Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Suggestions that have been inactive for a long period of time.

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby Fridayknight on Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:42 am

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
Last edited by agentcom on Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: created introduction
Corporal Fridayknight
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:07 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby TheForgivenOne on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:25 am

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (7)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby TheScarecrow on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:34 am

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? :roll: 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?
User avatar
Cook TheScarecrow
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:41 am
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby jammyjames on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:55 am

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...
Image
Sergeant 1st Class jammyjames
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 am
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (4)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby Fridayknight on Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:25 pm

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.
Corporal Fridayknight
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:07 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby Fridayknight on Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:27 pm

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? :roll: 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...
Corporal Fridayknight
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:07 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby The Neon Peon on Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:41 pm

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.
User avatar
Lieutenant The Neon Peon
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (3)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby TheForgivenOne on Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:32 am

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
Image
User avatar
Sergeant TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (7)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby Choco on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:37 pm

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.
Sergeant Choco
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:40 pm
Medals: 24
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby max is gr8 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

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
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
User avatar
Corporal max is gr8
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:44 am
Location: In a big ball of light sent from the future
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (11)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby stahrgazer on Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:59 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (7)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby jefjef on Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:36 pm

This is a good idea. No reason to potentially reward a team for having a deadbeat or a cheat as a team mate.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 5982
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby yeti_c on Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:06 pm

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.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby Keebs2674 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:52 pm

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.
Captain Keebs2674
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:48 am
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Suggestion: Territories go neutral if team member is kicked

Postby colton24 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:02 pm

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
Highest Rank: Lt | Highest Score: 1641
Mr. Squirrel wrote:
pmchugh wrote:BUMP- one more fool needed :mrgreen:

One fool reporting for duty!
User avatar
Private 1st Class colton24
 
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:27 am
Location: Alabama
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (3)

Team member inheriting spoils

Postby Gumby1 on Mon May 30, 2011 8:35 am

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
User avatar
Captain Gumby1
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: Toronto
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby TheForgivenOne on Mon May 30, 2011 4:04 pm

gumby7524 wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (7)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby SirSebstar on Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:14 am

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
Image
User avatar
Major SirSebstar
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011
Medals: 95
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (9) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (4)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby kabuki.mono on Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:02 am

SirSebstar wrote: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!
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class kabuki.mono
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Under a rock with a 6gb connection.
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:07 pm

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.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby Army of GOD on Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:33 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Cook Army of GOD
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Over the river and through the woods
Medals: 26
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby blakebowling on Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:33 pm

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.
12:39:59 AM rdsrds2120: sorry, I had a lot of lasagna tonight
12:40:06 AM rdsrds2120: I'm pretty out of it. CRAAZZYYY NIGHT
12:31:04 * Metsfanmax quit (kicked from Social by Metsfanmax - reason: haha gotcha now)
12:59:32 * #1_stunna gropes blakebowling
Private blakebowling
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3)
Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (3)
Tournament Contribution (3) General Contribution (10)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby evantish on Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:40 pm

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.
Captain evantish
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:03 pm
Location: USA
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby TheForgivenOne on Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:58 am

evantish wrote:
  • 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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (7)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Team member inheriting spoils

Postby evantish on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:14 am

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.
Captain evantish
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:03 pm
Location: USA
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Next

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login