Option to convert to Escalating or Nuclear spoils

[Apatheist]

Slightly off the wall, this one.
Some games seem to get to a point where it's very difficult to get a winner.
One game I was in, Game 24242381, has got to the point where flat rate spoils are having no impact; everyone has well over 200 troops and is getting 20 or more every turn, and it's now on round 45.
Would it be possible to have an option after a certain round, if all remaining players agree, to switch to spoils that might produce a result more quickly? Whether that would be Nuclear or Escalating might depend on the map.
I appreciate that this could have been allowed for at the start, and that part of the skill of the game is to be able to win games like this by taking the right risk at the right time (or the right truce); but hardly anyone is attacking for fear that if A attacks B then both are weakened and will let C in.
I'm not sure how this might work - whether boxes could be ticked or it needs a mod to get involved, or even whether a mod has the power to do this. There might need to be a random element as to who gets to use the first new spoils, since the one who goes next after the switch probably has an advantage - or perhaps it should go automatically to the player with the most troops (with territories or spoils splitting those who are otherwise equal - failing that, just a random selection).
Lots to think through and consider to make it workable, but with it being optional, it has the advantage that it doesn't have to be used if you don't want it to, so it won't affect anyone's gameplay who isn't in favour of it.

[Apatheist]

Perhaps I was overthinking this: it should be implemented at the start of a round, but there would have to be a couple of rounds' notice so that players could get troops out of harm's way for nuclear. For escalating it probably wouldn't matter as much.

[zen330]

Another option would be a “ceasefire” option kicking in at some point (via a unanimous vote and after a lot of rounds so that there is an incentive to play well, and also to not collude against eliminated players) where the players agree to divvy up the ratings amongst them based on something like how much territory or how many total troops they have (or maybe some combination of the two).

Or conversely (again via a unanimous vote) to agree to one winner by a name randomly chosen from the total remaining players, or perhaps with total regions or troop totals factored in to give the slightly better-off players a proportionately better chance of winning.

[Apatheist]

Another option would be a “ceasefire” option kicking in at some point (via a unanimous vote and after a lot of rounds so that there is an incentive to play well, and also to not collude against eliminated players) where the players agree to divvy up the ratings amongst them based on something like how much territory or how many total troops they have (or maybe some combination of the two).

Or conversely (again via a unanimous vote) to agree to one winner by a name randomly chosen from the total remaining players, or perhaps with total regions or troop totals factored in to give the slightly better-off players a proportionately better chance of winning.

I think that would fail for the same reason that the resign option would - agreeing to choose a winner by a method other than gameplay is possibly against the spirit of the game, and is open to abuse by the sad, lonely people who think that this game is important enough to cheat at it.

[insaneJB]

Yay, here we go again with the horrible ideas.

Nah, I mean it's not really horrible. It just won't happen. Il

If you want a certain type of settings in a game, set it up that way from the beginning. Trying to change the settings mid way is a dumb idea.
Yeah, you have it set as flat rate and your opponent has a mix set but all of a sudden you change it to escalating because you keep getting red cards.
No, just no. .you fucked up with your luck and got bad karma, that doesn't give you the right to try and change settings mid match because you are feeling some type of way.
Get that cancel culture shit out of here.

[Apatheist]

Yay, here we go again with the horrible ideas.

Nah, I mean it's not really horrible. It just won't happen. Il

If you want a certain type of settings in a game, set it up that way from the beginning. Trying to change the settings mid way is a dumb idea.
Yeah, you have it set as flat rate and your opponent has a mix set but all of a sudden you change it to escalating because you keep getting red cards.
No, just no. .you fucked up with your luck and got bad karma, that doesn't give you the right to try and change settings mid match because you are feeling some type of way.
Get that cancel culture shit out of here.

Please read what I wrote.
It has to be a UNANIMOUS DECISION BY ALL PLAYERS.
As a player in the game, you would have the right to decline the offer of changing spoils, so it doesn't need to have any impact on your gameplay at all. Ever.
That's why I suggest these things as options - if you don't want to exercise the option, it won't affect you or your game in the slightest.
It is only for when games hit a stalemate, existing spoils are not changing the balance, and all the remaining players want to take the game to a swifter conclusion.
It is a way to decide a game where no-one is in a position to, or prepared to, take a risk to move the game forward.

Quite why you think it has anything to do with "cancel culture" - Oxford Languages definition: a social environment in which publicly boycotting or withdrawing support for people, organizations, etc. regarded as promoting socially unacceptable beliefs is widespread practice - I haven't the faintest idea.

[insaneJB]

If you want escalating cards, you set that up at the beginning of the game.
If you want flat rate, hey, same thing.
Oh, and nuclear, yeat, settings at the start game page.
Even with no spoils. It's in the exact same spot.

