#Idea's against stalemates

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

small socket
#

I have a few different ideas how to prevent games that are several hours long. And also different ideas on how to trigger those. I would like to use this post to discuss them before I hand in a suggestion.

  1. When should those system activate?
    I see 2 ways to trigger this.
    1.1) Activate after a certain amount of turns for example turn 30 this starts to function. This number could be adjusted via settings before the game starts. The upside is that it works independent of turn timer, so low players don't reach it in the early game.
    1.2) Activate after a certain amount of time for example 90 minutes. Also adjustable. Slow turn timer would reach this earlier in terms of game state, but it could always be set to a higher number.

  2. What does happen to the game to not stalemate or end faster?
    I suggest a sudden death mode. And here are 3 ideas how it could work.
    2.1) Buff the attacker with up to 1 more dice to roll. This will increase the attackers advantage even further, and force player into action.
    2.2) Nerf the defender to always roll with 1 fewer dice but always at least 1. I word it that way to include caps.
    2.3) Troop decimation. Every turn after the threshold has passed 10% of all troops die at the start of each turn (rounded up but never kills single stacks). This would combat the too slow troops gain in prog caps.

I'm not too sure about the math of all of this, but what do you guys think?

steady nest
#

There’s room for debate on the specific details of the methods listed, but I agree that stalemates are an issue, and that it would be useful to see features for resolving them

willow umbra
small socket
#

Thats why I post it here first. Those are just the things that came to mind for me, and even some variants in case someone just disagrees partially with it. Maybe numbers need tweaking like only every other roll (not full attacks just a single set of dice) gets the penalty etc. Or what I considered as a stalemate is too short/long. The main idea that all those concepts share is that they are (for now) simple and automatic. No need for extra inputs from users or any new gui elements.

winged grove
#

Reward the aggressor at a certain amount of turns

small socket
steady nest
#

Possible stalemate solutions

Each has different floors, so would need to be optional, to allow the host to weigh up the cost/benefit against the impact of long boring stalemates

  • Giving each player a second turn timer, that gives them a total time for moves throughout the game. When a player used up their whole game timer, they’d lose by default, and be replaced by neutral territory.
  • A round limit. When the maximum number of rounds is reached placements of alive players awarded based on troops left.
  • Battle Royal Mode: Each round 1 territory on the edge of the map with nothing stuck behind it, gets an exclamation mark over it, giving the player a chance to move. At the end of that round, it becomes a blizzard. Continues until only 1 territory remains, making a winner inevitable
  • Point threshold. 1 point earnt per troop earnt, but no points lost for troops lost, encouraging agressive moves that lead to troop income. E.g. spending 50 troops on killing someone for 40 troops of cards or continent bonus. Game won by the player to hit point threshold first. A winner is inevitable, because 3 troops minimum are earnt each turn, so points always increase each round.
potent vortex
#

I think
A) you are overthinking/overengineering it - simpler is better.
B) If the attacker's advantage was bigger, would that change anything? probably not if no one has incentive to attack anyway
C) whatever you come up with, (near) optimal play will often result in a stalemate if the troop counts in specific match are in a certain range
(e.g. optimal chess is a very likely draw - and so is tic-tac-toe)

small socket
# potent vortex I think A) you are overthinking/overengineering it - simpler is better. B) If t...

High troop counts cause stalemates yes. And if there are 3 people left the person that attacks first either dies first or goes for 2nd. You spend almost as many troops attacking as the defender loses. Lets say there are 3 players all have 150 troops. Player A hits B and B dies A is left with ~20 troops C wins. If A had a bigger attackers advantage and had ~60 troops left which he could use to weaken C at least it would change that dynamic of action = death.
Your examples of chess and tic-tac-toe have 0 rng to it, but both have rules in place in case the game can't progress it ends. This ending is currently missing.

potent vortex
small socket
# potent vortex Actually a very good point in the end. So we just need an "agree to draw" button...

A voting system would force opponents to agree to end the game. If one of those players is spiteful or doesn't want to accept that they can't win the others will be held hostage in that game. If the vote does not require all players to agree where is the point. That's why I try to find a solution that just kicks in. Tic-Tac-Toe ends when all boxes are filled chess ends when 1 player can't make a move.

So I want a system that ends the game. There could be a vote system that could be used before that point, but like I said I don't really see the point in it.

potent vortex
#

well, you seem a bit hard to please.
A "accept draw" button seems like the simplest of all solutions
and yes, in chess too, both have to agree, otherwise the game goes on
and there is kind of an "abuse" in chess too, when you know its a draw but still play on

steady nest
#

In tourneys with an option to accept draw, players frequently reject, even in unbreakable stalemates, because they know that once their opponent is offering a draw, the opponent is psychologically approaching a surrender point, so often both players waste time dragging out a stalemate hoping the other surrenders first.

