No draws allowed

[asudevil]

BTW, part of the issue is that people may play more aggressive in the attempt to get a better shot at a solo. But that aggression may instead get them eliminated. But since its a no draws allowed game may as well go for the gusto. But if we allowed games that are supposed to be no draws allowed...to then end in draws when its stalemated...that changes how people play.

Really then this leads to a bigger issue of people not playing the game trying for a solo EVERY game. Lots of people just wanting to get into a game...and get a 3 man draw...which is fine...but games should only (IMO) be able to end in a draw if its truly stalemated...too many carebear draws on this site.

[Jack007]

...
So as Asu says, when this situation occurs we simply say we will choose a player and make them the solo winner. Some players do not like that, but there is no other option I can see; the game system would not be happy with games where are there are no winners or drawers. So therefore, we cannot allow these as ranked games because arbitrarily deciding a winner clearly damages the integrity of the scoring system if the game is ranked.

The added advantage is that if the game is unranked, it is less likely we even have to get involved. People will probably just give up anyway once it is stalemated to someone will win by default

I hope that makes sense! We couldn't see any other sensible alternative.

I beg to disagree, there is always an alternative.

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.

[asudevil]

[quote="Jack007"

I beg to disagree, there is always an alternative.

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.[/quote]

But what if I get Italy...Ill just play to try and force a draw then...since I probably won't solo. So people are then playing for different results. Some are trying to solo...and others are trying to force a draw to not lose points.

And again, the bigger issue is people just not playing EVERY game for a solo

[rd45]

I beg to disagree, there is always an alternative.

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.

But what if I get Italy...Ill just play to try and force a draw then...since I probably won't solo. So people are then playing for different results. Some are trying to solo...and others are trying to force a draw to not lose points.

And again, the bigger issue is people just not playing EVERY game for a solo

All these responses are just different ways of agreeing with what I said back in post no.2. You set up a scoring system that rewards draws, and then complain that people play for a draw? Well, it's ok if you want to lie down with dogs, but please don't complain about the fleas.

I like Jack007's suggestion, but you wouldn't even need to unrank the stalemated games. Just declare that every drawn game always scores zero for all participants. I venture to suggest that we'd see fewer carebear draws in such a ranking system. If that's really your goal, there are very easy ways to realise it.

[super_dipsy]

You set up a scoring system that rewards draws, and then complain that people play for a draw?

I personally have no problem with draws especially in online games. If people have stopped having fun, why can't they agree a draw? I assume from the first part of this sentence, you would prefer a scoring system that only gives points if you solo. My personal view is that would make a lot of people unhappy. But of course you are entitled to your opinion; it just seems to me that if people get nothing for stopping a solo with other allies, then a lot of games would be pointless after the first few years for some players. People who have no chance of soloing would be quite likely in my mind just to jump ship since they have 0 prospect of anything, even if they team up to force a stalemate.

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.

An interesting idea, but doesn't that hit the rating system? What you are doing is limiting the 'risk' part of the risk/reward equation. I would think strong players would always choose solo only games; they know that if they are playing lesser opposition, a draw will usually lose them points, but by playing solo only they are protected from that because as long as they do not actually lose, they are guaranteed not to lose any points, even if it is a 5 way draw. It feels like you are having your cake and eating it, doesn't it?

[Jack007]

But what if I get Italy...Ill just play to try and force a draw then...since I probably won't solo. So people are then playing for different results. Some are trying to solo...and others are trying to force a draw to not lose points.

And again, the bigger issue is people just not playing EVERY game for a solo

It is not a draw, because in a normal game the participants of a draw outcome better than those being eliminated (or having surrendered). But in this case all seven players get zero points, as stated by rd45.

And for the case of Italy: firstly it is well possible to solo with Italy. Secondly, no matter which country you get, at the moment when you see that you cannot solo you naturally change your strategy in the sense that you try to stop any other player to solo. That's absolutely legitimate, also in a no draw game. As mentioned before, it wouldn't lead to a draw, it's just hindering someone else to solo, of course with the help of others.

[Jack007]

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.

An interesting idea, but doesn't that hit the rating system? What you are doing is limiting the 'risk' part of the risk/reward equation. I would think strong players would always choose solo only games; they know that if they are playing lesser opposition, a draw will usually lose them points, but by playing solo only they are protected from that because as long as they do not actually lose, they are guaranteed not to lose any points, even if it is a 5 way draw. It feels like you are having your cake and eating it, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't hit the rating system. If one player solos, he gets points, the others lose points, as in every ranked game. If you join a solo-only-game you risk to lose points. The Elo system would still be perfectly balanced, same as it is with all ranked games. And in case nobody solos, the game is treated like an unranked game, the same what we have actually.

[StarWatcher009]

You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.

An interesting idea, but doesn't that hit the rating system? What you are doing is limiting the 'risk' part of the risk/reward equation. I would think strong players would always choose solo only games; they know that if they are playing lesser opposition, a draw will usually lose them points, but by playing solo only they are protected from that because as long as they do not actually lose, they are guaranteed not to lose any points, even if it is a 5 way draw. It feels like you are having your cake and eating it, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't hit the rating system. If one player solos, he gets points, the others lose points, as in every ranked game. If you join a solo-only-game you risk to lose points. The Elo system would still be perfectly balanced, same as it is with all ranked games. And in case nobody solos, the game is treated like an unranked game, the same what we have actually.

High rated players lose points for draws.

[Jack007]

High rated players lose points for draws.

Not exactly. A high rated player loses points for not soloing against weaker players. Something similar to these no-draw-games, albeit not exactly the same, because the others are allowed to draw, but not him.

[Strategus]

And again...we wouldn't have the game "end" with 0 points...we would randomly pick a solo winner.

Why?

The real reason is the one Asu brought up. When we introduced 'no draws allowed' games, we immediately found ourselves getting dragged in to sort out games where it was a draw. Players would come to us asking us to close the game down as a draw because otherwise it would just go to the player who was prepared to stick it out the longest and wait for someone else to give up out of sheer boredom. Now this put us in a quandary; what do we do? The players deliberately asked for a game where no draws were allowed. And now they are asking for a draw.

After some thought, we decided the only option was to choose a winner. We can't make it a draw because that breaks the conditions of the game created, but it is also unreasonable to make people play on until someone gets so bored that they give up. So as Asu says, when this situation occurs we simply say we will choose a player and make them the solo winner. Some players do not like that, but there is no other option I can see; the game system would not be happy with games where are there are no winners or drawers. So therefore, we cannot allow these as ranked games because arbitrarily deciding a winner clearly damages the integrity of the scoring system if the game is ranked.

The same logic would apply to a normal ranked game, when one player is going for a solo, and the others stop them. The moderators get called in and adjudicate a draw. The same rules should apply to solo only games. The only difference being that nobody picks up ranking points. You don't randomly decide on a solo winner in current ranked games that get mod adjudicated, so why should you in a solo only game? You say you can't make it a draw because it breaks the conditions of the game, but it doesn't at all. The conditions of the game are that someone solos or nobody gets anything out of it. It is a valid variant. As valid as any other. The players sign up to that when they join the game. You arguments are all based on opinion, not logic.

Also, I am not advocating changing any rules for standard games. Leave that as is. Just add this in as a variant. Yes, players will play differently. So what? They play differently in fog of war, gunboat, versailles...etc...etc...etc... That is the argument for doing it, not for not doing it. People who prefer to go all or nothing have no better or worse case for the style they want to play and enjoy their games as someone who prefers to carebear three way draws every game. It just gives everybody the option to play games against like minded people. More choice - more customer satisfaction - less threads like this to worry about.