Neverending Games

[luckywar]

Concise Idea:
Because games that go around 100rounds tend to lose strategy (build-up games), have the option to all players at excessive round 50, 75, or 100 that allows Escalating Cards.

Expounded Idea/Why Needed
I've been in some 100round games, and most people start getting really frustrated at around 30-60rounds. This only occurs with no card or flat rate games, but can happen with any number of players. Sometimes with 6-8 a couple people are knocked out fast, but then when you get to the DANGEROUS 3 that are relatively equal it turns to a build up game, because if you attack one player, then the other one can clean up. So, to avoid this situation and high frustration, I propose a possible mid-game change to Escalating Cards. This could be implemented in at least 2 ways, from the creation of the game it could be an option, or at the beginning of round 49, players are given an the option to changing over to Esc cards, and if ALL players agree for the change, then at the beginning of round 50, the change is implemented. (could also be at round 74 or 99 instead or at all 3 time pts b/c even if you're not bored at 50, you might be at 100)

More of why we need it:
I've noticed many Suggested posts in this forum of how to get around build-up games, it seems to be important to people. But most are kind of "out there", or weird. This option provides a FAIR method of transitioning a game into a faster paced games for all players

Light Bulb Ideas (Refined Ideas as proposed by you!):

1. First chance of vote is at Round 74. - hwhrhett
2. Esc Cards bonus begins at 15 and increases as per usual. - AndrewB

[hwhrhett]

perhaps if the option was only available in rounds 75, 100, 125, 150, etc....

and all 3 players had to vote unanimously during their turn in that particular round, would be a good end to some of the build game scenarios.

i would use it, everytime i play a flat rate game it turns into a build game pretty quickly.

[richardgarr]

perhaps if the option was only available in rounds 75, 100, 125, 150, etc....

and all 3 players had to vote unanimously during their turn in that particular round, would be a good end to some of the build game scenarios.

i would use it, everytime i play a flat rate game it turns into a build game pretty quickly.

Great idea, making it available only at certain rounds, puts everyone on the same page, and gives plenty of warning to discuss the change b4- hand with all involved.

[luckywar]

Right, it would only be for Unanimous votes, which means, people that don't want it in effect won't have it, so I'm surprised people voted against it, since even with it as an option in the game, they could always have the option and VETO power. Perhaps 50 was too early. 75, 100, 150, are better options, thanks for the input guys.

[BeakerWMA]

I voted against it cause if I wanted to play an escalating card game I would probably just join one.

[luckywar]

sure Beaker. BUT, each game has its own strategy for the first few rounds, but by round 75, you've pretty much thrown real strategy out the window and just wait for some jackass to attack out of boredom. Cuz really, when there are 3 people left, and you're all claiming similar bonuses...just keep stacking your units. It's boring and dumb as hell.

[lord voldemort]

it sounds pretty good tp break those stalemates...id be keen for it

[Keredrex]

sure Beaker. BUT, each game has its own strategy for the first few rounds, but by round 75, you've pretty much thrown real strategy out the window and just wait for some jackass to attack out of boredom. Cuz really, when there are 3 people left, and you're all claiming similar bonuses...just keep stacking your units. It's boring and dumb as hell.

Part of the strategy is to know when and how long to build.... Some times the Waiting game (Though Boring) is Strategy .... Its about endurance.....besides if you didn't want to play the waiting game then your strategy should of prevented that outcome....You need to know when, where & how to break Opponents bonuses....Also if you add this as an option @ a certain round like 75... Then you still need to have enough players cash in to reach a high return in Armies...4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25, etc.....So you would still have to reach round 85 or 90 for a chance at 25 armies that are not guaranteed to work...(they may fail the rolls)....and A high round doesn't mean its no longer a strategic game DICE are random enough to ensure the ANYTHING can Happen Senario

[luckywar]

Keredrex, nicely said. I was waiting for and almost probing for that kind of a response. I think that is the best argument for a long game, which is one of my options in the poll. And it doesn't end the game at round 75, like you said it could take to round 90 for the Esc cards to go into a real effect, But at least it will progress the end of the game. (This is also useful for people that need to leave for a vacation or weren't planning on dedication to a month long game, so it might avoid "jimbo filling in for johnny5isalive"). And, as I said, my proposed added feature is only an option, it is not set in motion at round 75, it is a unanimous vote. So it shouldn't upset anybody to have this feature available, only aid those that want it.

Thank you for those that voiced support and those against this idea. All ideas are welcome.

[richardgarr]

I voted against it cause if I wanted to play an escalating card game I would probably just join one.

