[GP] [Rules] Eliminate Deferred Troops

[sgtsaggy]

I know I am a new player to this site, but I have been playing risk for most of my life. I have been noticing that a good many players after securing a continent have been purposely missing turns in order to use deferred troops as a strategy rather than a courtesy. By both allowing deferred troops and not making it mandatory to place them all at the beginning of the turn, I have seen many people already blatantly abuse this privelege and use it to turn the winning odds in their favor. I understand the idea and purpose behind deferred troops, and that it is a means to discourage people from quiting a match. However, when people are abusing it in such a way it hurts every other player on the board and I don't think that is fair to the community and the people who are making sure they take their turns. The only way to defend against deferred troops is to not attack and fortify all your borders with whomever missed their turn, in fear they might place all the deferred troops on your border and attack. This is unfair to those that border said player because they essentially lose a turn as well while those that don't border get to carry on as usual. Giving someone deferred troops to try and keep it fair is one thing, but hurting all others and completely changing the outcome of a game is another. The only fair thing to do is to either not give deferred troops, or have them auto deploy spread out amongst their territories. No one else should be punished because someone misses a turn. If you have over-extended yourself amongst too many games, then you should have to take the hit if you miss a turn. If an emergency comes up and you have to miss a turn, you can always have someone else take it for you. I have seen numerous times now people miss a turn and when I check their current games find that they have taken other turns during the time period. So I cant see how it is called "fair" for that same person to then be able to take advantage of what I consider a broken system.

[Lindax]

I totally agree with you. However, this has been brought up many times and it seems impossible to make people understand how deferred troops can be unfair and change the game, even be the direct cause of losing a game.

I doubt very much that this time is different and something will be done about it.

Lx

[Teflon Kris]

I agree Lx, this has been a long-standing point of discussion.

I suspect part of the rationale being a lack of priority to adress this is the fact that new players to the site might be put-off a little if they miss an odd turn and it crushes their chances in a game. If I were lack I would be concerned that removing the deferred troops system might result in a few less fremiums getting really into CC and going premium.

However, there are so many instances where deferred troops have turned-out to be unfair to the reliable opponent. And, in fresstyle it can be rediculous (especially in 1 v 1 - the player going second can miss then go first (the other player is locked-out as he actually took a turn last) with his normal turn and have deferred troops).

Perhaps, happy a medium could be struck along the lines of the following:

• Deferred troop count of just 3, or maybe even 2, no bonuses, no region-count bonuses.
  
  
• No deferred troops in freestlye (or, seperately, the freestly coding is adjusted so that the miss locks the player missing out for the first 12 hours / going first next round).

[Evolution299]

I don't get it. Why should you be rewarded for missing a turn? If you miss a turn, you shouldn't get those troops. Or if you must get an amount of deferred troops, let it be a max of 3.

[natty dread]

Leave the deferred troops as they are in sequential.

No one (other than farmers) really cares about freestyle, so do whatever with that.

[crazymilkshake5]

Concise description:

• Adds an option to get rid of differed troops.

Specifics/Details:

• In "start a game" it adds a button to turn them off.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Admit it. Nobody like Differed troops.

[sundance123]

I like them when I have missed a turn unintentionally.

[jefjef]

I like them when I have missed a turn unintentionally.

Lots of people like them. They create a nice little pile for a partners next turn or to fort up a recently conquered tert/bonus.

Do away with them is what I say. An option to accomplish that is a great idea!

[SimplyObsessed]

I think maybe this could work, but shouldn't be applicable to team games at all as it's unfair on the other team members. I'd suggest, excluding team games, the deferred troops should be half of what the person was due. That would be an incentive not to miss turns, and would be less likely to totally screw the balance of the game.

[Criticalwinner]

I don't know what differed troops are, but deferred troops aren't that much of a problem. While Simply brings up a good point (half deferral), I don't think they should be done away with.... especially in 1 minute speed games.

[jgordon1111]

I am thinking this is a good suggestion makes the game be played more like it was intended. If that is your best strategy and best skill your playing on the wrong site OMGUS, and I will treat you like I do when you give me away in a fog game FAMO

Right after I tell you what I think of you and your playing skills

[MNDuke]

I've been saying this for a very long time. Why should someone get rewarded for missing a turn? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to get punished and lose that drop? I says yes. Or at the very least leave the option up to the game maker. Having this option could have avoided a recent controversy in a clan league and could prevent some in the future.

[DoomYoshi]

I am thinking this is a good suggestion makes the game be played more like it was intended. If that is your best strategy and best skill your playing on the wrong site OMGUS, and I will treat you like I do when you give me away in a fog game FAMO

Right after I tell you what I think of you and your playing skills

How does this make it more like it was intended?

The game was 'intended" to be played sitting around a table. If someone needs a break to go to the bathroom, they usually (at least in my family) don't miss a turn.

