Pinned Understanding the END GAME BUTTON

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • @dfrost,

      I'm not sure if you're understanding everything correctly or if I'm maybe misunderstanding you. EVERY active player left on the map has to agree in order for the game to end prematurely, so I'm not sure what about this button you consider a "cheat". If you don't want the game to end that way, simply don't press the button, and your game won't end until someone acquires enough points to win.

      ABOUT INACTIVE PLAYERS

      It appears that you're bothered by even being asked if you want to end the game? It is a little silly that so many people abandon games, but part of that may be the specific game you are in. If you're playing the Battleground USA game into which the game automatically placed you when you created an account, then you may want to understand that the inactivity rate (while it is excessive on all maps) is especially bad on that map, because that's where the game places brand new accounts. So, that map gets a lot of players who were just visiting the site to take a look and who decided the game wasn't for them once they got dumped into a map and had to start figuring things out. There are those of us out there, like you, who research things and who decide we're going to play before we start the first game. That's not everyone, though; lots of brand new accounts are just "lookee-loos" who wanted to see what the game looks like but aren't ready to commit to playing. Again, because Battleground USA is the automatic beginner map now, you're going to see a greater percentage of "never-active" players there.

      Even on the other maps, though, you still see a lot of inactives. I want to be clear about that. However, it has been ages since I've seen the End Game Button. You just normally don't get that low on a WW3 map (at least not on 4x; I can't speak about 1x).

      Just as kind of some FYI history: I'm not sure what happened, but this situation got much worse at a certain point. When I first started playing years ago, there were far fewer inactive players on a map and far more experienced, skilled players.

      One of the things that I know they changed is that they opened up all of the maps to Rank 1 players. It used to be that you had to hit Rank 2 before you could move on past the beginning map. So, if you were in another map, you knew that all of the other players had at least stayed active enough to reach Rank 2.

      I think they also started offering a greater number of map spawns, which I think (along with opening the floodgates to the Rank 1 folks) really decreased the concentration of experienced/skilled players per map. It used to be that on a single map, there might be half a dozen players over Rank 100. Many of the maps I join now only have one or two other players over Rank 50 (and they're normally not very good because they got their Rank through trying to figure out how to earn Rank points rather than learning how to win the game).

      ABOUT COALITIONS VERSUS SOLO

      For this most part, this game is meant to be played in teams. I don't like it any more than you may, but that's the case. There is one map that's hardly ever offered that does not allow formal coalitions, but you still really can't keep people from working together. And, whether or not it's true of you and I, most people who play this game want to work cooperatively with other players.

      So, each player has two choices:

      1) Accept that coalitions are the norm, go with the flow, and join coalitions;

      OR

      2) Play solo and understand that you're going to be fighting against entire coalitions sometimes.

      Personally, I'm much more comfortable playing solo, so I choose option #2. It's pretty rare in a public game that a coalition is made up of five good players, so winning 1v5 (or, actually, 1v63 or 1v99) isn't as difficult as it sounds. You just (in my opinion) have to tailor your game a little bit so that you can be a little more independent.

      There's an ongoing thread on the Forums right now about Solo'ing. Let's move the conversation there if you'd like to discuss that further.
    • dfrost wrote:

      sounds more like a way to cheat than a way to win. this is my first game and i am already seeing this button. i don't plan on ending the game so there is now a possibility the other players can form a coalition and beat me out of the points and the win? haha is this a real scenario? seems after a year of this thread being open, they woulds fixed this cheat.

      my game has been running for 11 days and i have 288 vp with 21 cities. the closest to me right now is someone with 150 vp and 14 cities

      what i also don't understand is i just started this game 11 days ago and it's so brand new and already asking me to quit the game. that to me is ridiculous. if people don't want to play their games then they shouldn't have started one. if it was near the end, and we pretty much already know the outcome i can see having this feature but after 11 days in? putting a time frame of 30 days before the option is enabled also limits the cheating to end a game prematurely.

      personally i like 1vs1 games better. when i began this first game, i tried to research everything about it. i felt joining groups is a form of cheating but i know realistically in the real world it doesn't work that way. but this is a game of strategy. where's the strategy in joining a big group for an easy win? isn't this how they play little league now? the losers always get a trophy haha.
      Every active player needs to agree, so either they kill you first or nothing will happen.


