Conquer Club

I played 3 8 player freestyle speed games today-- 2 of them turned out to be stalemates. Now, its hard to determine who should win the game when it's looking like the game isn't going to end within the next few hours-- I've come across a couple of ways to determine the winner, of which none I found completely satisfying.

1) The player with the most kills gets the win
Most fair of all solutions, but not completely satisfying... there must be something better

2) Another game is set up, most of the time assassin, and the winner of that game wins the stalemate as well
Kinda sketchy, since most players don't want to gamble losing double their points

3) The highest rank gets the win, so everyone loses fewer points
Ugh... even if it did benefit me once, I don't like this solution at all... seems very unfair to me

4) Rock, Paper, Scissors
Saw it work once only, the other times the people kept bickering on how they were waiting for each other to post their bet

Anyone has another solution in mind? I'd really be interested in reading your thoughts...

Cheers,

RashidJelzin wrote:4) Rock, Paper, Scissors
Saw it work once only, the other times the people kept bickering on how they were waiting for each other to post their bet

Rock, Paper, Scissors can work, if you do it by PM, because it stays in your outbox until it gets opened, so you will know if someone looks before sending theirs. I'm not saying rock, paper, scissors is the best option. Just that it could work without arguing/cheating.

My favourite stalemate decider is playing assassin to decide the win. I don't like risking double the points but i think it's the fairest and most fun way to decide the winner of a stalemate.

I came up with the most kills idea, though, it doesn't really work that well... I mean, not everyone left in the game would have heard of it before so it isn't really fair just to tell them that someone else has won because they killed the most people.

The rock, paper scissors idea sends shivers down my spine.... we might as well be playing doodle assassin.

The highest ranked idea has been about for ages... since freestyle speed was first invented. It is fair to say that i have been the highest ranked in 95% of 8 player games i've been in so my thoughts on this idea are pretty biased...

How can there be a stalemate? All games will end eventually.

Jamie wrote:How can there be a stalemate? All games will end eventually.

Sometimes, it becomes apparent that a game will go on for a long, long time. When those games are speed games, sometimes nobody in the game wants to play for 12 hours in a sitting.

Timminz wrote:

Jamie wrote:How can there be a stalemate? All games will end eventually.

Sometimes, it becomes apparent that a game will go on for a long, long time. When those games are speed games, sometimes nobody in the game wants to play for 12 hours in a sitting.

I can agree, except that there is a surprising amount of 8 person speed games. There are also many other speed games set up in such a way that it will make for a long game. Adjacent for example. If one doesn't want to be involved in a long speed game, don't make or join games that have such a format. I have played HUNDREDS of speed games. I have yet to play a single speed game that reached an hour in length. If one gets trapped in a long speed game, they have no one to blame but themselves. If I found myself trapped in an unwanted speedgame, I would suicide myself against my opponents in such a way that would hurt them all equally.

You could use the auto attack. just say everyone has to auto the guy to the right... might not work in every game but might add a bit of a spin on things.

Signing up for an 8 way, no cards, adj, sequential, on 2.1 is guaranteeing a long game, but an 8 player esc freestyle on classic, is not. However, on the odd occasion, they get to stalemates between a few REALLY good players. I've never been in that situation, but I have seen them before. Yesterday, in fact.

Jamie wrote:I have played HUNDREDS of speed games. I have yet to play a single speed game that reached an hour in length.

that might be because the vast majority of your speed games have been 1v1.

i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

DiM wrote:i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

trust on this site! your asking quite alot DIM. whoever leaves loses...that should be fair enough!

hulmey wrote:

DiM wrote:i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

trust on this site! your asking quite alot DIM. whoever leaves loses...that should be fair enough!

well in one of the 2 games solved with the above solution i was the winner so the others were honest, and i'm very sure that was the case in the other game.
yes trust can be achieved in some cases (not all but at least some)

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

MeDeFe wrote: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.

I actually do like DiM's idea- though I would only employ it if I end up with the people I play regularly and hence know I can trust them... thanks for sharing that, DiM.
Taking negative kills is, indeed, most of the time a suicide, but sometimes still leaves the game in a stale.

poo-maker wrote:I came up with the most kills idea, though, it doesn't really work that well... I mean, not everyone left in the game would have heard of it before so it isn't really fair just to tell them that someone else has won because they killed the most people.

By the way, this thread was meant to publizise any solutions for stalemates, so it might help for future stalemates... If enough people read this, it might not be unfair anymore, since people won't need to be told how the game has to end.

I've used two methods in this situation, both of which require the agreement of all the players involved.

The first is a method to thin out the number of armies on the board. All players agree that each turn they will make 10 attacks against the next player to take their turn. In this way each player is making the same number of attacks and likewise is being attacked, as everybody else.
This pattern of attacks can be followed for either a pre-arranged number of rounds or until the number of armies reaches a stated level.
The advantage of this system is that it is fair and can bring fresh interest into a dull stalemate, since the balance of armies can shift due to the vaguaries of the dice.
However, it's only going to work in a game where there is absolute trust between the players and honest conduct. This method is perhaps, therefore, most appropriate for internal clan games or games between friends.

