Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

[Gumby1]

Hello,

I haven't been able to find a post in regards to this topic. I am currently playing in a game: 9052575. It is a four team, two player per team game of North America. Spoils are escalating.

We are now in Round 7. Team 1, second player: ccockatoo, played the first three rounds, taking a spoil on each turn. He then sat out rounds 4 to 6 and was therefore kicked out of the game. What I don't understand is that now is teammate has inherited his spoils (he is now sitting at 6 spoils) and is set to run the board on his next turn.

Why is it that when somebody is kicked out for non playing (which makes the game boring for everyone else), his teammate is rewarded with his spoils. In my opinion this is cheating. The other teams cannot adjust to this "strategy" because we never saw it coming. I would go so far as to say that it was cheating.

Team 1 set the game up and I suspect that this was a tactic that they had talked about privately. Player: Larry46, and his partner: ccockatoo, stand to win the game on this highly controversial "strategy". I believe that it is unfair.

If your partner is kicked out for non play, then you should suffer as much as the other teams have suffered. You should not benefit and win the game.

This is just my humble opinion.

Regards,
gumby7524

[TheForgivenOne]

Hello,

I haven't been able to find a post in regards to this topic. I am currently playing in a game: Game 9052575. It is a four team, two player per team game of North America. Spoils are escalating.

We are now in Round 7. Team 1, second player: ccockatoo, played the first three rounds, taking a spoil on each turn. He then sat out rounds 4 to 6 and was therefore kicked out of the game. What I don't understand is that now is teammate has inherited his spoils (he is now sitting at 6 spoils) and is set to run the board on his next turn.

Why is it that when somebody is kicked out for non playing (which makes the game boring for everyone else), his teammate is rewarded with his spoils. In my opinion this is cheating. The other teams cannot adjust to this "strategy" because we never saw it coming. I would go so far as to say that it was cheating.

Team 1 set the game up and I suspect that this was a tactic that they had talked about privately. Player: Larry46, and his partner: ccockatoo, stand to win the game on this highly controversial "strategy". I believe that it is unfair.

If your partner is kicked out for non play, then you should suffer as much as the other teams have suffered. You should not benefit and win the game.

This is just my humble opinion.

Regards,
gumby7524

Why should they suffer? What happens if that player was actually missing turns for a real reason? Family emergency? Gone on vacation? Loss if internet? Not everyone does it as a strategy, as 99% of the time, the team/player suffers, as they miss spoils, they lose deployment, and lose half of their attacking force for 3 turns.

I looked at the game you mentioned. The player who missed said turns HAS actually been off the site since his last turn. How certain ARE YOU that they did this on purpose? How do you know ccockatoo didn't actually miss turns without meaning to? You have 0 proof that he intentionally missed turns.

When players miss turns, they are already put at a disadvantage (as I mentioned above), and you are asking for them to be put at further of a disadvantage. I've played in games where my partner has been kicked out, and only ONCE, have I ever won a game, and that's because we had already basically won the game.

It's not like their team got any more spoils for being kicked out or anything.

[SirSebstar]

this is all true.
If someone deadbeats, you should do something about it, not just let it slide... that was your mistake... Now you know, and be warned next time.
remember, deadbeating holds few advantages and more lossess. 3 turns no reinforcements, no extra cards. yes the player remaining gets a huge bonus compared to normal, but he is still missing his teammate... and has been for 3 turns.. that should hurt a lot more

[kabuki.mono]

this is all true.
If someone deadbeats, you should do something about it, not just let it slide... that was your mistake... Now you know, and be warned next time.
remember, deadbeating holds few advantages and more lossess. 3 turns no reinforcements, no extra cards. yes the player remaining gets a huge bonus compared to normal, but he is still missing his teammate... and has been for 3 turns.. that should hurt a lot more

Agreed!

[Metsfanmax]

It is also the case that this is the first game these two people have played together on, so it is rather unlikely that they created this strategy just now for this one game.

At any rate, this mechanic has been discussed a number of times in this and other forums on CC, and it seems unlikely to change.

