rewards for stalemate (in General)
i was wondering why stalemates do not reward xp and cash. A defeat is the worst outcome for an attacker. It is illogical that a stalemate rewards less than a defeat, don't you think?
December 6 2005 3:26 AM EST
Because there will be people who will abuse the system. They will just unequip all their weapons and go for stalemates like what happened to the draws a couple of weeks ago. Now draws are also worthless :(
December 6 2005 3:27 AM EST
a stalemate just means that neither of the teams are competent enough to bump the other off.
incompetence is not to be encouraged.
December 6 2005 3:46 AM EST
Stalemates are fights which aren't done yet, so they don't generate money.
if they unequip their weapons, they will be unable to win fights, so they will get less rewards than if they fight normally, so they will be unable to level up as fast as the others. don't they? i do not understand the abuse system involving stalemates.
December 6 2005 4:28 AM EST
it's not when they fight themselves but when they are being fougth by others,
its easy to unequip weapons and let yourself be fought over and over by a smaller character that stalemates on you some times.
December 6 2005 4:31 AM EST
how about we explain it like this
in a stalemate no one wins in 25 rounds, change your strat or stop fighting that person.
for the abuse system, if I have well understood what shades told me, it is not the player who unequip its weapons that will be rewarded, but the smaller one?
I still do not understand why if stalemate provided the same rewards than a defeat, abuses would be possible.
And from the logical point of view, it is pure non sense that a stalemate rewards less than a defeat (sorry for being so harsh, but i am working in game theory lol)
We're all about the pure nonsense, you can tell from the general tenor of the forums. :)
December 6 2005 4:52 AM EST
Pure nonsense for sure Bast ;)
US, With regards to rewards you get rewarded for killing your opponent, not for surviving the fight. Which is why draws generate cash/xp and stalemates do not.
December 6 2005 5:00 AM EST
Neither a stalemate or loss is exactly desirable but I consider a stalemate to be less "bad" than a loss since your heal costs will be alot lower, when I lose I get about $15 but it costs me about $90 to heal so I'm making a net loss of $75, when I stalemate I must still have at least one minion alive so the heal costs are only around $10 meaning my net loss is only about $10.
Yea you get a little experience with the loss but it doesn't amount to much, I think of the experience as my minion learning from their mistakes where in a stalemate the battle never finishes so your minions don't really learn anything.
i have just tried to beat you, you are at two times my mpr. 3 fights, 3 stalemates. Should I not deserve a reward? (healing is free for me)
You've killed no one! No reward for you!
Not at all. I kill each time the two first enchanters. remains the two big blocks at 200,000 Hp I would need more than 200 rounds? to kill :-)
Conversely he can't do much damage to me, because of my EC.
and no reward for such a beautiful fight! even cesar would applaud :-)
December 6 2005 6:01 AM EST
sometimes it helps to read the FAQ.
that's what is't there for.
when that fails, assume it's magic, a wizard did it.
Ohhhhh - Ahhhhh! Jonocracy Magic!
December 6 2005 8:43 AM EST
Because in CB, we don't let anything get done half-butted. You get XP if you defeat your opponent. Stalemates don't accomplish that.
*dusts off Devils Advocate hat*
But.... XP is about learning and growing. If you stalemate but kill a few minions, you wouldn't learn as much as you would by taking out the whole team, but surely the exprience of battle, and the deaths of some minions sohuld garner even a little amount of XP as your team learns from it's fights...
Defeat rewards you less cash than it takes to heal and the exp is less than worth it.
Rewarding stalemates would just encourage teams with huge AS and nothing else, even a DM wouldn't do that much to them with enough to compensate and they would grow with no effort.
If you can't come to a result in 25 rounds then you just suck you don't deserve to be rewarded for a fight with that person.
I don't understand zoglog position. rewarding a stalemate as much as a defeat cannot lead to any abuse system. If somebody wants to reach a million MPR with only stalemates and AS, it would require years. I keep with my own point of view. Be crushed by somebody rewarding you more than resisting to him is non sense.
December 6 2005 2:56 PM EST
why don't you get the point of Jonathan why it isn't done, just accept the fact.
December 6 2005 3:16 PM EST
Here is why stalemates will not give xp or money.
DAWG and I each unequip our items. We attack each other. No weapons means no attacks-Stalemate. We get double rewards. Get a few to do it and the whole MPR scale will be finished.
perhaps you are right.
but currently my own defeats have reward about 5 times lesser than my victories. cannot figure out how i could abuse the system with only defeats or stalemate. what I defend are only that stalemates and draws cannot reward more than victories and that defeats cannot reward more than stalemates, draws and victories.
*Hat on again*
Ranger, just let stalemates away 1XP and Cash. Or 20, or 40... Just far less than a normal fight. Have them award less the the 50% Draws do. Have them award less than loses...
None of these could lead to exploits, as fighting and winning is better in every case.
December 7 2005 4:55 AM EST
Why not increase the number of rounds per fight to minimize stalemates?
December 7 2005 5:11 AM EST
Quoting an old forum post I once made:
"[M]aybe it helps to view a battle as 2 gladiators fighting in front of the emperor in a full coliseum.
The rewards are given by the emperor depending on how entertained he was:
1 winner: he likes that a lot. No need to pay the loser a lot though, he's dead anyway.
A draw: well, at least he saw lots of blood. So he pays both gladiators some cash.
A Stalemate: Emperor fell asleep out of boredom.
Because the emperor wants to see some spectacle, he doesn't like the gladiators to fight without proper equipment and might penalize those who enter the arena unarmed.
OK, it's not exactly like CB, but it might explain why 'stalemate' is not a good thing from the view point of where your rewards do come from."
But bart, in some cases, 1 to 3 minions shed blood and are killed, but the fight still ends in a Stalemate.
The Emperor saw at least some blood!
well, I did not intend to create a war in CB when I first wrote about stalemate issues. Because I am doing lots of maths, I prefer a logical game, and I am disturbed because stalemates rewards are lower than defeat rewards. It is only a question of logic. I would be happy if stalemate rewards were the same as defeat ones, but I will continue to play even if this is not changed.
December 7 2005 11:06 AM EST
It is only a question of logic
Just depends from what point of view you look... :)
December 7 2005 4:27 PM EST
In a stalemate, the system doesn't know how close to victory either team is. Consider a stalemate followed by a win - the win awards the victor based on the stalemate first and then winning. I'm not sure if my NCB skews it, but the win after a stalemate is about the same rewards as a win (but it cost 2 BA, so it's more equivalent to 2 draws).
Now the system doesn't know if it would take 5 stalemates until a win, so it can't award any points until at least one team is dead.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001d27">rewards for stalemate</a>