I like the draw idea, but my biggest problem with it (and with Voting) is that all those points for the hours/days/weeks/months you spent on a game poof. The problem gets compounded when the world decides to gang up on those who DONT vote, as it entirely changes the nature of that match.

Maybe, instead of a draw offering no points, it takes what the winner would have gotten, divides it in half or maybe into a quarter, and splits it among all remaining players? That still encourages players to keep struggling for winner, while offering an alternative to a stalemate.

Just an idea from someone who hates the idea of wasting those points.

I see your point M. Poireau but what about the people that quit before there is 3 players left? That can efect the game tremendously.In some games you can't see who is the top player and might ally with them by mistake. I know there is no simple solution but I still think in your scenario that players B and C still have incentive to fight it out with A or each other.

I think this could be useful under certain circumstances. Having it as an option could prove to be very useful, as I have played games where had this been an option some people may have continued playing. The issue is with how would 2nd/3rd be evaluated if they are both eliminated on the same turn, as well as the fact that in some games it may prove counter-intuitive to have. However, I don't think you can guess how the end game is going to play out, so it would be difficult to state when you should use such a setting.

I agree that the rules change encourages people to "stay in the game" longer, which is a very good thing. Is there any other way to get this effect? I'm not sure.

However, it has all kinds of other unintended side effects.

A big part is that I do not think elimination is a good measure of how well someone played.

I've seen far too many games where one of the weaker or more useless players survived longer, despite having played very poorly. As a simple example, if this were the rule, the moment I thought I was losing, I'd Blockade myself in a corner somewhere and wait for the game to end. That could almost guarantee me second place!

Not a great thing for Warlight, in my opinion.

As another argument, consider again my Players A-B-C example. If the rule is that second place gets a bunch of points, that means players B and C are now enemies. Under the normal rules, they'd have an incentive to work together against player A. Under this rule, Player C should Blockade himself into a corner and wait. If he cannot, then players B and C need to attack each other, and both ask Player A for help.

This puts Player A into a really awkward position:

* She can let them fight it out, and wait. This is really boring for everyone - we already know how the game will end, why bother to play on at all?

* She can choose to ally with one over the other. (Note that it doesn't really matter which!) This is also bad for the game, because now we have one player (A) CHOOSING which player will be in second place. The person who wins second place will not have EARNED it - it will simply have been up to Player A's whims. This is terrible game design.

Another note:

"Voting to end" in order to split the points is potentially a good idea.

It has, however, some major problems, mainly that it would encourage a lot of games to end prematurely. (e.g. You could farm points by starting games, booting one person, and then all voting to end.)

It works well in the boardgame Diplomacy because of another, very important rule:

In Diplomacy, you win not by eliminating everyone, but by owning HALF THE BOARD.

This very, very important rule changes *everything*, and is absolutely key to making it work. It creates some very volatile and clever balance of power which encourages exciting games.

(Notice that in my Player A-B-C example, Player A can win very easily, and thus wouldn't bother coordinating with either of the players. If they coordinate well together, however, they could have a pretty exciting and even battle with Player A, to earn themselves the right to be included in the draw.)

The points would only be applied to your level not your win stats so I don't think that it wouyld be as big a deal as you think. As to the way you think it would change the game it could but it also depends on the player. I would never boarder myself up to get second place, thats just 2 peoples way of thinking. As to the cheating it happens already and usally those people are called out for it so that really is not a reason to not try it.

First off, I oppose any eliminated/booted/surrendered players getting any points or any stat other than Loss.

In Diplomacy, you win not by eliminating everyone, but by owning HALF THE BOARD.

This very, very important rule changes *everything*, and is absolutely key to making it work. It creates some very volatile and clever balance of power which encourages exciting games.

(Notice that in my Player A-B-C example, Player A can win very easily, and thus wouldn't bother coordinating with either of the players. If they coordinate well together, however, they could have a pretty exciting and even battle with Player A, to earn themselves the right to be included in the draw.)

I don't play a lot of FFA, and the FFA I have played didn't have a lot of diplomacy, however, I think a Vote for Draw feature would capture some of the dynamics from the boardgame Diplomacy.

Your Player A-B-C example could demonstrate this. You are right to note that Player A could easily win, but if Players B & C coordinate, they might be able to stop him. But another situation now arises -- if player B plays his cards right, he could finesse a win for himself. Maybe he'll convince Player C to suicide himself into Player A while growing large enough so he can't be stopped (say on RoR Player C breaks Player A's Parthian Empire while Player B focuses on completing Spain/Carthigian/Africa).

But then Player A could point this out to Player C and get him to hesitate just enough so Player A is unstoppable.

Or maybe Player C will realize that he is kingmaker and can put either A or B over the top, and uses this leverage to call for a draw?

That is classic Diplomacy, and while most often I think WarLight games will end in single winners, occasionally, in Diplo games, you might have very exciting endgames.

Edited 8/2/2016 00:34:52

What about today where I had a 3v3 I joined, LotR map. I was like heck yeah I'll do this. Had a few low levels, but I love LotR and hadn't played the map in awhile, so why not? Oh yeah, here's why not...

After T1 completes, my 2 teammates go afk. I'm left in a 1v3. I tried to VTE, and ask if they would allow it. They said no. I got a bit heated from this. Everybody I know would just VTE and move on.. After awhile of trying to explain, well, he still wouldn't do it.. Well dang, alright I'll just surrender I guess. I really didn't like how they would VTE but whatever... (not really). BUTTTTTT they wouldn't accept my surrender...

I'm obviously not going to play a 1v3 and waste my time, so I had to sit there and get booted, making my boot rate go up.

And to make things better, the 2 players who were on my team that got booted after T1....

I don't wanna put him on total blast publicly so I won't put his name.

https://gyazo.com/7d913ca889d93a297d8b312d163caa8a.png
https://gyazo.com/58e229f0bb88b2137709f5af78280a79.png

You wanna keep people in game longer, I just wanted out :p

Edited 8/2/2016 05:53:23

Mr. Nobody I totally understad your point but what I propose would not force you to stay in the game longer, it is an incentive to play longer. Also it would not apply to a 3v3 game because there is only a winning team and a losing team, now if there was 8 or more teams then it might be applied.