Conquer Club

the best solution would be if the other person could simply take the turn of that person...but im pretty sure thats complicated

they are already penalized, by deadbeating they miss 3 turns of troops and chances to attack and such, and beyond that they miss about 3 armies a turn

Night Strike wrote:It was put in place to help protect the player who has a random person join on his team but then deadbeat.

The true question (and what could probably be fairly debated) would be if it's still necessary since new recruits aren't allowed to play team games.

When I first started, I joined a dubls game and didn't even realize it. I attacked the shit out of my partner! Funny he didn't say anything to me about it?

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... full_log=Y

I was such a n00b!

I was even trying to talk to Gigfood while in team chat and didn't even realize it! CC was a big big world and I was but an ignorant child.

AAFitz wrote:the best solution would be if the other person could simply take the turn of that person...but im pretty sure thats complicated

If you like that idea, check this thread out: 2-player "team" games.
It's about a new game type that is similar to what you suggested (1 player playing multiple colors).

While playing a close doubles match with three teams. two teams had one player left and one had both. One of the players from the team with two players was booted for missing too many turns. that is a good device to have. What was bad was when his territories and his cards went to his teammate. Giving him a clear advantage over the rest of the players at a very important part of the game, essentially ending it and winning it for him.
I suggest that all assets of players booted for missing too many turns should turn neutral rather than become the teams. I understand that it is annoying to have a bad teammate, but that is part of risk playing with a random team.

Thank You.


Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics:

• xxxxxxx

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• xxxxxxx (you can obviously delete this for bug reports)
• xxxxxxx

this was just added recently, and i doubt they will go back to changing the booted players armies into neutrals. it is the fault of all of you in the game for not attacking the player missing turns and limiting his numbers. in the rules, it states that his armies will become his teammates, so why weren't you all taking care of what was the obvious problem. sounds like bad play to me, not a bad rule.-0

I think the rules should stay as they are.

However, I don't know what the rules are as far as point distribution at the end are. I think if your teamate(s) deadbeat and you go on to win the game, the deadbeats shouldn't get any points. Again, I don't know whether this is the case already or not (hopefully it is). Deadbeats are lame.

the armies going to the teammate I don't have a problem with it's the spoils, the cards that can give an unfair advantage to that team.

i had a game sorta like this and the thing is you have three turns to wipe him or his teamate gets everything...sometimes you just don't have enough troops or time to wipe him.

MOD EDIT: There have been at least a few suggestions on how to deal with the perceived problem of users who get kicked out of team games and what to do with their spoils, troops and territories. While none of the following three suggestions are entirely clear on the mechanics of what the solution to this problem should be, they all derive from the same source and arrive at similar conclusions.

The following three suggestions have been MERGED and REJECTED.

12/8/2009: Fridayknight says that we should "have a look" at the the deadbeat problem.

5/30/11 gumby7524 says that when a teammate deadbeats the rest of the team "should suffer as much as the other teams have suffered"

11/4/12: chewie1 says that in the case of a deadbeat or rules violation that it "become like in terminator games where [cards and territs are still up fo[r] grabs ... or just become straight neutrals"

The current system that is in place attempts to not punish innocent victims of the deadbeating or rules violations whether they be teammates or opponents of the deadbeat or violator. If someone is taking advantage of these rules, then you are free to fill out a Cheating and Abuse Report to address the problem. But for now, the rarity of the perceived problem and the amount of effort that would go in to "fixing" it means that it's not likely that this system will change.

As yeti_c points out:

yeti_c wrote:
If you can't kill of a team that is only playing half of the time in 3 goes - then you shouldn't bother playing... or you were going to lose anyway.

C.

But perhaps there is a solution to be found here:

1/15/10: karelpietertje says that in the case of a rules violation, the teammates should simply take over and "play[] for the busted player"

Unlike the first three mentioned suggestions, Karel's suggestion has been Submitted and is probably the only avenue that is likely to be taken by CC.

If you see any other suggestions that should be merged here, please post in the thread or inform a moderator. Thanks, as always, for reading --agentcom]

Concise description:

I've encountered a couple of instances where I've played in games where one team is clearly about to lose but because of a technicality in the game it works out to be a great benefit for one of the teams. One of the team members in a doubles match is kicked for missing too many turns but his teammate gains all his spoils and territories? Seems hardly fair and a very cheap tactic for someone to tip the scales in their favor.

