Conquer Club

if people surrender in the first three rounds they should lose more points. they could either deadbeat like they would or lose more points so that might help stop the game hopping

I think an option to prematurely end games might be a nice option, like, if one player could propose a draw or something of that nature. I'm not sure if or how it might be abused, but i think it could definitely be used to save some people some trouble. Me for instance .
I jumped into a game with one opening hoping to just get started right away, and where i found myself was in a game with three friends who were waiting for their fourth, but alas, i found my way there before the lost friend. Because i was not the desired competitor, my three opponents decided to not play at all, and therefore not take their turns, so i'm left with a game slot taken by one in which i can hardly play. Hopefully my plan to take one of them out before going deadbeat comes to pass though .
Back to the point, if they didn't want to play, and an end game option existed, i'd be brimming with action packed conquering, and not settling for a mesely three games. I guess i could just get a premium membership...but thats beside the point.

Well, i settled my problem. I bought a premium membership. Lack, this site rocks. But..i still think the end game option might be a decent idea. And my chances of getting a guy out before he goes deadbeat are looking good.

I like the idea of this, especially for large deadbeat games.

A game can of course be ended only if all remaining players agree... all scores remain unaffected (so even if you went out early you lose no points)

I played a game a few days back where 2 players went deadbeat early in a 5 person game and I would have liked to end it early. Thankfully I won, but the principle remains the same.

Also a post on deadbeating to follow...

I know it's kinda stupid that I want to, but aside from deadbeating till I'm eliminated, can't I ditch my fourth game for a new one?

Nope. My advice? Play your heart out. Take as many armies from your enemies as you possibly can in the process.

I never get people who want to quit mid way through a game. If I'm gonna get knocked out in the next turn or two then it's not going to take long. And if I'm not going to be knocked out that quickly I reckon I'm still in with a chance of winning... oh and comebacks are the sweetest.

The surrender button was removed intentionally because people would "steal" cards from players right before they would take them out. This was a bigger problem in doubles games than in singles, but was a problem all around.

If you can come up with a way to have surrenders in without this problem, feel free to suggest it

Have a great day, may it be fought to the last man
Twill

might be a stupid Idea, But could you make it so if a person surrendered that there controled land turned into white and allowed the other teams to fight over them, removing any unused cards from the surrendering player?

We used to have that feature, but it was abused too much and really annoyed people who actually wanted to play a full game of RISK. So to the desires of the people, Lackattack removed it. Clicky

juggalonw, that is exactly what used to happen...see linky above.

RgR that, Thanks

I'm not sure if this type of play should be promoted, but how about a skip turn button for people strategically skipping for the sake of getting the doubled armies on their next turn?

I dont' immgine this would be popular, but i mean, if someone is going to skip, i don't want to sit there and wait 24 hours for them to do so.

I guess it all depends on whether or not this wants to be promoted as strategy, and if we don't want to do so, perhaps we might want to consider not multiplying troops....

Okay, no offense Banana but people who use this as a strategy really piss me off and I think it would be a really bad move to promote people using that strategy. It would just make it that much easier for people to play cheaply.

Even though I'm very against this being used as a strategy I still say that the multiplication of armies should stay for the sake of the people who legitimately miss their turns.

Yea, i know its annoying, but so is the wait.

its already an option. its the time bit that pisses me off... lets have it

We need more options when making a game... thats all

Yeah, the wait is annoying, but it all comes back to the fact that the site was designed as a causal gaming experience. I know you know enough people that you could play games and never have to worry about deadbeats, so what's the problem?

I started a 3 player game with two of my mates, and when i first looked at the board my heart sunk.

I was spread all over the place, with one friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in North America and my other friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in Africa.

I had 2 pieces in Oz, 3 in Europe and the rest dotted all over the place in Asia.

Now I'm not a quitter, but i could see that this game was never going to be won by me and i contemplated deadbeating it to preserve my leaderboard position.

Sure enough, I lost, and the guy who beat me had a very low score and i lost 32 points

There must be some people out there who have played enough games by now to know when its advantageous to not play.

Surely there comes a time in a regular CC players history that deadbeating becomes unavailable and this devious ploy is no longer an option.

Discuss please...

I've considered that sometimes as well... But then I remember how irritating it is when other people go deadbeat on me - so that always (hopefully) will keep me from doing it.

I've finished 752 games I deadbeated not once I even went on an 8 day cruise and finished all the games i was in 2 days before cruise started after i got on cruse found out for $3 a minute i still could play but girlfriend said it might not be a good thing to do lol

Heh, I've played online games in a shopping centre in Scotland whilst on holiday before... However that's another story.

I never deadbeat, never have and never will... I know how much it pisses off other people, and don't see the point considering how hopelessly addicted to this game... I'll see every game out till the bitter end...

i think people should still lose the points if they deadbeat that they would have lost if they got out of the game normally. that would keep people in their games and there would be much less high level deadbeating

The only time I've deadbeated (and I kinda felt bad about it, but not really) I had played my first turn in a team game, and then PMed my partner about strategy. He never responded, didn't play, had never played a game before, and I had fortified most of my pieces over to him already. So I didn't play again and even though I PMed him another time or two I never heard out of him and he didn't show up on CC again. Is that ethical?

I feel mildly bad, but I would have been playing me vs. 2 other teams of 2 and had already given up many of my armies. I felt bad for the others stuck in the game, but hey, I'm a big fan of adding the forfeit button and were it there I would have hit it, even if I would have lost the points. As it was, I forced the rest of the team to wait on me and my no-show partner for 144 hours and walked away unpunished in score. So if you want to berate me verbally I think that would be fair.

**Rejection Reason**

**Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back**



I think there needs to be a surrender button for the last 2 people left in the game. Sometime there are moments where you know you are going to lose and you have to sit there and wait till the other person kills you.

Surrendering is for losers!!