Moderator: Community Team
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.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
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
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
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.
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.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:pmchugh wrote:BUMP- one more fool needed
One fool reporting for duty!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users