<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 22 of 22   
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:15:43


Tyrion Lannister
Level 54
Report
Simple idea. Create a "forced surrender" setting for people to use in games.

It would be an option when creating a game.

It would act as a "mercy rule".

It would work like this: When one person (or team) has at least x amount of income (or x% more income) than all other people or teams combined, the game automatically ends with all but the most powerful "force surrendering".

Simple.
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:19:15


Bane 
Level 60
Report
Stupid.
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:20:38

iamtaller
Level 52
Report
It'd have to be pretty high, like 90% more income or something to realistically work, because the smaller team/teams might have enough armies to overwhelm the biggest player/team.
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:20:42


Lawlz
Level 40
Report
Oh look, a new way to farm games
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:40:36


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Income idea would be huge flaw. Suppose you have 30 income to opposing player 5, but he has 5,000 armies and you have 100.

Wouldn't happen in a normal game, but you get the picture. The formulas would probably result in some unfair endings.

How often does this happen? Once and a while I have someone playing longer than they should be, but no formula would have ended the game automatically anyway.
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 21:59:05


Darkpie 
Level 61
Report
Unfortunately something like that wouldn't be accurate on all maps and settings but I agree it's annoying with ppl not surrendering.

That's the main reason I haven't played open games for like 10 months Chris, happened like 1/3 of the games for a while for me that I had to eliminate the opposing player to get the win.
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 23:09:53


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
I dont play open games, so I had not seen it much. Pretty annoying when that happens
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 23:35:03


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
I really like the idea actually, so long as it is optional like most other settings. Thiugh i would sy total armies is a better option than income but in most scenarios the two are linked.

The corner cases where it wouldn't work (like the one Chris described) can only really happen in specific scenarios which obviously wouldn't use this option
Forced Surrender: 4/28/2015 23:37:49


Ottarinn
Level 60
Report
OK no need for this i have played many games this is almost never a problem... shit happens trolls here and there but deal with it.
Forced Surrender: 4/29/2015 09:10:43


Monsi
Level 56
Report
i'd also vote in favour of such a rule.

I guess you'd have to adjust the formula. I would propose the following criteria

1) the game is > turn 20
2) the winning team has more than 5x the (combined) income of all the others
3) the winning time has more than 5x the armies of all the others
4) the winning team owns at least double the number of territories as all the others
5) no diplomatic cards are active (played by the winning team)
6) the winning team satisfies criteria 2), 3) and 4) for at least 3 turns in a row.
7) if one / several teams have fulfilled the criterias for 2 turns in a row, they get a message which tells them that they will get force surrendered if they don't do anything against it. (because maybe they have hoarded a big amount of reinforcement cards...)


I guess this formula would make it impossible for anyone to get forced surrendered when he actually still would have had a realistic chance of winning the game.

Edited 4/29/2015 09:25:29
Forced Surrender: 4/29/2015 09:21:23


Pink 
Level 60
Report
if ti would also be applied in ffas it would eb terrible, imagine a game where the biggest player has 100 income against 10 players with 15, it might be possible that he would lose, if others were good enough and he was bad enough to allow that to happen
Forced Surrender: 4/29/2015 09:27:15


Monsi
Level 56
Report
that's why i proposed those criteria's above. the winning team / player must fulfil these criterias against ALL his enemies COMBINED.

So in your example, the biggest player has 100 income, but all the others combined have 150, so that would not be possible.
Forced Surrender: 4/29/2015 21:17:20


Domerz
Level 56
Report
Although it would be a rare occurrence, there could be a situation where a player is one move away from capturing multiple bonuses that would boost him (or her) up to an income where they have a considerable chance.

Would also cause trouble with games that have extreme bonuses, for example,1 v 1, Base income 5, One starting spot, one player captures a 50 bonus and then wins by default, although you might argue that the setting be switched off in these cases, it would allow people to farm big time.
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 03:19:10


Master Ryiro 
Level 62
Report
how about implementing it in team games?
if both teammates and opponents force a particular player to surrender by voting on it cause he's not voting to end the game after something unfortunate happened and being a jerk
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 06:58:19


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
I was the first to join an auto-created 2v2 team game... as a level 7... the next person was a level 9... they joined the same team as myself... so far, not a problem.

the two people who joined the other team later on were levels 45 and level 30.

Problem.

You want to fix something that reduces the frequency of people dragging on after they are clearly losing?

Fix that.

Fortunately for everyone involved, neither of us on team B were interested in dragging things out, either hoping to win by booting them, or just to be annoying.

We had both surrendered by Turn 20.

But it was rather tempting to drag things out to be annoying.

Edited 4/30/2015 06:59:26
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 12:51:41


Monsi
Level 56
Report
Dublin Warrior, you may fix that yourself.

If i understand you correctly, you thought it was "unfair" that you were in a team with a low-lvl-player against a team of 2 high-level-players...

First of all, levels udually don't tell you much about how good a player is or isn't. Second, you can fix that yourself. If you create a game, you can customize the settings and allow only certain players to join. So, you could, as an example, only allow players between lvl 1 and 20 (or whatever you consider reasonable) to join your game.

Edit: I forgot that maybe you need to have a certain lvl yourself to be able to customize these settings. don't know exactly, but yeah. if it really annoys you, you can still buy the membership, then you can do it at any lvl.

Edited 4/30/2015 12:52:10
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 13:51:55


King C******* V 
Level 58
Report
Yeah what a stupid idea.
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 17:24:30


Tyrion Lannister
Level 54
Report
IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL MORONS.
nuff said.
Forced Surrender: 4/30/2015 17:26:56


Tyrion Lannister
Level 54
Report
1) the game is > turn 20
2) the winning team has more than 5x the (combined) income of all the others
3) the winning time has more than 5x the armies of all the others
4) the winning team owns at least double the number of territories as all the others
5) no diplomatic cards are active (played by the winning team)
6) the winning team satisfies criteria 2), 3) and 4) for at least 3 turns in a row.
7) if one / several teams have fulfilled the criterias for 2 turns in a row, they get a message which tells them that they will get force surrendered if they don't do anything against it. (because maybe they have hoarded a big amount of reinforcement cards...)


too extreme...

it would make the setting useless, as you'll probably be less than 5 turns from winning if yor at that point

Edited 4/30/2015 17:27:01
Forced Surrender: 5/1/2015 08:06:55

Jonto 
Level 56
Report
Instead of working so hard to create a formula, I'd suggest you guys just put better filters on the games.

New players always think they have to fight right to the last army, whereas experienced players or players with higher winning percentages typically worry less and surrender when they've lost.
Forced Surrender: 5/1/2015 08:34:14

[Falcon]The Polish Purple Bunny 
Level 55
Report
This is gonna make Custom Scenario Diplomacies hard to make as there are limitations to History balance
Forced Surrender: 5/1/2015 08:56:09


knyte 
Level 58
Report
So if you could just implement it as an option that would let game creators decide what the force surrender criteria are (in terms of % of armies controlled, income difference, % of income, etc.), that would solve the issue with different formulas for different situations.

However, I can see a ton of players exploiting this to farm games by setting really low criteria (say, "20% of armies") or something that they'll know they'll meet in the first few turns, so there needs to be a system better than Highlighted Settings for users to catch this. I like the new warnings in the game thumbnails; if we could implement something akin to that for settings like Forced Surrender (but even more noticeable, maybe a pop-up) that would help solve the problem.
Posts 1 - 22 of 22