginning the player must remove troops [need to consider implication of card turn in, I think it should just reset to 4]
- randomly "kill" of a player (stalemate usually happens when n > 2 so this wouldn't result in a coin toss victory)

Other ideas?

Stalemate isn't that uncommon, especially in fixed/ capped card games.
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
I think stalemates are perfectly reasonable, just like in real life there’s not always a winner. What annoys me is people who don’t recognize a stalemate and continue to play, but that’s not an easy fix…
Eat my dust.
Matty wrote:
Currently there's two things you can do: Chat with all the (still living) players in the game and choose to
1. ask a moderator to end the game in an official stalemate - no rating awarded nor lost
2. decide with all people to play much more aggressively and all reduce each others troops equally (and thus also your own). This way, the game becomes tense again and there can be a winner again
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
anuorre wrote:
The thing is (2.) is a little hard since it involves all players cooperating to reducing their troop count through aggression - perhaps analogous to the prisoner's dilemma. One player might/likely will decide to hold back in hopes that others will kill off each other and then swooping in with a bigger troop count. So everyone else also acts in the same way, prolonging the stalemate. Usually stalemate kicks in at high troop count, in which region bonus and card turn in add negligible % to your overall troop count, therefore the price for aggression could be losing significant troops without the possibility of a quick replenishment.

So far, have tried (2.) though unsuccessfully.

(1.) can be implemented as a feature
Matty wrote:
True, though if you can get it to work it makes for one of the best games you might ever have played. The trick with convincing people for 2 (and the only way to do it right IMO) is to do it slowly. Just be a bit more aggressive, but not aggressive enough to break the stalemate. Just make it look a bit less ridiculous.

And then chip off a bit more, and a bit more, until eventually the game is tense again.

Also, note that you should attack everyone equally*. So if one person attacks less, the others will just attack him a bit more.

* In this case, equality of outcome - everyone should have (approximately) the same amount of troops. Normally for equality you want the other kind, equality of opportunity, but not here.


And if people don't want to do this, you can just ask a mod to end it. Personally I don't like that, but it's not a bad ending either.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Rockbert wrote:
Matty
True, though if you can get it to work it makes for one of the best games you might ever have played. The trick with convincing people for 2 (and the only way to do it right IMO) is to do it slowly. Just be a bit more aggressive, but not aggressive enough to break the stalemate. Just make it look a bit less ridiculous.

And then chip off a bit more, and a bit more, until eventually the game is tense again.

Also, note that you should attack everyone equally*. So if one person attacks less, the others will just attack him a bit more.

* In this case, equality of outcome - everyone should have (approximately) the same amount of troops. Normally for equality you want the other kind, equality of opportunity, but not here.


And if people don't want to do this, you can just ask a mod to end it. Personally I don't like that, but it's not a bad ending either.

From my perspective this makes the most sense. For what it's worth. :)
"A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people."
- Thomas Mann
Rockbert is online.