Report • Board Game Arena

All reports

thirtyone_displayed reports

#127276: "Stalemate situation "

implemented: This suggestion has been implemented

What is this report about?

thirtyone #524830611

What happened ? Please select from below

Suggestion: in my opinion, the following would greatly improve the game implementation

What happened ? Please select from below

Suggestion: in my opinion, the following would greatly improve the game implementation

Please check if there is already a report on the same subject

If yes, please VOTE for this report. Reports with the most votes are taken care of in PRIORITY!

#	Status	Votes	Game	Type	Title	Last update

Detailed description

Report history

13. Jun 2024 19:08 • NnSshared • This suggestion has not been analyzed by delopers yet:

No other info

13. Jun 2024 20:18 • ufm • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

You have to close the round to get out of the loop.

26. Jun 2024 00:44 • Zeus • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

no it's a very specific scenario where somebody intentionally shuffles to not pass along, and would just grab the 3rd card if the other person closed the round. it can happen that neither player is incentivized to progress the game. would be nice to have a tie offer for these scenarios, they happen somewhat frequently at higher levels - look at this scenario in the round where i am 3-1 ahead: boardgamearena.com/table?table=524830611. i know they have 2 spades, so if i gave them the 8s, they would likely win, so i have to shuffle the hearts instead because passing along would allow them to gain an edge as they would be first to play. in games with a high level friend of mine, we just agree to a tie after a few shuffles, but there should be a better option.

in order for people to not endlessly shuffle anyway, an automatic end of the round if x number of exchanges happen with no progress should also be implemented / added as an optional setting.

26. Jun 2024 03:19 • ufm • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

Closing the round has nothing to do with the next round's first player.

26. Jun 2024 03:30 • Zeus • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

i am aware, what i said is in reference to me not being incentivized to pass along - when he passes, and i pass along, the 3 middle cards are exchanged and it would be his turn first and he so he can take the desired cards. thats why shuffling is the superior move - its a flaw in the game, because it is a stalemate where both players should not progress.

getting an anti-stalemate option would be big for that reason.

in most casual games, it doesn't matter and people will progress to not be annoying, but if played competitively / optimally, this will come up and needs a better solution.

26. Jun 2024 03:38 • ufm • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

Then close the round... Closing is not equivalent to passing.

26. Jun 2024 03:43 • Focus • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

i agree that adding an option to agree to tie the round and/or blocking people from endlessly shuffling in order to block a pass would improve the game

26. Jun 2024 03:52 • Zeus • Developers think that it is not a good idea or that the cost/benefit ratio is too high:

nobody can close profitably there - if you check the scenario from the replay, NnSshared became annoyed and closed, and I then exchanged and won the round.
if played optimally (and he knew that too), he had to continue passing there, and I had to continue shuffling, because I don't have enough to close and win (knowing he has at least 17), and if I did exchange the 8 of Spades, then he could take it and would likely win.

his best move: passing
my best move: shuffling 2 cards

this should be repeated endlessly with optimal play. closing is not an option that either of us can take if we wanted to win. it's an option that progresses the game, but it doesn't favor either player. with good players this happens fairly often and is unavoidable.

Adding a "tie offer" would be great and something most honorable players would want - and an extra optional setting to protect yourself against people potentially abusing it "round automatically closes after 20 moves without progress" would be great.

People could virtually just sit there and shuffle cards, and wait for the other person to get bored / give up. I've had similar scenarios with many players, where nothing but the same exchanges were done for 10 minutes and draw offers via chat were ignored.

26. Jun 2024 04:27 • ufm • This suggestion has been implemented:

Ok, added automatic closure rule.
If the round does not end after surviving player count x 10 moves after the last card draw (either by round start or fresh draw after all players pass), the round instantly ends.

30. Jun 2024 06:15 • ufm • This suggestion has been implemented:

Changed to 15 x player count

Add something to this report

Please add here anything that seems relevant to reproduce this bug or understand your suggestion:

Another table ID / move ID
Did F5 solve the problem?
Did the problem appears several time? Everytime? Randomly?
If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use Imgur.com to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

LB_CANCEL Update report

#127276: "Stalemate situation "

What is this report about?

What happened ? Please select from below

What happened ? Please select from below

Please check if there is already a report on the same subject

Detailed description

Report history

Add something to this report

Change report status to:

LB_HELP

Contribute

Navigate

Follow us