Yes, good point, however if you read the whole post, it was mentioned that the decision needed to be unanimous.
A little pop up at the start of round 75 asking if players wish the game to go to escalating could appear, check box A yes , or check box B no.. then you proceed with your normal turn,
One would not know the result of the option choice until next round, if all parties did not agree, the game would continue as flat rate. Who voted yes and who voted no, perhaps shouldn't be displayed. That way , no one would feel the peer pressure, and no individual would be centered out for elimination, just because they did not agree with the other players.

[BeakerWMA]

and there will be a rash of negative feedbacks for players who do not vote for the switch (they will of course be removed but just more work for the Mods)...

[richardgarr]

and there will be a rash of negative feedbacks for players who do not vote for the switch (they will of course be removed but just more work for the Mods)...

Again read the whole post,
I suggested that the players vote not be displayed, you would only see something like:
Due to agreement from all current remaining players
Game #................ has now been changed to escalating.

If someone voted against the change, the game would continue with no mention of the vote results.

I do not know much about programming , but I am sure a code that changes flat to esc, can be written to initiate only if all current players say yes. Without having to show the results.

[AAFitz]

Some players do not care about the rounds, only winning. There will always be a market for an open ended no cards game. Putting limits on it changes the game fundamentally.

However, I wouldnt at all mind options for round limits, or even switching to cards at some predetermined round number which would be a completely different game, and let players know what they are getting into up front.

Having the option to change a game would also change the game... it would make players work towards draws, in games they were weak in, thereby making lots of useless games. The limits have to be set at the beginning. If a player needs out of a long game, there are many ways to do it. Myself, I dont know why it needs to be rushed... they all end... eventually.

[AAFitz]

and there will be a rash of negative feedbacks for players who do not vote for the switch (they will of course be removed but just more work for the Mods)...

Again read the whole post,
I suggested that the players vote not be displayed, you would only see something like:
Due to agreement from all current remaining players
Game #................ has now been changed to escalating.

If someone voted against the change, the game would continue with no mention of the vote results.

I do not know much about programming , but I am sure a code that changes flat to esc, can be written to initiate only if all current players say yes. Without having to show the results.

In theory, that would work, but in actuality, the players that wanted to change it would post, and it would be obvious which one did not, and again it would change the game significantly... any and all of these possibilities have to be set up as an option, that is available at the beginning of the game to be effective, and not ruin the basic game of risk, in possibly its purest state.

[Blitzaholic]

I would need to think about this more.

[Gold Knight]

If the game was really straegized that well, then the game shouldnt have reached 75-100 rounds, shouldn't it have? Im not really for or against this rule, I just dont understand why a well played game would last that long; usually games that go that far are intentional build up games. And I think this would only be a problem for no premium members, seeing as premiums can have other games going on at the same time. But sure, implement the change, its not really going to affect me.

[luckywar]

Thank you for your opinions. I'm glad it at least made some of you think before making a decision. AA, I don't think it changes the game at it's purest, because, it's already an option on this site. In build-up games that are 100rounds, there can be people up 100armies to another (AAFitz, we are approaching one that we are in now where you are ahead) and some games can be equals, regardless of the situation Esc cards will increase the chance for attacks, speed up the fighting, and the victor of the game.

As for the last post, I find that almost comical, not to be offending, but in NON-esc games, I ONLY have these long games with some of best people on this site (top 100-150 players). So, it's not at all how you surmised. It IS great strategizing here! A lot of thinking goes into the games that end up semi-stagnant, but noone wants to take a risk, because at this point it is actually hurtful for you to attack. I find it as a loss of strategy, some don't. I like long games of chess, they are the best, but not build-up games of risk. Long games are fine, but build-ups are not for me. Whether you agree with that or not, having an option (not an automatic change) seems fair to me and does not alter the purest form of risk, just the style of risk (from nocards or flat rate to Esc).

[AndrewB]

It ain't gonna work; there are so many esc built up games already. Also when you build up well enough for the round 50 then adding the escalating cards is not going solve your problem...

The proper solution is to make the cards really escalating. Adding 5 extra for each set is not good enough. It must grow exponentially.

If that is implemented first then your suggestion might work...

[luckywar]

I had to post this, was dying laughing (and is a damn good point!)

