Stalemate solutions?

[DiM]

:roll: You may have had a horrific experience with the dice but i assure you that the things that you are suggesting that could happen have never happened in a game i have been in.

lost a 153v72 ended 3v48

oh and yesterday in a build game i attacked 1000 v73000 i killed just over 600 enemy troops. so a HUGE difference. but it doesn't matter as i still have 80k+troops

[Kemmler]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=50629

this would really help

[MeDeFe]

5) Play the game until someone drops out from sheer frustration or exhaustion and then end it quickly in a 1on1.

It is not soo easy. Most of the time in these stalemates the chance of killing someone is gone. They have 1000 armies, yet the cashes are only at 200. Terrible risk reward. If you kill them you will in fact kill yourself as well. That would be suicide. Nobody wants to spend 12 hours in front of a PC just building armies. Finding a good solution is tough. One that we all agree on. I have been in my fair share and we have used many ways to resolve this. Stalemates do happen quite a bit now it seems. A 2nd game sometimes is the best way.

What are you talking about? Once a player has dropped out because they're so fatigued they can't properly move and click the mouse anymore there's no need to kill them at all. Then only 2 players are left and games end quickly once that point has been reached.

[Mr_Adams]

The game is called Risk, somebody must take a RISK to make an elimination which will benifit themselves...

[maniacmath17]

I'm really not a fan of any ideas that are 100% luck. I would like to see stalemates decided by most kills and in the event of a tie, play a 2nd game between those who are tied for most kills.

The most kills rule would also resolve a lot of stalemates by itself. Even if someones troop count well exceeds the cash in value, they are still a target.

I was watching a game earlier where there were 4 players left, each had killed 1 person. One player had a commanding troop lead with two average troop counts and one player with a relatively low count (lets say troop counts were 500 750 750 and 1000 with sets at 150). So the guy with the most troops could have easily killed the guy with least troops and still had the game be a stalemate. But that of course would also put him at 2 kills and make him the winner. Would make for an interesting ending, with the two guys at 750 trying to save the 500 or possibly steal the kill.

Instead they agreed to a 4 player game which could have been avoided because one of the players could have easily been killed.

[jiminski]

How about this idea?

Stalemate solution

[Robinette]

Come on people... This is about WAR... about FIGHTING IT OUT...
My doll-playing little sister would LOVE most of the above ideas, but I DONT...

Deadlocks will end if everyone in the game simply agrees to end their turn with less armies than they started the turn with.

is there no-one that will comment on this????

does not one of you agree with me????

[Bruceswar]

Come on people... This is about WAR... about FIGHTING IT OUT...
My doll-playing little sister would LOVE most of the above ideas, but I DONT...

Deadlocks will end if everyone in the game simply agrees to end their turn with less armies than they started the turn with.

is there no-one that will comment on this????

does not one of you agree with me????

Not at all. Stalemates happen for a reason. Usually players wanting to win.

[Bruceswar]

The game is called Risk, somebody must take a RISK to make an elimination which will benifit themselves...

How can taking out 1000 armies and getting 200 in return be a benefit to anybody? This is how a stalemate happens.

[Seulessliathan]

How about this idea?

Stalemate solution

i like this one

[RashidJelzin]

Me too... something for lack to work on.

[MeDeFe]

The game is called Risk, somebody must take a RISK to make an elimination which will benifit themselves...

Conquerclub is not Risk(tm).

[Robinette]

The game is called Risk, somebody must take a RISK to make an elimination which will benifit themselves...

Conquerclub is not Risk(tm).

But this game is about RISK... except when it becomes stalemated...

Per Wikipedia:
RISK is a concept that denotes a potential negative impact to some characteristic of value that may arise from a future event. Exposure to the consequences of uncertainty constitutes a RISK. In everyday usage, RISK is often used synonymously with the probability of a known loss.

mnnnnnn.... re-read that thinking about the dice....

[Incandenza]

Come on people... This is about WAR... about FIGHTING IT OUT...
My doll-playing little sister would LOVE most of the above ideas, but I DONT...

Deadlocks will end if everyone in the game simply agrees to end their turn with less armies than they started the turn with.

is there no-one that will comment on this????

does not one of you agree with me????

I've tried this concept in a couple of games, and while it is useful in reducing the clutter somewhat, it's far from a magic bullet when it comes to actually physically ending the bloody game.

[Robinette]

Come on people... This is about WAR... about FIGHTING IT OUT...
My doll-playing little sister would LOVE most of the above ideas, but I DONT...

