Can we please never let this happen again?

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9084619

Or you could read the settings before you join a game to see if it's your sort of thing. Some people enjoy those settings.

Yeah, but most people expect the Warrior games to be the same, not some douche changing the settings. It's not like it was obvious it was different to a normal Warrior game.

Secondly, just me reading the settings won't be enough, everyone will have to check the settings before joining.

Wait, hold on, I just re-read what you said... WHO enjoys these settings?! I know of no-one who enjoys stalemates...?

Edited 7/12/2015 21:56:48

You should be able to distinguish which templates will be entertaining and which won't, before joining a game. Do you use the options in Settings>Highlight?

On the other hand you're free to disapprove game hosts who don't specify the details of "interesting" templates in the info.

He was specifically creating the game to stalemate so that people would give up and give him the win, his name is cookie and he does a lot of stuff like this, just trying to make sure the community more aware. I play a lot of Warrior games, if you're not familiar with the game type, it has altered settings already from what is normal. But the way he altered it mostly fit with normal games, so it wasn't that easy to detect, to be honest I looked at the settings before the game, but thought "A base of 15, and reduced incomes, what harm could that do?"

But once we were in the game we realised very quickly that it was set up to stalemate, when confronting the host about this and suggesting we vote to end because the settings were bad, he said we should all surrender and give him the win. It then took all of us about an hour just to manage to kill him so we could end the game, even after an hour we didn't actually manage to kill him (that's 5 on 1, by the way) he just finally agreed to vote.

I hope that explaination helps a bit more, as it seems very few of you actually looked at the game in question, and from what I can see the only way to prevent this from happening again is to make everyone more aware before joining Warrior games, or really, any cookie games specifically. I wouldn't mind if it was accidentally set up with bad settings, but this was meant to create a statemate deliberately, as seen by the confrontation with the host in game-chat.

Who really gives a crap >_>

It would have to be players who both don't like to waste their time and who also don't like cheating/foulplay.

We could have surrendered to not waste as much time, but it would have meant giving him the points, which we didn't want to do. So therefore if you are a player who either doesn't mind wasting time, or who doesn't mind cheating/foul play then this thread won't apply to you.

I derived the conclusions above from the following logic:

Lets say statement a) is: Player doesn't like wasting time.
and statement b) is: Player doesn't like cheating.

If a is true, and b is false: Player can surrender.
If a is false and a is true: Player can play out the game for infinity.
If both are false: Player can pick either of the above actions.
If both are true: Player would care about avoiding this situation again.

Therefore only if both are true would the player be interested in this post.

If course it also depends on what a player considers to be a waste of time, and what a player considers cheating. Can anyone else see anything I can add? I think I covered all the major points. I also can't say how many players would be covered by this statement, but everyone in the game apart from the host felt this way, so I assumed from that it would be a high percentage.

Interesting question, I hope that sufficiently answers it for you. Surprised you care so much, thanks :)

I'll bother you again, if I may.

But once we were in the game we realised very quickly that it was set up to stalemate,

I'm not familiar with this type of game. You're implying that in other games of this non-standard sort, there aren't stalemates.

So could you tell me what was the particular reason this game ended up in a stalemate? What made it different than the other Warrior games you enjoy to play?

Edited 7/14/2015 00:57:13

In Warrior games, the defence is set really high (85%) and attack is set really low (35%) which is ok, it creates slower more thought out games.

To counter this the base incomes are very low normally, and there is a bonus income (+1 for each territory) so basically once you start getting bigger you can usually overpower people.

But in this game the base income was set to 15 a turn (really high, normally just 2) and the +1 per territory was also missing, and the territory bonuses were also a little lower than standard.

This basically meant that no matter how much land you had you weren't much higher income than a player with even just 1 territory. That tied in with the higher defence meant it was basically impossible to kill anyone, even after turn 37 in the above game nobody was yet dead... and that game was eventually voted.

So basically watch out for high base income, that was the real problem with it.

Okay, this clarifies everything. Thank you!

No problem :)

I've noticed that he was at it again today:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9097840

I thought if I blacklisted a host his games wouldn't show up? :/

Edited 7/14/2015 20:38:15