2008-01-21 18:33:57 - steve066: lucky was ready ur thread
2008-01-21 18:34:05 - steve066: *reading
2008-01-21 18:34:13 - steve066: great idea!!
2008-01-21 18:34:38 - steve066: puzzled by those voting against
2008-01-21 18:34:57 - steve066: dont they get it?
2008-01-21 18:35:18 - steve066: its an option that can be turned down
2008-01-21 18:35:41 - steve066: they lose nothing by approving it
2008-01-21 18:36:50 - steve066: maybe they think its like premarital sex - there are many who dont want anyone to have it

I liked AndrewB's addition as well. A couple people have pointed the transition may take 5 to 10 rounds to really be effective, whereas AndrewB actually provided a way of fixing it. New Modification to Rule: When switching to ESC cards at round 75 (if voted for by all), then the cards start out at 15 and increment by 5 as per usual. Good idea man.

I will now be adding any "light bulb" ideas that you post here that rework this suggestion optimizing it and making it helpful to everyone on the original post.

ps. Gold Knight, get me a chicken sandwich and some waffle fries, bitch!

[Uberwald]

I don't care

1) escalating games can turn into a build game aswell (true not as often but once its a build its even more rediculous then flat rate lol
2) if its a build game with flat rate then its likely to stay a build game with escalating (around round 70- anyways cos troops will have build up into a few hundred and escalating cards need to build up so by the time the cards get worth anything big there are too many troops again.


But then i said i don't care since it can only help (though i doubt how much) & i try to avoid no cards and flat rate games specificly for them turning into builds way too fast and are generally too slow for my taste

[DiM]

generally cards should have a high enough value in order to make a killing worth while. so you must lose less troops than the set value you'll get in order to safely go and kill somebody. usually if a game hits round 75 it means people will have anywhere from 200 to 3000 troops depending on map. let's assume 3 people have 200 troops and 5 bonus each. escalating starts. the cash in value will need to rise to at least the amount of troops a player has. which is impossible if the stalemate continues. so basically what escalating cards will do is keep the stalemate and increase the number of troops. in any game.

basically because the trade-in values rise by 5 it means the difference between current troops and cash-in value will grow bigger and bigger.

the only possible solution is that the cash value rises more than each player gets per 3 turns. so basically in our example with people that have 200 troops and get 5 bonus per turn it would take a steady rise of 50 troops after each cash-in in order to get the trade value to be at least equal to the number of troops a player has and even if cash values rise by 50 (50-100-150-200) this doesn't guarantee the break in the stalemate.

as said we have 3 players with 200 troops each.

player A cashes a set of 50 he has 250 troops. doesn't go for a kill cause 250vs200 is a close call and the next set is just 100 so he might not have enough for the 3rd guy.

player B cashes a set of 100. has 300 troops now. if he goes for the guy with 200 troops (player C) and remains with just 100 but gets a set it means he'll have250 to kill the last 250 of the player A. very risky so he doesn't do it.

player C cashes in 150 and has 350 now. same idea, he could go for the kill but it would be too much of a close call.

so even with a rise of 50 troops (10 times more than normal) stalemates will probably not end unless somebody takes a huge risk.

but i have a better solution. will post now as a new topic.

here it is: Armageddon

[David_Wain]

I genuinely don't care I could see your idea working but I rarely have these epic games going & sometimes they can be quite fun. Although the games that end up becoming a stalemate & going nowhere perhaps something could be implemented there.

[longboreder]

i was going to point out that changing cards to escalating will just make the build-up games build up at a faster rate, but others have already pointed that out. i also agree that trying to get all the remaining players to agree to a change could cause some hard feelings, even if it was done anonymously.

imho, the way to change settings to turn a "build" game into a "de-build" game would be to change the game type to "Assassin" and keep the flat rate cards. most of these flat rate stalemates are at the 3 player stage, when all 3 players have enough armies making it impossible for one player to kill both of the other players (ex, 18 out of 20 flat rate games lasting 6 months or longer fit this description). changing the game type to Assassin would create a resolution because now you only have to kill one of the two remaining players in order to win the game, the incentive to attack returns to the game, and the perpetual builders of CC will no longer be rewarded for hoarding armies.

so here's a suggestion. In a flat rate game, once there are 3 players remaining, if after 100 rounds of 3 players the game is still not decided the game type automatically changes to Assassin. radical, but probably effective in ending the marathon games.

[RobinJ]

I could see this working, as an option after however many rounds. I normally stick to escalating because they are shorter but my flat rate don't usually last too long either. Still, I have got one game at round 150 or so and, while it had been fascinating in terms of strategy for quite a long while, building is starting to take a hold.

As andrewB said, the cards may need to grow more exponentially - a steady rise might not be enough when there are already 1000 odd armies on the map