A clear-cut objective criterion for ending games, avoids this problem, and gives games a reliable ending, regardless of stubborness

potent vortex
steady nest
potent vortex
#

it's the same with draws in chess - it's part of the game to sometimes not draw even if it looks 100% like a draw

I didn't even understand your first idea, despite Einstein like IQ 😉

steady nest
potent vortex
#

lol, the one you just mentioned

hearty mantle
#

I would think that unanimous voting is a good mechanism to break stalemate. Stalemate has been about at least 2 people cant agree on a common enemy; passive play has been about low profile to avoid anti-social behaviour. The person voting against stalemate, especially if he has been sitting most of the game, may have just provided the reason for him to be targeted by the others. Voting that reveals the voters may just be the light touch to break stalemate.

small socket
hearty mantle
#

how is voting linked to card block and backstabbing?

small socket
# hearty mantle how is voting linked to card block and backstabbing?

Card blocking often times needs 2 players to work on a third one. So teamplay without communication. Your idea that because 2 people want to vote yes and 1 person doesn't that those 2 people will fight that one person is not realistic. The guy that does the first step will be most likely be targeted by the other 2. It's not about fairness or anything it's about how people actually play the game.

hearty mantle
#

They have to find ways to communicate. My suggestion for the 2 of them is to start by throwing an income worth of troops when you are in the lead and see if the other party cooperate. Starting first actually has about 16% advantage compared to the receiving one due to the attacker advantage, just that starting first guarantee you to be the person in conflict. If the other party do not cooperate, wait till you have a troop lead again before trying again. the voting every 20 min-1h is a recurring aggro attractor.
Even if 2 players are unable to cooperate, the attention of suicider because the 'no' voter is another consideration when someone is needlessly dragging out a stalemate

potent vortex
#

Been in the worst stalemate today.
Wish there was a button for "ME WANT DRAW, ME OUTTA HERE"

Had to take things to a conclusion as the middle player and annoy the slightly lower player.
Otherwise it would have gone on till tomorrow.
Nobody could make any kind of progress, because being surrounded by heaps of zombies, and it was fixed

It was Boston, again, btw. Seems to be the worst map wrt stalemates

slender raft
#

I think this could be a good idea
How about if all players combined have a total of 350 or more troops, the attackers advantage increases

potent vortex
#

The idea remains: a simple OFFER DRAW button - as in chess.
(Don't bother me again with "it will be abused". Yes it might, but often times it will also work out fine)

plush siren
potent vortex
#

Let's discuss the simplest idea: @small socket @steady nest

After 30 turns (or any other time set by game host) this happens:
THE GAME JUST ENDS.
If nobody manages to win by that time it is scored as a draw. Problem solved.

To inform players, there are UI messages saying:
5 Turns remaining! then Last Turn!

If troops are quite equal or players remain passive this might do nothing, but then the game will be over at least.
I think, however, the looming of finite time might lead to interesting new strategies.
At least players are incentivized to do something.

steady nest
small socket
# potent vortex Let's discuss the simplest idea: <@317725446181748736> <@331876438187704323> A...

It's so simple that it is already a gamemode called 5-round-rumble. And I don't want to extend that gamemode to others. In my opinion the solution needs to match 2 criteria.

  1. It has to be automated
  2. It has to help the gamemode that it is used in to speed it up
    That is why I posted the ideas that I had above. I will always disagree to just ending the game and vote to to activate the system.
    The decimation idea is inspired by the game worms. Once sudden death kicks in all pawns have 1 hp left. In risk that would make no sense but there was the old roman punishment of decimation for their legion where every 10th soldier would be killed.
    The dice ideas are just to improve the odds for attackers.
steady nest
#

Battle Royal Mode

Each round 1 edge territory gets a [!] symbol, then once everyone’s had their turn for that round it becomes a blizzard.

Continues until there’s 1 territory left in the middle of the map.

Advantages:
• Makes every game end after a certain number of rounds
• Reduces turtling
• Simple for noobs to understand, just by playing it

Disadvantages
• Interferes and forces players to adjust their strategies
• Luck of where the new blizzards arise

plush siren
plush siren
#

@steady nest well I guess you did. I’d love to see that

ember junco
#
  1. An optional Chess clock - so your accumulated time taken to play is taken into consideration, this will prevent people sulking or pretending to leave.
sullen gazelle
#

I’d settle for an emote that says “quit wasting my time and finish the game already” for those jerks who like to hold you hostage

zinc saddle
#

I know probably not what most want to hear, but stalemate play is a strategy. Part of the appeal with games like Risk, and Chess is being able to out last your opponent mentally. The frustration is the point. There are many ways to out play this strategy. I get frustrated by people drawing out games, it's also something I have done myself as I am sure most players have, even though it is frustrating. Giving people a draw button will only encourage more people to use this strategy. Same with adding point systems and timers. I know this is an unpopular view and not going to change minds.

signal adder
#

Ok