      It is a general problem of publics, that most players drop inactive in less than a week of play time.


      Part of the problem is also how rank leveling helps. Many players join up to 50 maps to just farm some points with starting troops and then quit
    • i believe i understand it. the reason for my post is because i also understand the consequences of NOT pushing it. by not pushing the button to end the game, the two will obviously join up together to end the game when the only thing standing in there way before was me. an obvious strategy to end the game. but it doesn't just end the game. it will give them the win. so THAT is the cheat. it's so obvious it almost get me to believe this cheat was intentional which is also why it may have not been fixed. i read up a lot about ending the game and joining coalitions.

      i personally don't like the idea of joining a coalition, but if i was gonna lose and it was towards the end of the game, i think i may just join 1 to share win. why not? what's good for the goose is good for the gander. we all play under the same rules. but i would consider myself as a cheater if i were to do that. but again, if we are all playing under the same rules, technically it isn't cheating. but it's the same reason why i feel pay to players are cheating to win. yea, sometimes they aren't good enough to win when they are given a clear advantage but they are still taking an advantage that others don't have. everyone there to is playing by the same rules and have a choice to buy gold or not so technically that isn't cheating either.

      it's the way i personally look at things and life itself. what i believe is that everyone should be on a level playing field. i feel it would make the game for fun and strategic and fair. by adding an end game button prematurally is giving quitters a reason to quit. now who promotes that in real life? probably nobody. what we teach people is to never give up and even the underdogs win sometimes when they can figure out their mistakes and overcome them. there are lessons to be learned. not just in life but in games like this

      sorry for the ramble and making this a little deep but i felt i needed to explain my perspective. it comes from what i have learned over time in life and what builds character and how one can overcome adversity. so if it was just about everyone pushing the button because everyone wants to quit, then everyone is in agreement and there is no "cheating". so i am not really talking about that option but the option NOT to quit when everyone else DOES want to quit. and then there is my point of WHEN this option becomes available. is day 11 really valid option? i personally don't think so. i think the qualification for this option is limited to how many active players there are. MY suggestion is that it should include how many days played as well

      this is my first game and the option came up to quit at day 11. i am still learning. how the heck am i supposed to learn an end game if i quit on day 11? it would be impossible. the consequence of me not hitting that button is obvious and i do consider that cheating when the outcome gives two other people the win and me the loss when i am clearly ahead of both players individually. i was trying to figure out the fix and the fix is obvious. at part of the fix is obvious. you have to set time as a factor when considering a game quit option. also, there is already a way to quit the game without the end game option. it's by not playing it.

      one thing i was thinking of that the game promotes with the end game option is that i can sign up for multiple games at once even as a new player. i can use this as a strategy knowing there will be an end game option and a join a coalition option. my strategy is to join multiple games. not to win it but just to eventually join a coalition and end the game early just to harvest gold. ofcourse the players stats wont be as good but with that gold they can also do things against the rules and without being caught to actually win games. i wont go in to that here as it's inappropriate.

      so there are many things i see with the end game button and the possibilities and yes, i personally consider some of it cheating. the last part i suggested wouldn't be moral or ethical as it goes against the rules and so that WOULD technically be cheating. so i think a time factor would level the playing field more. i am not saying there should be an option like this....but NOT on day 11.
    • I'm sorry, but I'm still confused why you think them joining together in a coalition gives them an automatic and unearned win. And I'm confused what that has to do with the End Game Button.

      You're on Day 11, right? Okay. You were offered an option to end the game early, but you don't want to do that. Right?

      Okay, so you don't agree to end the game early. The game goes on, like you want. Right?

