Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

[Chewie1]

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

I can see all these points in flat rate or no spoils depending on the state of the game it could still work out equal but in esc in definitely benefits the team mate that grabs all the cards for a multiple cash.
Therefore maybe it could be fixed so the unfortunate partner gets the regions but not the cards?

[chapcrap]

I can see all these points in flat rate or no spoils depending on the state of the game it could still work out equal but in esc in definitely benefits the team mate that grabs all the cards for a multiple cash.
Therefore maybe it could be fixed so the unfortunate partner gets the regions but not the cards?

That is something I could consider a lot more... Not sure if I like it, but more reasonable than the original, IMO.

[Dukasaur]

I can see all these points in flat rate or no spoils depending on the state of the game it could still work out equal but in esc in definitely benefits the team mate that grabs all the cards for a multiple cash.
Therefore maybe it could be fixed so the unfortunate partner gets the regions but not the cards?

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

[agentcom]

Keep in mind that the status quo is a compromise as with a lot of the rules on this site. I would have to guess that the team losing a player has a negative effect on the team far more often than it has a positive effect on the team.

Basically, I'm with chap on this one.

[Vid_FISO]

Given that these players have been booted from all games for whatever reason and so I assume that their accounts are suspended, wouldn't it be possible for someone "neutral" (mod/ admin/ whatever) to take over all of their team games for the duration so that nobody gains any advantage or disadvantage regardless?

[agentcom]

Given that these players have been booted from all games for whatever reason and so I assume that their accounts are suspended, wouldn't it be possible for someone "neutral" (mod/ admin/ whatever) to take over all of their team games for the duration so that nobody gains any advantage or disadvantage regardless?

This topic is about deadbeats, but it's basically what you're saying. The game would have to be put on pause while players wait and it would be subject to abuse as people would only join games that they have a good chance of winning in. Or you make it for no points and players don't have as much incentive to play hard. Plus it's a major site upgrade for a relatively minor problem. I've played 3000 games and only had another player (not necessarily a teammate) kicked out a few times. I would doubt that anything like this is going to happen, but it is an interesting idea.

[Metsfanmax]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

[Vid_FISO]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

[Metsfanmax]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

Perhaps, but the new "regime" has to get through all the actually approved suggestions before we can start reconsidering all the ones that were rejected (usually for good reason).

[agentcom]

MERGED a couple of topics. Introduction added to OP.

[Chewie1]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

The amount of threads on this site are immense so didnt think to look, sorry.

[Chewie1]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

Perhaps, but the new "regime" has to get through all the actually approved suggestions before we can start reconsidering all the ones that were rejected (usually for good reason).

Just because its been rejected before it doesnt make it the right decesion.

[Metsfanmax]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

Perhaps, but the new "regime" has to get through all the actually approved suggestions before we can start reconsidering all the ones that were rejected (usually for good reason).

Just because its been rejected before it doesnt make it the right decesion.

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

[Vid_FISO]

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

Surely a better "protocol" would be for a thread to be locked with a link to the previous discussion?

[Metsfanmax]

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

Surely a better "protocol" would be for a thread to be locked with a link to the previous discussion?

No. Depending on the subject, one of two things makes sense:

- A thread that serves as a compendium of links to related suggestions (this is done for very common suggestions), OR
- Merging them all in one thread

Leaving them separate gives no way for someone to easily find all of the threads on a particular topic, and easy access to information on the topic is more important than individual thread identity in the majority of cases.