Deadlocked Games Procedure changes - Suggestion and Poll

[rick.leeds]

We've been putting some thought into the DPG and we're wondering about making some changes.

The current procedure is laid out here.

We are considering two changes to the criteria, specifically:

2. No more than half the number of players that started the game are still active, rounded-up. In other words, for the standard game the maximum number of players in the game for it to be considered under the DGP is four; in Ancient Mediterranean it's 3.

On this point we are likely to remove the limit on the number of players. Whilst the original idea was that there is too much room for players to change the situation with more than half the players in the game, we also acknowledge that some situations with more than half the players can be deadlocked. We feel there is no harm in removing this criterion.

3. The game must feature a potential soloist and an alliance of all other powers preventing the solo.

We are also considering removing this criterion. However, this is a more significant change in the criteria as it means a change to the fundamental reason for the procedure.

The point has always been that one player should not be able to hold others in a game which should have ended in a draw; that a player should not be able to earn a solo by holding out for players to NMR or surrender. In this situation, it is pretty clear cut - a soloist is preventing the game from ending by depending on others to simply get sick of the game or make a mistake.

Extending this to any situation where the game is deadlocked is more problematic. It comes down to whether we think players in an alliance vs alliance (eg 2v2, 3v2) situation is are not accepting the draw because they're choosing to not take the risk. The position we've taken is that, in this situation, there is always room for a player to change sides and therefore produce a situation by which the game can reach a 'natural' conclusion. If you want to end the game in this situation, then you can alter the dynamics of the alliance structure; if you choose not to do this, then that is your choice.

The argument for changing the situation is that the onus should not be on those who want to end the game. If the game is deadlocked by choice, or is stalemated, players shouldn't be forced to remain in the game, regardless of whether it is a potential soloist vs Grand Alliance or alliance vs alliance. In any deadlocked situation, the onus should be on the player(s) who want the game to run on to show that they have a credible strategy to change the deadlock; a credible strategy is NOT to wait for another player to surrender! So we could take alliance vs alliance deadlock scenarios and action these unless the player(s) who are not allowing the game to end can show they have a plan to move the game on.

So the question is whether or not we allow alliance vs alliance situations be considered under the DPG. This would change the focus from asking those who want to end the game in a deadlock to argue for this to asking those who want to keep the game running to show their plan to end the game.

We'd like to get your thoughts, rather than just a poll vote And, although it isn't part of the poll, your thoughts on removing the criterion on the number of players in a deadlocked game.

NB: To be clear; we aren't seeking opinions on whether or not games should be ended using the DPG. Neither are we looking for suggestions or opinions on any other parts of the procedure. The DPG as it stands works; it is simply whether or not we open any game with a probable deadlock.

[drnomeansyes]

I've already made my thoughts on this known, but I'm in favor of both of these amendments. Stalemated situations aren't necessarily dependent on number of players, so I'm certainly on the same page as the mods on the first criterion change. Since what's reported will always be investigated for merit, that criterion seems unnecessary.

The second criterion is obviously the more controversial one, but I still think the removal is a good idea:

3. The game must feature a potential soloist and an alliance of all other powers preventing the solo.

We are also considering removing this criterion. However, this is a more significant change in the criteria as it means a change to the fundamental reason for the procedure.

The point has always been that one player should not be able to hold others in a game which should have ended in a draw; that a player should not be able to earn a solo by holding out for players to NMR or surrender. In this situation, it is pretty clear cut - a soloist is preventing the game from ending by depending on others to simply get sick of the game or make a mistake.

I don't think the situation is as clear cut as was originally intended. Having one player that is impeding a game from its intended course to a draw doesn't necessitate that player being a soloist or potential soloist. Rather, it could be a player in an alliance who would like to be a soloist (or one looking for a draw with fewer players and thus more points to gain than with all current players surviving) but who refuses to accept that an opposing alliance does not wish to turn upon one another. In a similar scenario to which a potential soloist refuses draws in hopes of an NMR from the ALA, such a player would refuse draws until one of the players in the other alliance NMRs, effectively dissolving that alliance's defense without having diplomatically convinced a member of that alliance to do so. As always, the assumption here is that strategic movement/positioning of units is a nonfactor prior to such a breakdown.

As you've noted, credible strategies do not include waiting for an opponent to surrender, which is the intention in such situations even when it's not one player vs. the rest. I think this change is only a positive addition to the deadlocked game procedure.

[rick.leeds]

Following this overwhelmingly active discussion the new DPG is now in place.

[PJL]

Personally, I think this should only apply to those trying to achieve a solo rather than alliance win. I don't have a problem with lifting the number of players restriction.