      Then what are you saying happens? The other players who are left team up? Okay. Maybe they do. That doesn't really change much. The game will still continue after they form a coalition, unless they gain enough points to win as a coalition (which is more than the individual number of points required to win).

      So,... the game goes on, and you still get to fight everyone for the win. I don't see what the problem is. They can't end the game, and they can't make you quit. You can choose to play to the end of the game.

      In your response above, you said the the consequence of you not pushing the button is that the other two (?) will "join up together to end the game". What does that mean? How do you think those two can end the game by joining up together?

      You mentioned something about them joining a coalition to get the win. You do understand that they have to earn the win still, right? They don't just get a win for joining up together. You said that you have 288 VPs and the next closest person has 150, right? So that means that two other players together have less than 300 VPs. I don't know what the two person total is for winning BG USA, but I imagine it's between 2800 to 3000.

      I'm going to go back and reread what you wrote to try to figure out what is bothering you, but in the meantime let me approach it from a different angle.

      You're upset that the game offered you the End Game Button on Day 11. Let's say it didn't. Pretend the button's not there. What does that change for you?

      I'm soloing a game of BG USA right now (I wanted to win as the state of NY, which is where I live), so I'm in the same situation you're in. I don't really get what the concern is.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by PerigeeNil ().

    • btw- i want to clarify. i DO understand why the option was put in there and it's intended purpose. the problem is that people are using it for other things besides it's intended purpose including winning games in which they were obviously going to lose.

      i also want to say that this wasn't a complaint. it was just a simple observation i saw within the game as a first time player.

      i am not a gamer but i did like playing risk and this reminds me of that game. i like strategy games and this game i feel is the best game i ever played. i love this game so far. i am addicted to it already. it's hard for me to not join multiple games right now so i can play more rather than stick to my 1x speed game right now. but i want to learn everything i can about the game before i step in over my head.

      i prefer the single life and the non pay to play option but i have to admit that when i see the 200% more gold buy option, i've been tempted already by that. the only reason i don't like pay to play personally is i consider it more of a challenge where i try to beat the pay to play players haha. more fun for me unless it's impossible because i am competitive and hate losing :)
    • Okay, we can discuss all of that elsewhere in the Forums, but let's stick to discussing the End Game Button in this thread.

      Please spell out for me what you're afraid is going to happen in your game. You got the button, but you're not hitting it, so your game won't end because of the button. So now what's the issue?

      You think the other players may team up. They may. So what?
    • As far as I know, if you end the map by vote, you do not score any win (Solo or Coalition). You just get the end of the map and the gold depending on your country size.

      It is just to avoid having to grind AI for days or weeks to finish off a map.

      dfrost wrote:

      btw- i want to clarify. i DO understand why the option was put in there and it's intended purpose. the problem is that people are using it for other things besides it's intended purpose including winning games in which they were obviously going to lose.

      The button does not change anything, your opponents could join forces and beat you together without the 'help of the button'. Nothing prevents them from doing it.

      Joining forces, beating you and then still pressing the button would be also quite the stupid move, likely denying themselves the official win.
    • Lol, yeah, I think our new friend may be making it much more complicated than it actually is. No matter what happens, there are only two ways the game ends:

      1) EVERY PLAYER (INLCUDING YOU) hits the button to agree to end early;

      OR

      2) The game goes on as normal until a player or team wins by getting enough points (which is how every full game ends).

      There are no other "ends" to this game.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      dfrost wrote:

      . . . if people don't want to play their games then they shouldn't have started one. . . .
      I agree - Would you like to contact the other 7 billion people on Earth to tell them that there will be severe consequences for that behavior, or do you want me to do it for us?
      Finally someone besides the Big Three makes a sarcastic statement.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Lol, yeah, I think our new friend may be making it much more complicated than it actually is. No matter what happens, there are only two ways the game ends:

      1) EVERY PLAYER (INLCUDING YOU) hits the button to agree to end early;

      OR

      2) The game goes on as normal until a player or team wins by getting enough points (which is how every full game ends).

