Forum

by **Vid_FISO** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:33 pm

chemefreak wrote:Okay. Don't you people have anything better to do? Like play some other player's turns?

Nope, fancy a 1v1?

by **[RFA]Juggalo** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:42 pm

Honestly, this all sounds like a big joke. No im not saying that simply to whine and complain, as i do not sit or ask for sitters. To me this is a joke because you are butting specifically into the clan war field, which you may say "we wanna bring back under the blanket of total rule blah blah blah" as the "lines in clan activities have become blurred" but what is the real issue here. The only thing i can think of is people are complaining about losing clan wars BECAUSE someone is sitting? that is just stupid. If there is another reason please let me know, because i cannot think of another good reason to simply butt in and go "well gee guys you all need more rules, even though you are obviously capable of handling your own events and wars". It is kind of ridiculous to try and wrest power away from the people who are doing these events and wars. If anything, it should simply be let the clans decide what is fair amongst themselves. No one makes anyone play anything. Not to mention that you are taking isolated cases and blowing them out of proportion. This all seems like a vast overreaction to something that isnt a huge problem. Ive been doing clan wars since 2007, and have never once seen a "gross abuse" of the sitting rule. Nor have i ever felt i lost a game due to sitters. Seriously sounds like someone got butthurt about losing or not having total control over something, so lets all overreact and throw more rules into the mix, cuz that always solves all the problems. Oh wait no, the other thing, it doesnt, thats right. :roll:

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:32 pm

betiko wrote:
lol, so for you if one of your opponent takes a turn for a clanmate that has disapeared he is gaining an unfair advantage on you? That's funny, because I'd rather say that if an opponent misses a turn I gain an unfair advantage on him, as you know, you haven't eliminated that player yet the gameplay is doing so for 1 round(mostly on an escalating where missing a turn can be game over). Because this guy had something he had to attend to or whatever, means screw his team, and screw his clan. The opponent has just received the magical righ to play 2 back to back turns because they deserved it! then pops up this moron covering for his partner because he knows he's gonna miss, unfair advantage!!!

This is a crazy stance you are taking.
You are saying that the person who takes his own turn is gaining an unfair advantage over a person who doesn't take his own turn. That's nonsense.

Tbh, it just sounds like the lot of you are spoiled. You are used to being able to brush off your turn-taking responsibilities and someone will always break your fall. Besides, in this modern age there are computers everywhere. Heck, I can take turns from my phone on a bathroom break or even borrow my friend's phone if I have to (not in the bathroom scenario). If your clan has people in it who regularly miss turns then your clan is obviously weak. Honestly, whenever I am in a clan game and someone fills for someone else it really makes the person who missed look like a schmuck/weak player. Incidentally, it's almost always a more skilled player who does the filling in. The player who is in danger of missing is obviously just a warm body to fill a slot anyway and probably contributes zero to the game at hand.
A clan should consist of a group of players, not a small percentage of people pulling the puppet strings of all the rest. Let's imagine a clan war in real life. If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure. Also, if some warriors didn't show up for battle, the stronger warriors can't pick up their slack. So as far as missing turns: Suck it up cupcakes? Just admit your weaknesses and accept your standing in light of this.

by **macbone** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:49 pm

See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

by **uckuki** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:32 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:06 pm

uckuki wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:If there were 5 warriors who were completely fit and strong and the rest were just average citizens they would be slaughtered for sure.

Not if they were Samurai. They'd cut 'em up left and right.

Well, that's debatable.

Let's take the example of 25 barbarians vs. 5 Samurai and 20 peasants. Which clan is your money on?

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:09 pm

macbone wrote:See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Here's the thing, mac : you're an honest guy. If everyone in every clan was like you I could care less and anyone could cover for anyone. It's the rotten apples that are causing these rules to be enacted and their presence, unfortunately, can't be ignored.

by **crispybits** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:13 pm

macbone wrote:See, here's the issue here. Conquer Club is a casual gaming site. It wasn't created to be a huge time-sink as I understand it. In a regular terminator-standard game, sure, it won't kill you to miss a turn (unless it's the final sweep in an Escalating game, but still, tough).

But with clans, it becomes more competitive, and say what you will, missing a turn costs your team. Yeah, this isn't super serious stuff, but I for one don't want to be the guy that makes my clan lose a game, and clan wars are decided all the time by the margin of one game.