Also cm5, if you are too lazy to change the title to the proper spelling, then I refuse to support the suggestion. I wouldn't support it anyways, but now I am double rejecting it. Since I am a black yoshi and you are only green, I outrank you

[MNDuke]

if you are too lazy to change the title to the proper spelling, then I refuse to support the suggestion. I wouldn't support it anyways, but now I am double rejecting it.

Now you are just being petty. Why should a person be rewarded for missing a turn? It only makes sense to punish them. Regardless, the OP isn't talking about doing away with deferred troops, but adding the option of turning them on or off as a game setting. This only allows for more freedom and control over the game. So to be clear, you are against having the option of being able to choose whether or not to allow deferred troops when setting up a game?

[DoomYoshi]

Yes, I am against it as an option.

Losing a turn is punishment enough. I almost got booted out of my clan for losing too many. The option doesn't add anything to the games I care about (clan games or tournament team games).

Also, there is a certain amount of inertia involved in missing a turn. If you miss one turn, you are more likely to miss a second, and then to eventually just never come back to the site. I think adding further punishment won't help this at all. And yes, this applies even as an option.

[MNDuke]

Yes, I am against it as an option.

Losing a turn is punishment enough. I almost got booted out of my clan for losing too many. The option doesn't add anything to the games I care about (clan games or tournament team games).

Also, there is a certain amount of inertia involved in missing a turn. If you miss one turn, you are more likely to miss a second, and then to eventually just never come back to the site. I think adding further punishment won't help this at all. And yes, this applies even as an option.

Well I guess this where we disagree. I've missed turns on accident, but then come back to take the rest of my turns. So to assume because you miss one turn you are going to miss the rest and then leave site is a bit of a stretch to me. I've had sitters miss turns as well, but this doesn't mean I'm going to miss the rest of my turns and then not come back. To humor this thought, that if a person misses and then misses the second and then leaves the site, how do deferred troops even play a role, as they aren't coming back to take their turns or claim their deferred troops. In this scenario, having the option of deferring troops is meaningless either way.

I also have to disagree that they don't add anything. In a recent clan league, some of my mates were in a game, where the other team missed on purpose to claim their deferred troops a round later to increase their troop count in the last round to win by round limit. Had deferred troops been turned off, they wouldn't have been able to implore this strategy.

Once again, having the option is just that. It's an option. So, if you like to play with deferred troops you would have the option to play with them and those who don't like the idea, wouldn't have to be subject to playing with deferred troops. By allowing this option, everyone gets what they want. By not allowing it, you are imposing your will and opinion and not allowing others to play with their own personal preference. So I guess I don't understand how by allowing this option would affect you or the way you like to play the game.

[DoomYoshi]

The round limit rules are stupid. I will admit that. They should be changed though, not the deferred troops system.

I am usually quite in favor of options. I hate the Clandemonium map with a passion, but I still think it is good to have the option there. This option will affect me since I very rarely create games. Most games I play are clan or tournament so I will inadvertently be sucked into this option. Also, I don't think the supporters of this suggestion should have the satisfaction of implementation.

[MNDuke]

The round limit rules are stupid. I will admit that. They should be changed though, not the deferred troops system.

I am usually quite in favor of options. I hate the Clandemonium map with a passion, but I still think it is good to have the option there. This option will affect me since I very rarely create games. Most games I play are clan or tournament so I will inadvertently be sucked into this option. Also, I don't think the supporters of this suggestion should have the satisfaction of implementation.

Why? It seems to me you are against the idea on nothing more than principle alone. Once again, the option will only affect you if you chose for it to affect you. You don't have to join games that don't have the deferred option turned on. Unless you plan on missing turns or are a habitual turn misser, it should have no affect on you. As long as you are playing the game as it is intended, it shouldn't be an issue. I still fail to understand why you are such a staunch supporter of deferred troops versus having the option to make all parties happy. You do have the option to not join tournaments that would use this option. It all comes down to choice and it seems that you want to limit the choices so that it only benefits your opinion instead of keeping an open mind. Having the option to turn deferred troops on/off would be a compromise to make all parties happy. If it were up to me, deferred troops would be eliminated all together, however I respect that other people prefer deferred troops, and as such, think this is a viable solution to make all parties happy. Once again, why reward or benefit someone for missing their turn. By not allowing deferred troops you are in essence deterring missed turns rather than condoning them. I think this is fair option and don't understand the close minded attitude towards this.

[DoomYoshi]

The round limit rules are stupid. I will admit that. They should be changed though, not the deferred troops system.

I am usually quite in favor of options. I hate the Clandemonium map with a passion, but I still think it is good to have the option there. This option will affect me since I very rarely create games. Most games I play are clan or tournament so I will inadvertently be sucked into this option. Also, I don't think the supporters of this suggestion should have the satisfaction of implementation.