      There are no other "ends" to this game.
      I think moderators can also end games, once I joined a game and it ended something like ~Day 11, don't remember pressing end game button.
    • Clock wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Lol, yeah, I think our new friend may be making it much more complicated than it actually is. No matter what happens, there are only two ways the game ends:

      1) EVERY PLAYER (INLCUDING YOU) hits the button to agree to end early;

      OR

      2) The game goes on as normal until a player or team wins by getting enough points (which is how every full game ends).

      There are no other "ends" to this game.
      I think moderators can also end games, once I joined a game and it ended something like ~Day 11, don't remember pressing end game button.

      Some maps offer special victory point locations. If you rush them early in the game and nobody contests you, you can win the game quite early I heard.
      (If they did not fix that 'exploit' in the meantime.)
    • thank you so much for your detailed reply. i didn't have a chance to read it until now and i understand things better now when you talk about how the game is more coalition based. so it's one of those things i need to accept. that makes sense when thinking about how we should take the good with the bad. i understand how there are pros and cons to each and everyone will have a different strategy and play style.

      with that said, people are right. i am a newb and can admit my ignorance. it's one reason why i posted here about my perception. it wasn't a complaint or a suggestion. from what i understand is that if i don't choose to end game, obviously the game wont end. but if the other people want to end the game, they will have to form a coalition. how does that win the game for them? well from my understanding(and correct me if i am wrong) a coalition combines their vp's. so all they would have to do is reach the vp goal of 1700 through 3 people. i would have to reach that alone. i wouldn't consider it cheating that they joined a coalition. that is part of the game as you stated and i can accept that and i understand the intended purpose. my point i was trying to make however is that if they are joining to end the game early, that to me is cheating because now the intended purpose has changed from fair to unfair

      from my understanding, the end game button appears when 3 active players are left in the game(but i could be wrong on that too). in my circumstance, there were indeed 3 players. today it bumped up to 6 but i still see the end game button. not sure if this was intended or if this is a bug. currently, i am ahead in vp's if you combine the 2 other active players combined who i think have been in the game from the start.

      is there a way to see all active players? what i have been doing is guessing based on the territory sizes and the smoke but hell, that can be rogues. i also try to see if things are being built which i think would indicate an active player but i am not sure how much i can see from a map. it seems as though sometimes i can see things and sometimes things are there i can't see until i get up close.

      now main reason i posted here was because i want to learn the end game. if i end the game early or if people join a coalition against me, i'm not really going to see that end game as intended. it was day 11 when it gave the option to end the game. i personally feel this is WAY WAY too early in a game to even see that option and that IS a complaint but i offered a suggestion that it should be based on time as well as players left. NOT just players left.

      i will research that solo thread or section. i think we are on the same page as far as preferences in playing solo vs. coalition. if i play solo, i have to accept losing more and i hate losing. i am always a good sport though.

      now i noticed that even if people aren't in a coalition, it doesn't mean players aren't working together. i see this happening in my current game and i created another post about it in how a plane can still be flying over me when i took all his ground units and land and his vp is currently 0 with 1 unit left in game. i contacted the guy giving right of way and he told me if i attack mexico or him, i will be attatcked haha. so now i am in a catch 22 where i have to attack the airbase because i refuse to fight plane vs. plane with even stats. so these two guys were obviously working together when they saw me coming.

      so from my understanding, coalitions are the formal way to team together and what i am experiencing is the unoffical and hidden way to team together. so i see the strategy there as well when you want to hide the coalition until towards the end of the game to combine the vp points. and that's cool. i have no problem with that.

      the only problem i do see is the INTENDED purpose of the game and how the end game button...especially when it pops up after 11 days can be exploited with a purpose that wasn't intended in game/. so this is why i would consider it cheating a little bit there. i know that if i knew i was going to lose the game and all i had to do is join a coalition to potentially win the game and get that win on my stats, i would probably go for the win even though i would feel bad about it. i would think i cheated in order to get that win because i never intended to join a coalition.