[Army of GOD]

People bitch about this all the time, but I think it's much better than the alternative which is give nothing to the teammates. This is, in my opinion, the most fair way of going about it.

[blakebowling]

As has been stated previously, CC is meant to be friendly for casual play and as such, is forgiving for emergencies and reasons beyond your control that you would miss turns.

Rejected.

[evantish]

I've been both the heir of a deadbeat and on the receiving end of turbo-boosted inheritors, and I can't disagree more with the prevailing opinions here. The current system is not fair and I will do my best to address arguments to the contrary.

Argument 1: Forgiving / Casual / Friendly

"Conquer Club is meant to be friendly for casual play and as such, is forgiving for emergencies and reasons beyond your control that you would miss turns" ~ blakebowling

"Why should they suffer? What happens if that player was actually missing turns for a real reason? Family emergency? Gone on vacation? Loss if internet? Not everyone does it as a strategy, as 99% of the time, the team/player suffers, as they miss spoils, they lose deployment, and lose half of their attacking force for 3 turns. " ~ TheForgivenOne

Why should the reason for missing several turns make any difference on how the spoils are handled? If my team mate can't get his act together for 48+ hours, then that's his problem (and mine). Entering in to a team I think it's completely fair to assume some risk -- that my team mate might deadbeat or, heck, actively sabotage the game in other ways. It should not become the problem of the rest of the players who are now possibly going to get blitzed when I cash in his spoils and leverage all his territorial advantages that I was previously unable to do. How is it remotely fair to punish the other teams that came by their advantages by grinding it out? Forgiving would be (something like) allowing the remaining team member(s) the option of forfeit without impacting their ranking and having the territories go back to neutral so that the rest of the players can carry on. I'd rather just have a game go void than suffer through the death throes of my victimized opponent(s) or myself.

Argument 2: Better than the alternative

"People bitch about this all the time, but I think it's much better than the alternative which is give nothing to the teammates." ~ Army of GOD

This presents a false dichotomy. Why only one alternative? There are many more than 2 options available here. One of which I proposed in my previous response. For the sake of thoroughly debunking this argument's premise, I'll propose yet several more alternatives:

• The territories could be given the the other team member, but the spoils could be dropped (I see those as being the most disruptive aspect of the current rule).
• The remaining player could only be allowed to take a subset of the players territories (say, up to 3), and the remaining would go neutral.
• Or instead of going neutral they could go to the other members if there are enough to go around--which could be a very interesting piece of strategy.
• The remaining team member(s) could be granted any adjacent territories and could pick 1 of the spoils that the other team member left behind.

As you can see there are other options that are worth debating. And I posit that the status quo is decidely NOT the fairest of possible policies available to us. I'll concede that the technical overhead required to address this issue might be prohibitive. But while we're brainstorming in a hypothetical realm, I see no logical basis for the either/or argument--it's simply lazy.

Argument #3: No one's cheating.

"It is also the case that this is the first game these two people have played together on, so it is rather unlikely that they created this strategy just now for this one game." ~ Metsfanmax

Nothing could be further from the point. The individual instance reported by Gumby7524 on this thread is one of many instances where this rule has created negative externalities. That is to say, extracted a toll from other players in the game during a situation that otherwise should have only had a private (team-only) costs.

The actual point is that the policy in general is, at worst, egregiously under developed and simplistic or, at best, unfair. It's nigh impossible to prove that the feature is being abused at a large scale, but the fact remains that it most certainly could be abused. And even if it's not being abused, it's certainly not a universally fair way of handling the situation.

Argument #4: low priority issue / force of nature

"At any rate, this mechanic has been discussed a number of times in this and other forums on CC, and it seems unlikely to change." ~ Metsfanmax

Oh ok, so let's stop the discussion because it's unlikely to change. Not to get too grandiose, but it's a good thing certain people kept up the discussion on, let's say, civil rights when it was unlikely to change. Come on. Perhaps, the issue should be put to a vote rather than hem and hawing around the forums with weak arguments that, frankly, don't hold much water.