How convenient of them to put them all in the same place so you can decide right then and there. Isn't that awesome of them?



There is absolutely no way the idea makes any sense.
You set up the settings, you decide how you want the game to be when you create your own.
If you don't want certain settings, don't play them.

This idea would wreck the whole structure of monitoring games for medals and achievements.
This makes absolutely no sense.


And the fact that ignorant people keep defending useless ideas is why I go off on people almost all the time. Gah, I'm trying my best to not flat out be a dick, but I'm really being pushed towards it.

[Apatheist]

You make a valid point about medals - but this doesn't have to change anything. Consideration of medals and achievements would be on the original settings, this is just a tie-breaker - in the same way that soccer penalty shoot-out goals don't count towards a team's or player's total, this wouldn't count towards escalating or nuclear achievement.
If not this, then, what would be your suggestion for the best way to break a stalemate?
The game that I cited has gone a further 10 rounds since then, with no apparent progress. How would you bring it to a conclusion?

[insaneJB]

You make a valid point about medals - but this doesn't have to change anything. Consideration of medals and achievements would be on the original settings, this is just a tie-breaker - in the same way that soccer penalty shoot-out goals don't count towards a team's or player's total, this wouldn't count towards escalating or nuclear achievement.
If not this, then, what would be your suggestion for the best way to break a stalemate?
The game that I cited has gone a further 10 rounds since then, with no apparent progress. How would you bring it to a conclusion?

The only conclusion is for someone to act.
And sadly in most of these cases whoever attacks first throws them game for themself and whoever they attack.

But sadly that's how it goes too.
That's just sometimes how life works.

Just take this as an example.


You have 3 people in line for a promotion and there is only one position open for the job.
For the longest time they all just do their jobs how they should.

Til, one day one of them goes after the other, and they have it out back and forth for a while.

Weather one was petty or not doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who threw the first blow.

The both now sunk their own ships and most likely didn't perform well with said job, and the 3rd person who stayed out of their shit and on his task got the promotion.
They can't just change companies and be the exact same position always without working their way back up.
So they can't change settings mid way through life.

And that's just one life example.

It's just a risk that has to be taken.

I get it, it's a pain in the ass. No one wants to make a move.
But it happen..

And if you really want someone to make a move send me a link and I'll taunt someone into attacking by trash talking them in the game chat for you. And hopefully they don't go after you.

I'm obviously good at talking shit.


And I promise I'm trying my best to be as civil as possible with this conversation, even though I haven't exactly done that in the past.
But I got my kid laying on my chest asleep and I really don't wanna get my blood pressure up for it to bother him.

[insaneJB]

By the way, I refuse to say all your ideas are trash anymore.

The pin messages idea is probably one of the best I've seen in a while.

And I feel they should make it a possibility as it would make the game a lot easier for communication and more enjoyable for teams and single player matches.
Especially for poly games.

[Apatheist]

By the way, I refuse to say all your ideas are trash anymore.

The pin messages idea is probably one of the best I've seen in a while.

And I feel they should make it a possibility as it would make the game a lot easier for communication and more enjoyable for teams and single player matches.
Especially for poly games.

Thank you. If things remain civil, you may just become the first person to be removed from my foe list

[insaneJB]

By the way, I refuse to say all your ideas are trash anymore.

The pin messages idea is probably one of the best I've seen in a while.

And I feel they should make it a possibility as it would make the game a lot easier for communication and more enjoyable for teams and single player matches.
Especially for poly games.

Thank you. If things remain civil, you may just become the first person to be removed from my foe list

Look, there was another person that posted like 10 horrible suggestions, some of them were even suggested multiple times over the years and got no support at all.
And in between trying to tell them how their ideas wouldn't work they decided to argue for their illogical thoughts even with me providing evidence that it just wouldn't work.
So I decided to troll said person.
And out of the frustration towards them I blew up towards others on their own threads.

Yeah, that was my bad.


We all have good ideas and we all have bad ideas.
And my ways of giving criticism isnt always the best sadly.


But, I think I found the game you were speaking about and went to have a little trolling fun with your opponents.

[Apatheist]

Please don't. I don't think trolling will help (it never does). They're already frustrated, which is what inspired my suggestion.
As you say, we all have good and bad ideas. All you need to do is point out flaws in the suggestion (if there are any), there's no need to attack the person - that may prevent them making further suggestions which are actually good.
It's not always easy to find previous suggestions, one has to use the same phraseology. New players won't necessarily be as familiar with how this site or the players describe things; they're also more likely to suggest things that more experienced players already know. I've yet to play a poly game so I've no idea how any of my suggestions would work with that setup; it's fine for people with more experience to educate and enlighten me, but absolutely no need to have a go at me as an individual. I do wonder whether it puts mods off acknowledging or implementing a suggestion if they have to wade through a lot of insults to get to the salient points.