Conquer Club

There are players (mostly newbies) who start a game, decide they don't like how it is progressing (or never ever bother to look it up after starting it).

I belive that the rules should be changed in the following way:

1. The player should be disqualified after skiping 3rd turn in the same game. His troops should be changed into neutral troops (to limit the influence his quiting has on the game).

2. After the game is concluded the rank change should be influenced by the fact that a player has been disqualified. This is because the game in wich a player has disqualified has IMO been played in less regular conditions, then a game where all the players stuck by it (I think this is fairly obvious but I can explain at lenght if need arises). The rank chang should thus be calculated in the following matter.

a) The winner should gain the points that he would normally gain. No crime, no punishment. If his job has been made easier, that is in no way his fault.

b) The players who DIDN'T QUIT, but were beaten fairly, should loose ONLY 50% (rounded down) of the number of points they would normaly loose (to reflect that they lost in the less-then-regular-conditions. The other 50 % of the points they would normally loose, should be deducted from the QUITERS rank.

3. Players profile should contain the information about the nuber of disqualifications, so that we can know if we want to play against a particular player.

To conclude, I would like to say that it is undderstandeble for a player to fail to play his turn for the reasons he can't control. But, when we start a game, we should also be taking resonsibility toward our opponents to show up and play our turns. I think that by implementing the changes I sugested, players will be better protected from unfair behaviour.

Priority 5

mandalorian2298 wrote:1. The player should be disqualified after skiping 3rd turn in the same game. His troops should be changed into neutral troops (to limit the influence his quiting has on the game).

This is already in place in singles games. In doubles/triples the armies go to the player who joined before them on the team (or if they are the 1st to join it would go to the 2nd...etc)

mandalorian2298 wrote:2. After the game is concluded the rank change should be influenced by the fact that a player has been disqualified. This is because the game in wich a player has disqualified has IMO been played in less regular conditions, then a game where all the players stuck by it (I think this is fairly obvious but I can explain at lenght if need arises). The rank chang should thus be calculated in the following matter.

I don't understand...rank change? people don't always change ranks when they win/lose...

mandalorian2298 wrote:a) The winner should gain the points that he would normally gain. No crime, no punishment. If his job has been made easier, that is in no way his fault.

b) The players who DIDN'T QUIT, but were beaten fairly, should loose ONLY 50% (rounded down) of the number of points they would normaly loose (to reflect that they lost in the less-then-regular-conditions. The other 50 % of the points they would normally loose, should be deducted from the QUITERS rank.

I agree with a), obviously they should get the same amount of points. b) on the other hand, not so much. 50% is alot of points to not lose...I agree that the deadbeat SHOULD lose more, but that is WAYYY too much.

mandalorian2298 wrote:3. Players profile should contain the information about the nuber of disqualifications, so that we can know if we want to play against a particular player.

I love this idea. Number of disqualifications (aka # of times deadbeated) should be a stat...just to see. However, this comes with problems...deadbeating because of vacation? problem with computer? just no time at all? Only 1 of them can really be solved...With the vacation, you could set it to some sort of "vacation" mode, where, if you are in any games, you automatically go deadbeat (that way noone else misses turns), and you only lose 1/4 of the points or something...beacuse you OBVIOUSLY can't control that...

1. I wasn't sure how many turns it takes now.

2. By rank change i ment the wining/lsing of points. I should have said "point change".

b) Look for example the game 96662. Had AMDUSRJL not been disqualified, I would terminate him the turn after (I had a card set and his only remaining territory was in front of my troops, shilded pritty good from billy). Had that happened, I would take the his cards (had he played he would have some ). I would be a very different game then it is now.
103070. Had RUDGAR moved when I asked him to (or played at all) Thimble would had much harder time taking the botom right continent.
QUITERS influence IMO the regularity of the game conditions. Some players profit from it, others don't. That should be reflected in the lost points.


Of course that there are number of reasons why you can't finish the game. But those should be taken in account when starting the game (exepting unforseen incidents like computer breaking down).
Even if this unforseen things happen, you can still ask a friend or a Clansmate to substitute 4 you. Perhaps this "SUBSTITUTE" option shuld be added a well, with the information on the number of ASKING and GIVING substitute being added to the profile

I disagree with the suggestion of losing 1/4 of the points when you go on vacation or something like that. Most people know ahead of time that they are going on vacation, that option could and probably would be abused. Plan ahead, you know these games can take many days and even weeks to play.

Evil Semp wrote:I disagree with the suggestion of losing 1/4 of the points when you go on vacation or something like that. Most people know ahead of time that they are going on vacation, that option could and probably would be abused. Plan ahead, you know these games can take many days and even weeks to play.

You missunderstud. Quiters would loose ALL the points they would normaly loose + they would "cover" half of loses of all the players defeated in the game. This is to force people to plan ahead (as you said) and to be responsible towards other players o:-)