If there are other threads that are more active on this topic, I would be glad to contribute there.

Final notes

Apologies if this message comes off as somewhat combative. Sorry. My goal is not to put anyone on the emotional defensive. The policy (or mechanic, as Metsfanmax termed it) appears unfair to myself and many others as evidenced by our "bitching." I would love to brainstorm and debate ways to remedy this issue, but it seems first I need to convince people that there is an issue.

Thank you.

[TheForgivenOne]

• The territories could be given the the other team member, but the spoils could be dropped (I see those as being the most disruptive aspect of the current rule).
• The remaining player could only be allowed to take a subset of the players territories (say, up to 3), and the remaining would go neutral.
• Or instead of going neutral they could go to the other members if there are enough to go around--which could be a very interesting piece of strategy.
• The remaining team member(s) could be granted any adjacent territories and could pick 1 of the spoils that the other team member left behind.

I'm going to list a few problems with the few things you gave as solutions

A) This one is a possibility.
B) this would put the other player at a major disadvantage. If Team A has 10 and 10 regions. Team B has 10 and 10. Suddenly, Team A has one player kicked out, and they are facing a Team who is deploying more troops than them, and has the ability to attack back to back turns.
C) What do you mean other members? You mean my team's spoils will be going to my opponents? Yeah, that seems fair. What if the other team has a member with 5 spoils, and they get 1? Suddenly they have the chance to cash twice.
D) Why should the territories that I started off with be lost? The same thing happens when a player is kicked out for missing turns and for violating rules. A few times players are eliminated Round 1. Now, this one wouldn't work with Conquest type maps, such as Feudal War, Moon, New World, etc, because players start off with 1 region. Suddenly, in a Doubles game, instead of having 2 "Bases", you have to go 1v2, which will be damn near impossible to win.

Now, there is already a Suggestion sitting in Submitted, where instead of the spoils/troops going to the team-mates, one of the team mates will take over that spot for the rest of the game. So Team A has player A and B. Player B is kicked out, so Player A would play normally for himself, and when it comes to Player B, Player A takes the turn normally, as if Player B was to take it.

[evantish]

TheForgivenOne, you might have overlooked/ignored my original suggestion:

...allowing the remaining team member(s) the option of forfeit without impacting their ranking and having the territories go back to neutral so that the rest of the players can carry on. I'd rather just have a game go void than suffer through the death throes of my victimized opponent(s) or myself.

I may be in the minority, but CC games are so plentiful and easy to join, it seems silly to do calisthenics to salvage a deadbeat-effected game with complex rules or overwrought technical solutions. It's rare that there's a game where I am so invested that I would be heartbroken if it just ended with no blood. And of course, I'd have the option to continue regardless--which might prove useful if it's at a stage where my individual position is strong enough to overcome any advantages the other team(s) may have. I realize this could be abused if not adequately discouraged. Implied would be some added penalization for deadbeating and a historical accounting of user deadbeating trends. I think most savvy players are already a little weary of the chronically low-ranked players who seem to revel in obnoxious play, so some kind of scarlet lettering system might be appropriate here.

B) this would put the other player at a major disadvantage. If Team A has 10 and 10 regions. Team B has 10 and 10. Suddenly, Team A has one player kicked out, and they are facing a Team who is deploying more troops than them, and has the ability to attack back to back turns.

I see your point. A simple solution would be to attempt to balance the distribution. Perhaps in your example (40 territories split evenly between 4 players), the inheritor would receive all of his lost teammate's territories. But let's look at a more realistic example: Team A has 15 and 5. Team B has 10 and 5. If team A loses the member with 15 territories the system could award 10 of those 15 territories to the remaining player (to match the territory-count of team B). And perhaps spoils are only awarded if the sum of all Team A's holdings cannot match team B?

"Or instead of going neutral they could go to the other members if there are enough to go around--which could be a very interesting piece of strategy."

What do you mean other members? You mean my team's spoils will be going to my opponents? Yeah, that seems fair. What if the other team has a member with 5 spoils, and they get 1? Suddenly they have the chance to cash twice.