Specifics:

For instance in Game 5840836. My teammate and I were on the verge of victory and only had to eliminate one player since his teammate was about to be kicked for missing too many turns. He had about 3 territories left at the time. I didn't realize this at the time but he inherited all his partners territories and then was able to run the table with the spoils and bonuses and win the game the very next turn.

Game 5815723

Once again... a poor player being rewarded for his teammates lack of play. The blue player has inherited quite a bit and in my opinion would've been wiped out in the near future if this was not part of the game. Now he's sitting pretty and can pretty much run the gambit with his re-enforcements that he'll be getting.

Please have a look into this and let me know what, if anything is being done.

Thanks in advance

Yeah, but take into account, when multi's are kicked out. I was in a quads game, round 2, when all 3 of my parters were kicked out for being multi's, making it 4v1. So how is it exactly fair to me? I barely managed to win the game. If your rule was applied, then it makes unfair to those who lose their partner(s) to violating the rules. Because i got stuck with a dumbass, i lose points automatically, having no chance at all. It would be as if i was in a 5 way ffa, and my 4 opponents teamed up on me at a very early stage of the game.

its rather unfair on the player you mentioned. is it HIS/HER fault the other player got kicked out?

why should that player who is left alone be faced against a team of two players with only half the territories?

for 3 whole turns his/her team was not getting their full complement of armies - that is punishment enough.

i am also somewhat amazed. this happened to you before and you had not learned anything? break the bonus(es) of the player about to be kicked as well as those auto-deploy territories.

you are also forgetting that when his/her team mate is being kicked he/she loses the 3 armies/turn automatic deploy.


the whole point is:

Why should Player A be punished because his team mate Player B missed 3 turns?

TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, but take into account, when multi's are kicked out. I was in a quads game, round 2, when all 3 of my parters were kicked out for being multi's, making it 4v1. So how is it exactly fair to me? I barely managed to win the game. If your rule was applied, then it makes unfair to those who lose their partner(s) to violating the rules. Because i got stuck with a dumbass, i lose points automatically, having no chance at all. It would be as if i was in a 5 way ffa, and my 4 opponents teamed up on me at a very early stage of the game.

dont get a retarded team that will all be kicked out then... i preferred it the way it used to be.. if a teamate was kicked they went neutral... it becomes a huge advantage in some games when a teamate is kicked...

TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, but take into account, when multi's are kicked out. I was in a quads game, round 2, when all 3 of my parters were kicked out for being multi's, making it 4v1. So how is it exactly fair to me? I barely managed to win the game. If your rule was applied, then it makes unfair to those who lose their partner(s) to violating the rules. Because i got stuck with a dumbass, i lose points automatically, having no chance at all. It would be as if i was in a 5 way ffa, and my 4 opponents teamed up on me at a very early stage of the game.

That is an extreme example of how it would work against you and highly unlikely to happen all that often.

My point is why should you get all your teammate's territories and spoils? You did nothing to earn them. Those on the opposing team(s) lose a lot by rolling the dice, losing troops and putting you into those positions. Because your teammate(s) cannot fulfill their end of the bargain should not validate why you should be awarded for their incompetence. I'm saying turn all the territories into neutral territories and no one gets them.

TheScarecrow wrote:its rather unfair on the player you mentioned. is it HIS/HER fault the other player got kicked out?

why should that player who is left alone be faced against a team of two players with only half the territories?

for 3 whole turns his/her team was not getting their full complement of armies - that is punishment enough.

i am also somewhat amazed. this happened to you before and you had not learned anything? break the bonus(es) of the player about to be kicked as well as those auto-deploy territories.

you are also forgetting that when his/her team mate is being kicked he/she loses the 3 armies/turn automatic deploy.


the whole point is:

Why should Player A be punished because his team mate Player B missed 3 turns?

Read my previous post...

Pretty much you are saying, is if you have a crappy teammate that doesn't take his turns, your team should lose. That is basically what this suggestion is.

The only time it benefits to have this happen is in the only example you gave: your team goes for a kill, then that person inherits the territories of the deadbeat.

In all other cases
- the other team now has back to back turns.
- if the person that deatbeated had less than 9 territories, the team now earns less troops
- if the person who received the territories had less than 9 territories, the team now earns less troops
- the team already lost at least 9 troops because the person was not taking their turns to deploy them
- all the armies of the deatbeat were useless for 3 rounds and never attacked anything
- the team has been playing with one less player for 3 rounds before receiving any compensation for it
- etc. etc.

