Prevent stalemates by changing the increasing cards turn-in structure.

Here's an idea spawned from an idea I once came across in these forums to help prevent stalemates:

By changing the increasing cards turn in schedule -
to increase the increase in amount of troops received in later turn ins.

In the current schedule, once the increase of five is reached, it remains at 5.

THE IDEA -
After a certain number of turn-ins is reached, the increase jumps.

A possible system can be to increase the increase every SEVEN turn ins (from 4 to 6 to 8 to 10 to 12 to 15 to 20 [from initial turn in to the turn in jump by five] is SEVEN turn-ins. Also from 20 to 25 to 30 to 35 to 40 to 45 to 50 is another SEVEN turn ins. [and 50 is a nice number to look out for ])
so it would go from 50 to 60 to 70 ... 110 to 120 to 135 etc.

What do you think?

Didn't Vex suggest it a while ago?

could be. I once saw something similar.
But tried to search a little, didn't find it.

My idea involved calculating the turn in value to guarantee the weakest player would always be worth killing for 5 cards. The problem with the idea is that it would make it hard to plan since the turn in value could jump up and down depending on how many troops the weakest player had.

This idea could work just fine given the right number of players on the right map. The card value only going up by 5 is definitely a problem with some setups. That rule was made for the world map and there aren't as many stalemates on the world map because the increase of 5 each turn-in matches the bonuses on the map. Stalemates arise more often on maps with easy to get bonuses or not choosing enough players to share the number of bonuses on the map resulting in per turn bonuses that are worth more than a card is. There are also maps where players are content after taking one bonus and then only attack to get cards after that which also results in massive build ups.

To me it would make more sense for 50-100 to go up by 10's and 100-200 by 20's, 200-400 by 40's, and I doubt any game will ever go any higher than that. This way the amount it goes up by doubles every 5 turn-ins after 50. We could call it exponential increasing. This might increase too fast though, I just chose those numbers because it would be easy to remember. Regardless of what the final solution is I think it will involve exponentially increasing the increase.

Now if I had the time I could come up with an algorithm to determine how much the increase should increase based on the maps bonuses and the number of players but it probably wouldn't be perfect and it would take a lot of work to get it right. Or we could make the option as I described above and let the players figure out which setups it works best for and for which it is too much.

This is a good idea and will most probably save about 50% of stalemates from occurring.

Somewhere on the forums (staff forums?) there is a good idea for exponential cards.

http://dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=887&board=20

It wasn't that hard to search it

best way to avoid a stalemate is to kill kill kill .....and then be killed

Prevent stalemates: capped cards and deadmatch are in war and they must be in separate groups

Here was Vexer's previous exponential cards suggestion:


I think this is good, but for many-player games (7-9 players) it would increase too fast after the 15th turn-in. I think it would be best if you could create games with the following options:
No Cards (although I hate this one)
Fixed Cards (only works 1v1 or on tiny maps, in my opinion)
Capped Cards (doesn't work on massive maps)
Increasing Cards (apparently can cause stalemates on massive maps)
Exponential Cards (sorts out the stalemate problem)

Maybe creating exponential cards games would be a premium feature, but anyone can join.

It doesn't cause stalemates on just massive maps, our smallest ones like Brethren Coast and Caribbean are as stalemate-prone as Westeros.

Let's try the exponential cards option and see if it helps.

Ha, I forgot I ever wrote that. I was so tired yesterday.

Is anything going to happen about this suggestion, or is it just going to be forgotten? I ask because I think it's a really good idea and would love to see it implemented.

In due time Virtuosity98

ok Thanks lol