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.

Stupid.

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.

Oh look, a new way to farm games

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.

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.

I dont play open games, so I had not seen it much. Pretty annoying when that happens

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Yeah what a stupid idea.

IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL MORONS.
nuff said.

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

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.