So I was thinking about a hypothetical situation, and thought I would toss it out for discussion.

Lets say I join a 12 player game, and at the end of the game I get into a situation where there are two players left, and I have an overwhelming advantage,  but because of the way the map is designed I am unable to finish off the final player.

I would feel that I have legitimately "won" the game, and obviously the points from winning a 12 player game are significant.  Could there be some automatic mechanism for declaring a winner besides elimination?  If not, would there be situations in which an impartial third party could be brought in to declare a winner?

In any case, should the map designer be forced to rethink the mechanics on the map that causes the situation?

BD

This would be a map that is flawed in my opinion, and as a reviewer I would lobby for it not to pass.

@Dog, do you think such a map currently exists on WG?

IMO the contest should always be decided by elimination.  Even if it means a true test of patience waiting for one player to slip up.

@Attila,

I think BlackDog is referring to a flawed map design, not a crab game.

I think we should make sure we get BD whatever he wants.
He's really down on his luck these days.
He's down to only a 90 point lead in the Board Championships... 

I think there are some boards where having some sort of "alternate win criteria" would be beneficial to them.  I've played through some stalemates and they are b-o-r-i-n-g.  One I am thinking of I ended the stalemate by killing myself just to get it over.

Amidon37 wrote:

I think there are some boards where having some sort of "alternate win criteria" would be beneficial to them.  I've played through some stalemates and they are b-o-r-i-n-g.  One I am thinking of I ended the stalemate by killing myself just to get it over.

This is an idea that I have proposed inclusive of my widget suggestion.  Regardless, until such options exist it's up to board designers to design boards that avoid or discourage standoffish strategies.  I would hope that boards that don't do this would be rated unfavorably because I would prefer to avoid them.

I am all for a "forced redesign" if such a flaw exists, but I don't think it could actually be forced.

Alpha wrote:

I am all for a "forced redesign" if such a flaw exists, but I don't think it could actually be forced.

 

You mean "en"forced, right?  Sure, why not?  Players/Reviewers could ask the designer to do this. At worst, Tom can always pull the board.  One problem that is sure to arise is when designers are no longer active on the site.  If it's an easy fix and the board is very popular, someone could go in and make the requisite changes.

I was thinking though that the reality of the matter is that if a "flawed" board activated, that flaw is usually discovered pretty quickly (while the designer is still around) and the the requisite changes can be easily made.

This is somewhat related. What happens to the championship points related to boards that are retired?

The problem of the disappearing designer is what I was referring to for a live board, but in addition I meant that a designer does not need to make the changes even if they are warranted and cannot actually be forced (I was also only referring to live boards as this is something that should prevent a board from passing).

This is somewhat related. What happens to the championship points related to boards that are retired?

Good question; this has never been settled and as far as I know it has not actually come up as I don't think any board has been retired.

Currently Championship Points are "locked" once a board gets Retired, those that have CPs continue to have them counted (rightly so probably), while no one can surpass them since the board is locked.  To my knowledge this has happened 3 times, 1 Risky and 1 EN both of which came back, then Doom's board had a few games/points on it before he took it down in his "retirement".  I'm fairly against the retiring mechanism once boards have Points on them.

Yertle wrote:

  I'm fairly against the retiring mechanism once boards have Points on them.

I'm mixed about this, but yours is a strong argument for some kind of no-retirement policy.  There is the potential for abuse.

@Dog, do you think such a map currently exists on WG?

Yes, I don't want to talk about the specifics now since the game is in progress, but when it finishes I'll explain how a stalemate would happen, if it doesn't.

Also, Wargear the Gathering has unbreakable stalemates.. I'm not so concerned there since it is a 2 player game.

The board I am worried about is Lord of Destruction, I see several ways that stalemates could form due to the bottlenecks and unit limitations combined with the high card values in large games.

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/29011

In this game for instance, when we were down to three players at the end, before I took the ruby orb, things could very easily have turned into a stalemate where I controlled the right half of the board and the sapphire orb but could not advance against my opponents.  Even after taking the ruby orb, I was unsure of my ability to finish them off, fortunately they played in a manner which allowed me to grab the win.

A more concrete example would be a case where one player controls an orb, and card values are high enough that he can replenish the men on the orb faster than his opponent can kill them from the  limited spots that can attack the orb.  In that case you could force a stalemate while controlling only one territory and no bonuses.