The second method is to set up a new game with settings that all the remaining players agree on. Eliminated players are not invited to join the second deciding game. It is then agreed that whoever wins the second game will also take the first, stalemated game.
The advantage of this system is that it is the quickest way to get out of a stalemate.
I don't see losing double points as a problem, since there is also the opportunity to win double points.

DiM wrote:i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

I really don't like that idea... all luck.

Btw, i forgot about another way i used to end stalemates. It takes a while and some organising. If there are on average 1000 armies per player on the board and the cards are at 200, you ask everyone to make two stacks of exactly 400 in and around asia. You then get player A to auto attack 1 of player B's 400's, Player B to auto 1 of player C's 400's, and player C to auto 1 of player A's 400's. I would use this idea in every stalemate i was in except for the the sometimes slow-moving people... e.g. those who didn't really pay attention and managed to take 4 rounds to get into position... Quite often, after all of their messing around, we would be half-way to back where we started.

Yep , been there done that with poo. The 4th player was slow getting into position and got us nowhere.

poo-maker wrote:

DiM wrote:i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

I really don't like that idea... all luck.

Btw, i forgot about another way i used to end stalemates. It takes a while and some organising. If there are on average 1000 armies per player on the board and the cards are at 200, you ask everyone to make two stacks of exactly 400 in and around asia. You then get player A to auto attack 1 of player B's 400's, Player B to auto 1 of player C's 400's, and player C to auto 1 of player A's 400's. I would use this idea in every stalemate i was in except for the the sometimes slow-moving people... e.g. those who didn't really pay attention and managed to take 4 rounds to get into position... Quite often, after all of their messing around, we would be half-way to back where we started.

lol and auto attack isn't all luck??

also if everybody has 1000 troops and the cards are at 200 losing 400 troops won't solve anything. it still leaves each player with 600 troops which makes the cards not worth fighting for. so you get back at building.

DiM wrote:

poo-maker wrote:

DiM wrote:i solved 2 stalemates with the following method.

1 person makes a list with a letter/number for each player in the game.

for example poo makes this list:
poo maker is A
DiM is B
RashidJelzin is C
of course in the game our order could be completely different.

then poo pms the list to DiM and DiM confirms in chat that he received it and agrees.
now RashidJelzin choses a letter and the winner is revealed.
of course a certain level of trust is required

I really don't like that idea... all luck.

Btw, i forgot about another way i used to end stalemates. It takes a while and some organising. If there are on average 1000 armies per player on the board and the cards are at 200, you ask everyone to make two stacks of exactly 400 in and around asia. You then get player A to auto attack 1 of player B's 400's, Player B to auto 1 of player C's 400's, and player C to auto 1 of player A's 400's. I would use this idea in every stalemate i was in except for the the sometimes slow-moving people... e.g. those who didn't really pay attention and managed to take 4 rounds to get into position... Quite often, after all of their messing around, we would be half-way to back where we started.

lol and auto attack isn't all luck??

also if everybody has 1000 troops and the cards are at 200 losing 400 troops won't solve anything. it still leaves each player with 600 troops which makes the cards not worth fighting for. so you get back at building.

Well DiM, you get the same dice with auto-attack as you do with normal attack.

You're forgetting that you need 2 stacks of 400 because you auto one and let someone else auto your other.

forget DIM's idea, i like the hat draw idea. I daresay tho ppl would cheat out of it.

Assassin idea is bad. Losing is bad enough but all 7 people miss out TWICE and once lucky person most likely not to be u gets a good day,.

My favourite idea... SUICIDE............................

Jamie wrote:How can there be a stalemate? All games will end eventually.

You often get stalemates in high rank escalating games simply because nobody has played a dumb move/suicided or everybody has deployed and blocked skillfully.

poo-maker wrote:The rock, paper scissors idea sends shivers down my spine.... we might as well be playing doodle assassin.

yeah, same here!! it is such a sexy idea, i can't wait to try it!!! what a turn on!!! rock, paper, scissors, mmmmmm....-0

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.

poo-maker wrote:lol and auto attack isn't all luck??

also if everybody has 1000 troops and the cards are at 200 losing 400 troops won't solve anything. it still leaves each player with 600 troops which makes the cards not worth fighting for. so you get back at building.

Well DiM, you get the same dice with auto-attack as you do with normal attack.

You're forgetting that you need 2 stacks of 400 because you auto one and let someone else auto your other.[/quote]

obviously the dice are the same but what i mean is that in just 1 turn one guy may lose a 400v400 auto that ends 1v200 and another guy may win that auto 300v0. just because of luck the difference between the 2 is huge now, whereas in a normal game it wouldn't happen.

so 800 troops lost. sounds interesting but again luck not strategy will decide the winner.

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.