Deadlocks will end if everyone in the game simply agrees to end their turn with less armies than they started the turn with.

is there no-one that will comment on this????

does not one of you agree with me????

I've tried this concept in a couple of games, and while it is useful in reducing the clutter somewhat, it's far from a magic bullet when it comes to actually physically ending the bloody game.

Well the intent is simply to break the stalemate... i would hope that the solution to ending the game is actually based on strategy mixed with luck... and therefore plays out like any other good game!

[owenshooter]

play the games to win. period.-0

[Robinette]

play the games to win. period.-0

Well sometimes that's just the problem...

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1687489

Do you really think any of these players are NOT playing to win...

Greycloak
David_Wain
ZawBanjito
comic boy
AAFitz
Robinette
RL_Orange
Blitzaholic

hehee... well, i suppose RL and Blitz are not playing to win... but they WERE playing to win right up until hell called their names.. lol

[RashidJelzin]

play the games to win. period.-0

You don't have anything useful to say, take your pseudo funny comments elsewhere.

Robinette's way might work as well, though the problem would be getting the other's to agree to the idea-- which will hardly always work... it's the same problematic as any other of the introduced solutions-- they all need the agreement of every player left in the stale. One doesn't agree, and the stalemate would keep going.
I still think that Fable's idea of changing the cash-in values after a certain limit is overstepped could actually prevent stalemates. It would take some time, but with some observations of escalating games and proper calculations, there should be a right way to introduce this idea.

Some people still might not understand what a stalemate is... so I'll spell it out for them.
Stalemate:
Any situation where an elimination does not benefit the eliminating player, but in contrary costs the player more armies than he receives in return with the cash-in.

[owenshooter]

play the games to win. period.-0

You don't have anything useful to say, take your pseudo funny comments elsewhere.

how is that not useful? you play the games to win, period. how is there ever a stalemate? if you want
to win, you have to change your strategy or take a calculated risk to win. there is no need for stalemate
solutions. you play the games to win. sorry, but that is the truth. deal with it. what i said isn't useful to
YOU, because it isn't what you want to hear!-0

[RashidJelzin]

No-- it's not useful because it's not relevant to the topic. Stating your opinion as a fact is one thing, being ignorant about the topic is another. The thread clearly is titled "Stalemate solutions?"
Now, a question mark clearly indicates the creator of the topic (which would be me, just to spell it out) desires to find an answer to an issue he (me again) has confronted-- which is to determine whether there is a optimal way to end a stalemate or not. You say "if you play properly, there will be no stalemate". Obviously, you are WRONG. And no, it's not because you say something I don't want to hear (you're quick to jump to conclusions), but it's because you are plain and simple wrong, when you say stalemates only happen when people don't take calculated risks or don't "play to win". There are enough stalemates going on, you only need to take a look at one of them, and if you're as clever as you seem to say, you will see they aren't stalemates because everyone is a chicken, doesn't take a kill shot at anyone and keeps building, but because circumstances (deployment, drop, early hangings) turned them into stales.
You know what? Start playing something else than team games and games with more than 4 players, and you might find yourself in a stalemate someday. Then you will see ending it is not as easy as you say-- "play the games to win". Pfft.
You write a one line comment like that and leave it free for interpretation, I do so. Don't come back at me saying I'm narrow- minded, when I answer your oh-so-telling comment with one of my own, cause that's way off.
I could say, how come a LT is lecturing me on strategy and tactics? However I don't, cause I'm not rank- biased.

[owenshooter]

blah, blah, blah.

1. play the games to win. period.
2. yeah, thank goodness a guy that plays a totally different game than me, escalating 8 player
point grabs, isn't going to bust on my rank... when he can't even RECOGNIZE rank (Lt?)... WHEW...
3. play the games to win. period.

i am entitled to my opinion.-0

[jiminski]

jim is entitled to my opinion.-0

thank you mate!

[Dancing Mustard]

No-- it's not useful because it's not relevant to the topic. Stating your opinion as a fact is one thing, being ignorant about the topic is another.

Oh sweet Irony, let down your hair.

Come on Rashid, lighten up a little. I know that this is a very serious business and all, but how about you stop writing short, ranting essays on the minutiae of an internet game and try being a bit more civil for a change?

[RashidJelzin]

My nickname says it all-- I'm all business. Suck it up, ketchup.

[Dancing Mustard]

My nickname says it all-- I'm all business.

Serious Business to be precise...

Thanks for the heads-up about your nickname by the way, up until now I had no idea who people were referring to when they spoke of 'Angry-Dweebzilla'.