Turn sitting has never been ruled illegal, and in fact guidelines are in place to allow it under certain situations, such as when a player is on vacation or is in danger of missing the turn. This has never been ruled against the rules.

What is a problem is when one player is taking difficult turns for other players, especially in the context of a clan war when caps are in place on the maximum number of games a player is allowed to play in. This is where the casual side of CC conflicts with the competitive side.

For those of you who have never had a turn sitter, I commend you. But personally, I don't want to disadvantage the teams I play on and potentially cause them to lose because I ended up with a bunch of meetings and couldn't take my turns at 1 pm during lunch like I had planned to earlier in the day, or my family decided to spend the day together at the space museum and I didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on my ipod catching up on my games. If Conquer Club wants to be simultaneously casual and competitive, it ought to have room both for the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't want his team to lose and the guy who can't always take his turn and doesn't mind missing (and hopefully, he's playing on the opposite team from me (= ).

Then the players who are competitive should get together and be as ultra-competitive as they want, and if that matters to them then they won't miss 99.999% turns even if they don't have sitters. And the casual players will team up with the casual players and if people miss turns well it's just a bit of fun and nobody really cares if the odd game gets dropped for it.

But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

And if someone is a casual player and they want to join the competitive arena, then they should accept that they will have to prioritise it higher than before and make sure they make time and opportunity to take all of the turns that entails.

But to say that the competitive players should be allowed to have use of casual player's accounts, knowing that those casuals will go AWOL from time to time and will miss turns, and then assume they can account share those accounts to play out the games that matter to them whenever they want..... that's just screwed up.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:19 pm

crispybits wrote:But if a group of players wants to be competitive, then invites a bunch of casuals who only want to play when it's convenient for them to their team, then they should accept the consequences of that, in that turns will occasionally be missed, and should probably think hard about if they want to use those players for the competitive games.

I love this paragraph. Well put.
If you've got riders on your coattails, they ought to weigh you down a little.

by **Keefie** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:22 pm

I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:26 pm

Keefie wrote:I have absolutely no problem with these rules at all. HH have never abused account sitting, we have never logged into other clan mates accounts to check fog games and if there is an odd missed turn then so what.

Personally I'd take this thing one step further and ban account sitting. It would be a darn site easier for everyone.

I'm fine with this as well. Account sitting makes for laziness and rule bending all around. It's not worth the aggravation.

by **IronWood** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:45 pm

I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

by **Funkyterrance** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:57 pm

IronWood wrote:I say whatever.... you guys are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If I need somebody to sit for my account (which BTW, I never have)... but if I did, I'm not going to be held to some arbitrary rules.

So no reason to consider whether or not it's against the rules? Lovely.
The rules aren't really that "arbitrary", as everyone keeps parroting. In fact, they seem to made with accountability in mind.

by **crispybits** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:01 pm

Arbitrary rules like the ones you agreed to follow when you signed up for this site?

Are all rules you don't agree with arbitrary and to be broken whenever you feel like it?

by **ahunda** on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:03 pm

Ban account sitting ? You guys are losing all sense of proportion ...

After years of clan gaming we have accumulated the insane amount of 2 (in words: two) documented cases of account sitting abuse in C&A, only one of which was actually ruled "Guilty". This thread here is full with people saying they & their clans have never engaged in this kind of behaviour, and yet there is mass hysteria & people seeing suspected cheating around every corner.

I remember a clan challenge, where a player of the other clan was kicked out of all his active games, because he was banned from the site. So all you people would probably have said: Oh yeah, serves this clan right, their fault, suck it up. We on the other hand said, we will not punish an entire clan of friendly & fair players for the wrong-doings of one black sheep, and if this challenge comes down to 1-2 games in the end, we won´t have it said, we won only because of this incidence, and so we allowed the other clan to re-make the concerned games.

You can translate this 1:1 to a case, where a player goes awol in the middle of a challenge, because of a RL emergency (happened to us in our last challenge). You want to have a 40-60 game challenge with 40-50 participating players be decided by something like that ? Maybe the finals of a year long tournament like the Conquerors Cup ? Or maybe an entire Clan League season ?

This here borders on group psychosis ...