      maybe i have to get a few more games under my belt to understand things better. in fact, i know i do so i am sorry for the newb post. i plan to be active here and this was one of the first things i noticed players can do against someone who does not want to end the game.

      so to some up my point, i think there is a clear distinction between players who normally would join a coalition, and those that will only join a coalition to win a game or if they want to end a game faster because someone didn't opt in to end the game after day 11 in my situation....obviously teaming up against the player who refused to end that game. so when i say cheating, i am basing it off of intended purpose. and again, the way you limit the shadier of intended purposes is to set a time frame. if usa goes for an average of 30 days, then the game option should be set at 2/3 which would be 20 days. not 1/3 which is 10 days(11 days for me). that was only a suggestion to limit the unfair play i can see happening. but hey, maybe this has never happened to anyone. i am seeing the potential of it happening though and how to minimize it.

      anyway, thanks again for responding in great detail. it was very much appreciated and for me and someone who is loving to learn this game, you explained things well and filled my head with some knowledge and insight. THANK YOU!

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      @dfrost,

      I'm not sure if you're understanding everything correctly or if I'm maybe misunderstanding you. EVERY active player left on the map has to agree in order for the game to end prematurely, so I'm not sure what about this button you consider a "cheat". If you don't want the game to end that way, simply don't press the button, and your game won't end until someone acquires enough points to win.

      ABOUT INACTIVE PLAYERS

      It appears that you're bothered by even being asked if you want to end the game? It is a little silly that so many people abandon games, but part of that may be the specific game you are in. If you're playing the Battleground USA game into which the game automatically placed you when you created an account, then you may want to understand that the inactivity rate (while it is excessive on all maps) is especially bad on that map, because that's where the game places brand new accounts. So, that map gets a lot of players who were just visiting the site to take a look and who decided the game wasn't for them once they got dumped into a map and had to start figuring things out. There are those of us out there, like you, who research things and who decide we're going to play before we start the first game. That's not everyone, though; lots of brand new accounts are just "lookee-loos" who wanted to see what the game looks like but aren't ready to commit to playing. Again, because Battleground USA is the automatic beginner map now, you're going to see a greater percentage of "never-active" players there.

      Even on the other maps, though, you still see a lot of inactives. I want to be clear about that. However, it has been ages since I've seen the End Game Button. You just normally don't get that low on a WW3 map (at least not on 4x; I can't speak about 1x).

      Just as kind of some FYI history: I'm not sure what happened, but this situation got much worse at a certain point. When I first started playing years ago, there were far fewer inactive players on a map and far more experienced, skilled players.

      One of the things that I know they changed is that they opened up all of the maps to Rank 1 players. It used to be that you had to hit Rank 2 before you could move on past the beginning map. So, if you were in another map, you knew that all of the other players had at least stayed active enough to reach Rank 2.

      I think they also started offering a greater number of map spawns, which I think (along with opening the floodgates to the Rank 1 folks) really decreased the concentration of experienced/skilled players per map. It used to be that on a single map, there might be half a dozen players over Rank 100. Many of the maps I join now only have one or two other players over Rank 50 (and they're normally not very good because they got their Rank through trying to figure out how to earn Rank points rather than learning how to win the game).

      ABOUT COALITIONS VERSUS SOLO

      For this most part, this game is meant to be played in teams. I don't like it any more than you may, but that's the case. There is one map that's hardly ever offered that does not allow formal coalitions, but you still really can't keep people from working together. And, whether or not it's true of you and I, most people who play this game want to work cooperatively with other players.

      So, each player has two choices:

      1) Accept that coalitions are the norm, go with the flow, and join coalitions;

      OR

      2) Play solo and understand that you're going to be fighting against entire coalitions sometimes.

      Personally, I'm much more comfortable playing solo, so I choose option #2. It's pretty rare in a public game that a coalition is made up of five good players, so winning 1v5 (or, actually, 1v63 or 1v99) isn't as difficult as it sounds. You just (in my opinion) have to tailor your game a little bit so that you can be a little more independent.