No, I meant territory not spoils. Extending from my previous suggestion above, the intent would be to balance things out as best as possible. Let's use the team A + B example again. Team A is 15 and 5. Team B is 10 and 5. All of the sudden A15 deadbeats. The other player on Team A would inherit 10 and that would make things even at 15 to 15 (territories) leaving 5 unaccounted for territories. OR... the entire balance could be distributed between both teams giving Team A the first right of refusal. The inheritor on team A could get first choice of 10 territories and then Team B could choose 2 from the remaining 5, while the last 3 go back to Team A or neutral. That was the spirit in which I made the suggestion, though in writing it out it seems overly complex.

Now, there is already a Suggestion sitting in Submitted, where instead of the spoils/troops going to the team-mates, one of the team mates will take over that spot for the rest of the game. So Team A has player A and B. Player B is kicked out, so Player A would play normally for himself, and when it comes to Player B, Player A takes the turn normally, as if Player B was to take it.

Yes, I have seen this and support it as a workable solution, though I think the forfeit option is more fair and perhaps simpler to implement.

[Chewie1]

In Game 11738450

francisco969

Has been kicked from the game for violating the which I appreciate it happens.
Therefore pretender77his partner gets his regions and his cards (total 10 cards)
its esculating spoils and spoils are at 145 giving him a huge advantage.

A lot of effort by myself and other players has been put into this, at the stage francisco was kicked he was down to 3/4 regions I myself had 1 cornered so it wasnt beyond the realms of impossibillity he could have been eliminated before his next turn.
So after he "violated" the rules the game has fallen flat on its face.

I think the system should be changed for team games that when a player deadbeats/violates rules the regions and cards he has become like in terminator games where they are still up fo grabs to who eliminates him or just become straight neutrals like they do in standard games.

How this would benefit the game?

Well in big doubles games like this one only 1 player would be pissed of (the partner of who was kicked) not 6 others.

[chapcrap]

What about in a triples game? Or a quads game?

Losing a teammate basically gives the other team the game and it is not the partners' fault that a teammate was breaking the rules.

[VampireM]

What about in a triples game? Or a quads game?

Losing a teammate basically gives the other team the game and it is not the partners' fault that a teammate was breaking the rules.

its all about timing my friend, in any team game (especially escalating cards) there can be a large advantage for ur teammate getting kicked out for violating the rules.. it gives u territory bonuses, and large multi cashes.. This could happen before the other team even has a turn to react... It does not happen often but when it does, it ruins that particular game

[chapcrap]

What about in a triples game? Or a quads game?

Losing a teammate basically gives the other team the game and it is not the partners' fault that a teammate was breaking the rules.

its all about timing my friend, in any team game (especially escalating cards) there can be a large advantage for ur teammate getting kicked out for violating the rules.. it gives u territory bonuses, and large multi cashes.. This could happen before the other team even has a turn to react... It does not happen often but when it does, it ruins that particular game

And for the times when it's not escalating? This proposal would ruin the game for the team that has the player kicked. It's already difficult enough when another team will get back to back turns because of an elimination. To lose everything that player had as well is over the top.

[VampireM]

What about in a triples game? Or a quads game?

Losing a teammate basically gives the other team the game and it is not the partners' fault that a teammate was breaking the rules.

its all about timing my friend, in any team game (especially escalating cards) there can be a large advantage for ur teammate getting kicked out for violating the rules.. it gives u territory bonuses, and large multi cashes.. This could happen before the other team even has a turn to react... It does not happen often but when it does, it ruins that particular game

And for the times when it's not escalating? This proposal would ruin the game for the team that has the player kicked. It's already difficult enough when another team will get back to back turns because of an elimination. To lose everything that player had as well is over the top.

More then likely an easy win for the team not having the player kicked, but there is still rare times where it does benefit the team with the violating player even in games that are not escalating cards.

Edit: Why does it matter if it only effects escalating card games? To me it still looks like a flaw in the system and there is a suggestion to fix it which i support