Having a teammate that deadbeats is terrible. You lose a whole lot of initiative and your chances at winning the game are far slimmer, you have to rely on the other team being bad or having good dice. The rules are this way so that the team might actually have a chance at winning.

jammyjames wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, but take into account, when multi's are kicked out. I was in a quads game, round 2, when all 3 of my parters were kicked out for being multi's, making it 4v1. So how is it exactly fair to me? I barely managed to win the game. If your rule was applied, then it makes unfair to those who lose their partner(s) to violating the rules. Because i got stuck with a dumbass, i lose points automatically, having no chance at all. It would be as if i was in a 5 way ffa, and my 4 opponents teamed up on me at a very early stage of the game.

dont get a retarded team that will all be kicked out then... i preferred it the way it used to be.. if a teamate was kicked they went neutral... it becomes a huge advantage in some games when a teamate is kicked...

lmao thanks james, because i totally meant to pick a retard. That was my goal in that game. Even though not really my fault, because he joined my team. When i first joined the game, it was a Cadet on Team 1, and nobody on team 2. I joined team 2. Team 1 filled up late at night, and i had no parters. I wake up, the game has started. So it's not really my fault at all now is it? I actually felt like the game should be stricken from the records, and no points are gained/lost in that extreme situation. but thats just me

If you lose your partner and all his territories your chance to win the game goes from bad to almost impossible. You've already lost 9 armies on the behalf of your partner, if you lose all other territories to neutrals not only do you lose friendly armies, you gain blockers on the bonuses you want.

This is an unfair suggestion, and only helps out the opposition.
CC is not about making it easy for higher ranked players or players that get "lucky" and get a partner that gets kicked - it's about being as fair as possible to all participants.

So, a tip to you that complain - kill territories of players that are missing turns in team games. This is the only way to kill the "advantage", and it's completely fair.

Anyway it used to be like this. Because of such there will be no U-Turn, like with the double turn freestyles. It was originally an option then it was eradicated step by step.

Consider this the deadbeat version of surrender

I think a happy medium would benefit; a change so that only a random half of the kicked player's terrs go to other teammates. That gives someone whose teammate deadbeats at least a fighting chance, while minimizing the temptation for a teammate to deadbeat so the team can win the game.

This is a good idea. No reason to potentially reward a team for having a deadbeat or a cheat as a team mate.

Completely disagree...

If you can't kill of a team that is only playing half of the time in 3 goes - then you shouldn't bother playing... or you were going to lose anyway.

C.

The Neon Peon wrote:Pretty much you are saying, is if you have a crappy teammate that doesn't take his turns, your team should lose. That is basically what this suggestion is.

The only time it benefits to have this happen is in the only example you gave: your team goes for a kill, then that person inherits the territories of the deadbeat.

In all other cases
- the other team now has back to back turns.
- if the person that deatbeated had less than 9 territories, the team now earns less troops
- if the person who received the territories had less than 9 territories, the team now earns less troops
- the team already lost at least 9 troops because the person was not taking their turns to deploy them
- all the armies of the deatbeat were useless for 3 rounds and never attacked anything
- the team has been playing with one less player for 3 rounds before receiving any compensation for it
- etc. etc.

Having a teammate that deadbeats is terrible. You lose a whole lot of initiative and your chances at winning the game are far slimmer, you have to rely on the other team being bad or having good dice. The rules are this way so that the team might actually have a chance at winning.

Well said. I agree, this is a bad idea. The only way I could see it making sense is if people actually chose their teammates in all games, which they don't.

Fridayknight wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, but take into account, when multi's are kicked out. I was in a quads game, round 2, when all 3 of my parters were kicked out for being multi's, making it 4v1. So how is it exactly fair to me? I barely managed to win the game. If your rule was applied, then it makes unfair to those who lose their partner(s) to violating the rules. Because i got stuck with a dumbass, i lose points automatically, having no chance at all. It would be as if i was in a 5 way ffa, and my 4 opponents teamed up on me at a very early stage of the game.

That is an extreme example of how it would work against you and highly unlikely to happen all that often.

My point is why should you get all your teammate's territories and spoils? You did nothing to earn them. Those on the opposing team(s) lose a lot by rolling the dice, losing troops and putting you into those positions. Because your teammate(s) cannot fulfill their end of the bargain should not validate why you should be awarded for their incompetence. I'm saying turn all the territories into neutral territories and no one gets them.

Actually he won that game. I mean this should be rejected. Why make the other player suffer and lose points for his teammates problem. This is a BAD idea

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