      There's an ongoing thread on the Forums right now about Solo'ing. Let's move the conversation there if you'd like to discuss that further.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      As far as I know, if you end the map by vote, you do not score any win (Solo or Coalition). You just get the end of the map and the gold depending on your country size.

      It is just to avoid having to grind AI for days or weeks to finish off a map.

      dfrost wrote:

      btw- i want to clarify. i DO understand why the option was put in there and it's intended purpose. the problem is that people are using it for other things besides it's intended purpose including winning games in which they were obviously going to lose.
      The button does not change anything, your opponents could join forces and beat you together without the 'help of the button'. Nothing prevents them from doing it.

      Joining forces, beating you and then still pressing the button would be also quite the stupid move, likely denying themselves the official win.

      is that true? i was assuming that if we end the game currently(it's now day 12), a win would go on my record and everyone would collect their gold based on their vp(as there are no coalitions with more than 1 player and i have the higherst vp). this would be good to know for future reference. if this is true then i have to rethink what my perspective was before because this would change things!
    • i may be getting confused in how a game ends. in my current game, it says i need 1700 vp. i have to say that that is a lot of vp so i have a ways to go.

      if there is a 2 or 3 man coalition, does that 1700# increase for the coalition? if so, by how much? because if it increases for the coalition, then that is another way to minimize what i was talking about before and i would have to rethink my perspective

      there isn't a lot of information on this stuff that i could find to understand game play/end game better
    • dfrost wrote:

      i may be getting confused in how a game ends. in my current game, it says i need 1700 vp. i have to say that that is a lot of vp so i have a ways to go.

      if there is a 2 or 3 man coalition, does that 1700# increase for the coalition? if so, by how much? because if it increases for the coalition, then that is another way to minimize what i was talking about before and i would have to rethink my perspective

      there isn't a lot of information on this stuff that i could find to understand game play/end game better
      A coalition does need significantly more VP to win than a solo player needs, and the amount goes up as the number of players in the coalition increases.

      I don't recall the specific VP Thresholds (other folks should have that info) (the values miiiight be in the CoN wiki Dorado created) (try searching through this forum - You might find the numbers - You aren't the first person to ask - "Search" is your friend).

      PS: Why not just plan earn a solo win by grinding the other two active players into a fine powder by using advice you can get from the various experts your chatting with already (in this thread). :thumbup:
      PPS: You might get some good ideas by looking at the OOB info players have posted here: Look through a different Lens - What's your ACTUAL Day 5, 10, 15, 20, ... Order of Battle (OOB) There are some useful nuggets in it.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      dfrost wrote:

      i may be getting confused in how a game ends. in my current game, it says i need 1700 vp. i have to say that that is a lot of vp so i have a ways to go.

      if there is a 2 or 3 man coalition, does that 1700# increase for the coalition? if so, by how much? because if it increases for the coalition, then that is another way to minimize what i was talking about before and i would have to rethink my perspective

      there isn't a lot of information on this stuff that i could find to understand game play/end game better
      A coalition does need significantly more VP to win than a solo player needs, and the amount goes up as the number of players in the coalition increases.
      I don't recall the specific VP Thresholds (other folks should have that info) (the values miiiight be in the CoN wiki Dorado created) (try searching through this forum - You might find the numbers - You aren't the first person to ask - "Search" is your friend).

      PS: Why not just plan earn a solo win by grinding the other two active players into a fine powder by using advice you can get from the various experts your chatting with already (in this thread). :thumbup:
      PPS: You might get some good ideas by looking at the OOB info players have posted here: Look through a different Lens - What's your ACTUAL Day 5, 10, 15, 20, ... Order of Battle (OOB) There are some useful nuggets in it.

      thanks man! that puts a lot better perspective on things. i had assumed that a win was 1700 for everyone including a coalition. not a lot of info on it as i have already did searches and tried to research. i will check out those other thread. thanks for the advice!