Why? It seems to me you are against the idea on nothing more than principle alone. Once again, the option will only affect you if you chose for it to affect you. You don't have to join games that don't have the deferred option turned on. Unless you plan on missing turns or are a habitual turn misser, it should have no affect on you. As long as you are playing the game as it is intended, it shouldn't be an issue. I still fail to understand why you are such a staunch supporter of deferred troops versus having the option to make all parties happy. You do have the option to not join tournaments that would use this option. It all comes down to choice and it seems that you want to limit the choices so that it only benefits your opinion instead of keeping an open mind. Having the option to turn deferred troops on/off would be a compromise to make all parties happy. If it were up to me, deferred troops would be eliminated all together, however I respect that other people prefer deferred troops, and as such, think this is a viable solution to make all parties happy. Once again, why reward or benefit someone for missing their turn. By not allowing deferred troops you are in essence deterring missed turns rather than condoning them. I think this is fair option and don't understand the close minded attitude towards this.

In theory I have the option to choose game settings. Not in reality. I can't remember the last time I chose settings for a game I played in.

I understand that you respect different options. Usually I do. Not in this case though. For a similar reason that I don't support games played without points.

If missing turns is such a game changer, how come I can't find any strategy guides that suggest it. If missing turns is such a great strategy why don't you use it?

You accuse me of opposing this suggestion in principle, but the only reason you oppose deferred troops is in principle. Even if people were intentionally missing turns (i still don't believe it's common) what difference does it make? It slows your gameplay down?

It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it serves as a punishment. I ask you again: if you are playing RISK with your family and somebody needs to go to the bathroom, do you skip their turn and not give them troops? Unless you do, you haven't reason to support this suggestion.

[MNDuke]

You can't look at this as a game of risk with your family. How many times have you played Arms Race with them while sitting around the table? This is a much different game and has evolved from the board game we know into something much bigger. How often do you play for points and ranks with your family? In that case you are supporting a game and comparing this one to one that is played without points. When you play at home, there are no time constraints, so you wouldn't miss a turn. It's not even an option. However, CC has time constraints applied to it, hence the ability to miss turns. That's where the issue begins and becomes a problem. So yes, you should be punished for missing a turn. And not receiving troops would serve as a deterrent. Just as missing 3 turns in a row and being kicked from a game serves as a deterrent from missing multiple turns. You are looking at this from 2 very different view points. Skipping a person's turn while they go to the bathroom is much different than a person not taking their turn in a given time period that they are aware of. This awareness of your turn is why a person should not be rewarded for missing a turn and thus should be punished in my opinion or why we should have the option to allow or disallow deferred troops as we see fit. People have different viewpoints on what should happen after missed turns and as such whether deferred troops should be allowed should be up to game creator. I think the option to punish someone for missing their turn should be a viable solution. If you know you have "x" amount of time to take your turn, it's your responsibility to find a way to get it done, and a person shouldn't be rewarded for shirking their responsibility.

[DoomYoshi]

And my argument is that missing a turn is punishment enough. There already is a deterrent. One less turn to attack, retake bonuses, capture spoils, and reinforce. This is a form of cyber-bullying. It transitions cc from a casual game, which I love, to a hardcore game, which I hate.

I may not have played arms race with my family, but I have played many more evolved forms of risk. Creating different boards and rules to play by was pretty much my entire childhood. Never mind the even more evolved games, such as Third Reich, Axis and Allies, Soldier Emperor etc. Playing on CC is a devolution, not an evolution.

[MNDuke]

Missing your turn is technically not a punishment. It i a n action and the consequence/punishment would be losing deferments if the game creator so chose that option. Once again the topic is the option of turning deferred troops on/off. By allowing this option, deferred troops would still exist. As mentioned, just because you like having deferred troops available, doesn't mean that others shouldn't be allowed to have the option to turn them on/off. On the original board game, there is no such thing as Fog of war, so should that option be eliminated as well? Humor me and lets say you don't like fog. Would it be right then to say that all games should be sunny just because you don't like fog of war? Should we take that option away from people because of your personal preference? That's essentially what we are talking about here, except replace fog with deferred troops.

[DoomYoshi]

The difference is that this option is taking away a fundamental right: the right to have deployed troops proportionally distributed to all players in the game.

It's the CC equivalent of clean water.

[MNDuke]

The difference is that this option is taking away a fundamental right: the right to have deployed troops proportionally distributed to all players in the game.

It's the CC equivalent of clean water.

If you miss your turn you are waiving that right. You are saying I don't care and my drop at this time isn't important. I'll just come back and I'll have my troops waiting for me later. You should not be rewarded for such behavior or at the very least, the option to turn off deferred troops should be permitted for those who feel that way. Not every one thinks deferred troops are a right. We are arguing the option for all, not the personal opinion of one, which you fail to see.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok. I hereby drop down from double disapproval of this suggestion to single disapproval.