In response to the recent threeway stalemates, and some of the two player games I have seen die, is it possible to have an option to vote for a tie?

It can use the same mechanic as voting to accept someones surrender, where all players must agree and a game can finish as a tie.  

I'm not too good with the stats, but maybe this will have a neutral affect on your stats, instead of a positive or negative effect. 

How is this different than voting to terminate the game?  That ends the game with no affect (effect?) on players stats.

and remember: if you don't agree with terminate as all other players we are going to terminate you out of this game first, capito?

That'll solve the stalemate...

If you want it to have a neutral effect, then simply have it count as if it never happened. In this case all players, even those who have been previously eliminated, are off the hook.  I was recently in a game with 8+ players - it came down to three and stayed that way for months.  We eventually ended it, but I would have gladly opted for a draw in that game. Of course, this would be unacceptable in tournament play.  I would give my +1 to such an arrangement, because in games that started with more than 3 players, generally speaking, it would not be advisable to accept a draw except in extreme circumstances.

Just about any other solution is going involve fractional wins and loses, which would be an absolute nightmare on the stats end of things.  Depending on how it is implemented. something like H-Ratings (one of the most important stats on this site if you asked me), might not even be salvageable.  

I might "consider" giving a +1 for an alternate arrangement only if every extant stat could be maintained. But I'm tempted to say that I would probably vote against it either way.  There are no ties in baseball, tennis, golf.. You just keep playing until someone wins.

If I recall correctly (it's been some 30+ years since I played Risk as an adolescent), the game only ended when there was a single victor OR when someone knocked over the board spraying the pieces all over the room.  In the case of the latter, consensus regarding who won who lost was never reached, this by design of the person who knocked over the board.

Hmmm.. Here's an idea.  Maybe any player in a game with 3 players could be allowed roll a D6 to try and knock over the board ;)

I don't think its fair that being the final 3 of 8 counts for nothing so why not have a draw which gives points. Just have a random number generator and so a draw gives each person still in the game an equal chance of "winning the lottery" and that way one person is credited with the win but the expected value of the point distribution is that the top 3 (or whoever is left) each get an equal share of the rating points. This avoids the problem of fractional stats and seems fair to me. Obviously it would have the same mechanic as agreeing to surrender or terminate.

Mad Bomber wrote:

nothing should change.....too easy to cheat....when only 4 left

What do you mean, how would you cheat?

I'm curious what MB means. But, regardless, the goal is world domination. To finish in  a 3-way tie among 10 means that the goal has not been achieved. We do not give out medals for 2nd and 3rd place, and that's essentially what would be doing if we gave partial credit for ties. Unless I'm losing badly or can win the 3-way, I avoid 3-ways, because it is contrary to the goal - world domination.

I am often stuck in 3 player stalemates, so I'd love to get some points for that, but I don't think it's a good idea.   I think if you do split up points for this, you will get more players 'playing not to lose', instead of 'playing to win'.  That will just make stalemates even more likely.

A similar phenomenon happens in chess frequently and sometimes poker. The weaker player will frequently play for a draw in chess as a consequence of being able to get half a point for a draw. While sometimes this in fact works frequently playing for a draw leads to a loss. The reason is that you have no possibility to win as you are only trying to not lose so the best result is a draw but it also very possible for a loss. So this frequently makes it even easier for the stronger player to win. Similarly in poker on the edge of a bubble in a tournament, but that simply means other players can gather your chips at a slower but not insignificant rate. Players might try to play not to lose but that already exists somewhat in the form of turtling and it also has a large risk of backfiring on them. All in all I think it is beneficial and the fairest way to resolve stalemates (poker tournaments allow splits among the top few players if they desire). You could enable perhaps a system similar to poker tournaments where players can propose splits of the points (50/50 or 70/30) and the players can arrive at what they think is a fair distribution.

I'll take a shot at what MB means.  Say ten are playing a game. Somewhere during the game, four players (legally) form an alliance with the understanding that when they have eliminated all of the other players, rather than "play it out", they will play the "stalemate lottery".  The advantage  is that players can extend themselves further than they might normally, knowing for instance, that they will not be taken out by their allies if they succeed in eliminating the last non-ally.  It's not even cheating, technically.

FYI - it's "cliques"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique