Suggestion: Deadbeat Draw

by **robbart** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:38 am

<-------------------->

<Subject>:

* I propose that, if in a game, 50% of the players deadbeat, the game is automatically called a draw.

<Body>:

* Suggestion Idea: I propose that, if in a game, 50% of the players deadbeat, the game is automatically called a draw.
* Specifics: After a certain amount of rounds in a game, if 50% of the players deadbeat, the game is called a draw.
* Why it is needed:
I currently have a 6 player assassin game, where 4 players deadbeated. It's not much fun when you are playing a 1v1 assassin game.

With the proliferation of noobs playing these days, it's becoming all to frequent that they join these games, get bored waiting for their turn, and never return to take it.

I have in my current games list at least 10 games where 3 or 4 players have deadbeated. This makes for some real boring games as the remaining players weed through the deadbeats armies to get to one another.

And YES, I know I can avoid playing public games, and only play private games. But that's not how I roll.
* Priority** (1-5): 4

**Note**

1 = Bottom of 'To Do' list
5 = Urgent, implement with next update

<-------------------->

by **Anarchist** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:56 am

I dont like it, Why loose the points when you could just continue the one on one for all of them? I recently won the artic map using all the neutral territories to my advantage.

your suggestion doesnt even take care of the wasted week, bad idea(IMO)

by **robbart** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:51 pm

Anarchist wrote:I dont like it, Why loose the points when you could just continue the one on one for all of them? I recently won the artic map using all the neutral territories to my advantage.

your suggestion doesnt even take care of the wasted week, bad idea(IMO)

? Huh? Wasted week?

How would you do it any other way... they have to deadbeat... and that's after 3 turns... and that would only be half the players.

So, if 4 players deadbeat, you have to wait 12 days for them all to deadbeat. And once the game has started, it's not like you have any options, like a draw or anything like that.

Take a 6 player game, where 3 of them deadbeat.

Or a 6 player assassin game where 4 of them deadbeat.

Or a 5 player game where 3 of them deadbeat.

I don't just play this game for points. I play it for fun. First and foremost, I play CC for the fun. And it's just not fun when that many players deadbeat in a game.

Again, I am talking only when half the players deadbeat. And only after so many rounds, say 5 or something.

by **robbart** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:57 pm

Anarchist wrote:I dont like it, Why loose the points when you could just continue the one on one for all of them? I recently won the artic map using all the neutral territories to my advantage.

your suggestion doesnt even take care of the wasted week, bad idea(IMO)

Why is it a bad idea, exactly, Ana?

Not everyone wants to sit around wading through 4 deadbeats worth of armies.

Perhaps it could be an option, where the originator of the game chooses "Deadbeat Draw? Y/N" and that is a new game option. It would allow you to choose whether or not you a) play in games that continue, or b) play in games that could be a draw if 50% of the players deadbeat by turn X.

by **Anarchist** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:06 pm

Deadbeating takes 24 hours
meaning if you only wait one round before the game ends it might work
however if your implying we wait 3 rounds its a waste of time.

I still dont see its importance,but understand if you can only play four games...

by **Rocketry** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:17 pm

I think this is a bad idea. Say in a 6 player game, 2 players deadbeat due to a broken internet or something. A third player, who is losing but does not want to lose points could deadbeat to draw the game. Its unworkable and unnecessary.

Rocketry

by **robbart** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:41 pm

Anarchist wrote:Deadbeating takes 24 hours
meaning if you only wait one round before the game ends it might work
however if your implying we wait 3 rounds its a waste of time.

I still dont see its importance,but understand if you can only play four games...

Ok, I don't believe you understand what a deadbeat is. A deadbeat is someone who misses, intentionally or not, 3 turns.

In my examples above, if you have a 6 player game, where eventually 4 of the players deadbeat, that's a 12 day wait. 4 players * 3 rounds = 12 days. So in effect, those deadbeats cost me 12 days of waiting around.

This is specifically intended to allow games with a high % of players involved deadbeating early to end gracefully.

by **robbart** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:49 pm

Rocketry wrote:I think this is a bad idea. Say in a 6 player game, 2 players deadbeat due to a broken internet or something. A third player, who is losing but does not want to lose points could deadbeat to draw the game.

You just described what a deadbeat is.

Ok, so perhaps we punish the deadbeats by docking points anyway, but allow the players who remain to opt for a draw?

Rocketry wrote:Its unworkable and unnecessary.

Why do you way that? Of course it's workable. Unnecessary, I don't agree. I can understand if you just aren't crazy with the idea. But to say it's unworkable, is of course, laughable. Lack can do anything. :lol:

OK, what if, based on the game size, there was a minimum of players who hadn't deadbeated by round 4, that would allow the game to continue?

Put more precisely, if after 4 or 5 rounds, you have at least half of your players who hadn't deadeated, nothing happens. Otherwise, you can allow the players the option of a draw, or force a draw... as I stated above, perhaps this becomes a game option. I could start games with the Deadbeat draw option, where if the deadbeats numbered greater than 50% of the players, the game would be an automatic draw...

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:02 pm

no.

Cause even if 4 of the 6 people deadbeated, instead of the game just ending, i want their points!

They should lose points if they have already made me wait 12 days. continguing the game makes them lose.

by **Anarchist** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:55 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:no.

Cause even if 4 of the 6 people deadbeated, instead of the game just ending, i want their points!

They should lose points if they have already made me wait 12 days. continguing the game makes them lose.

Thank You!

by **Risktaker17** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:41 am

Probably one of the worst ideas ever.

by **robbart** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:10 am

wcaclimbing wrote:no.

Cause even if 4 of the 6 people deadbeated, instead of the game just ending, i want their points!

They should lose points if they have already made me wait 12 days. continguing the game makes them lose.

True, and as I said, it could be an option.

And the deadbeats would still lose points.

I, for one, don't want to play a game that was supposed to be a 6 player game, but where 4 of them deadbeat.

So, if it was an option, it would allow you to choose whether or not you wanted to play in a game like that.

by **robbart** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:11 am

Risktaker17 wrote:Probably one of the worst ideas ever.

Well, why do you think that?

Stating it doesn't make it true.

What don't you like about it?

by **robbart** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:16 am

Guys, instead of just saying such useful comments as, "worst idea ever", why don't you just tell me what you DON'T like about. Is there some way it would be OK? What would you change about it to be useful?

After you've played enough games, it gets old seeing game after game of deadbeats. I just want a way to move on to a new game if that's the case. And sometimes it makes sense (1v1 assassin game for example).

by **yorkiepeter** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:43 pm

robbart wrote:Guys, instead of just saying such useful comments as, "worst idea ever", why don't you just tell me what you DON'T like about. Is there some way it would be OK? What would you change about it to be useful?

After you've played enough games, it gets old seeing game after game of deadbeats. I just want a way to move on to a new game if that's the case. And sometimes it makes sense (1v1 assassin game for example).

ok, lets say i'm freemium and set up a 6 player sequential game. 4 players deadbeat, by the time they have done that i have been tied into the game for 2 weeks and can only play 3 others. finally after 2 weeks you get rid of the deadbeats and can play the game. Now you call it a draw and start another 6 player game for it to happen again.....not to mention the points you would earn by playing it. Now do you see why its the worst idea ever?

Of course its really annoying to meet a load of deadbeats, but would you rather wait 2 weeks to declare it a draw or 2 weeks to finally play it. either way you have to wait 2 weeks

by **robbart** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:46 pm

yorkiepeter wrote:
robbart wrote:Guys, instead of just saying such useful comments as, "worst idea ever", why don't you just tell me what you DON'T like about. Is there some way it would be OK? What would you change about it to be useful?

After you've played enough games, it gets old seeing game after game of deadbeats. I just want a way to move on to a new game if that's the case. And sometimes it makes sense (1v1 assassin game for example).

ok, lets say i'm freemium and set up a 6 player sequential game. 4 players deadbeat, by the time they have done that i have been tied into the game for 2 weeks and can only play 3 others. finally after 2 weeks you get rid of the deadbeats and can play the game. Now you call it a draw and start another 6 player game for it to happen again.....not to mention the points you would earn by playing it. Now do you see why its the worst idea ever?

Of course its really annoying to meet a load of deadbeats, but would you rather wait 2 weeks to declare it a draw or 2 weeks to finally play it. either way you have to wait 2 weeks

While that is true, in the case of a 6 player game, only 3 rounds have transpired. That has to be the most agonizingly slow game ever. And lately, there have been more and more of these.

All I am saying, is that there ought to be a way for those players who choose not to play the game out to do so. An option in the setup of the game, much like standard vs. freestyle. It might even be useful to have the remaining players agree to it.

I, for one, would welcome the reprieve of dealing with a 1v1 assassin game, that started out as a 6 player assassin game.

by **Rocketry** on Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:33 am

robbart wrote:
Rocketry wrote:I think this is a bad idea. Say in a 6 player game, 2 players deadbeat due to a broken internet or something. A third player, who is losing but does not want to lose points could deadbeat to draw the game.

You just described what a deadbeat is.

Ok, so perhaps we punish the deadbeats by docking points anyway, but allow the players who remain to opt for a draw?

Rocketry wrote:Its unworkable and unnecessary.

Why do you way that? Of course it's workable. Unnecessary, I don't agree. I can understand if you just aren't crazy with the idea. But to say it's unworkable, is of course, laughable. Lack can do anything.

OK, what if, based on the game size, there was a minimum of players who hadn't deadbeated by round 4, that would allow the game to continue?

Put more precisely, if after 4 or 5 rounds, you have at least half of your players who hadn't deadeated, nothing happens. Otherwise, you can allow the players the option of a draw, or force a draw... as I stated above, perhaps this becomes a game option. I could start games with the Deadbeat draw option, where if the deadbeats numbered greater than 50% of the players, the game would be an automatic draw...

people could and would use this as a technique - leverage in a game you know. I will deadbeat, making this game a draw if you attack me - that kind of thing