Is it considered cheating to...

[alex_white101]

i really like no cards adjacent seq games, so most last at least a month, but they are the most tactical and enjoyable! thank god im premium.......

[mibi]

I'm considering putting all the people who answered yes, its a good strategy on my ignore list

[redtide]

I can't believe anyone would intentionally miss a turn to get more armies. I consider it to be the lowest possible form of cheating.

It's a low-life move, and I would never play another game with someone I knew did it on purpose.

[redtide]

You know Guroove, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I have only ever missed one turn on conquer club, The one which sparked this whole topic, and if I hadn't skipped that turn I probably already would have lost that game.

I just read the chat from the game in question. And I can't believe you had the gall to admit this: " if I hadn't skipped that turn I probably already would have lost that game"

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

By abusing this part of the game, you kept yourself alive when you don't deserve to be. That's incredibly lame. It doesn't matter if it's technically cheating or not - it's pathetic.

But now you're on my ignore list so I guess it doesn't really matter anyway...

[Bodmanbod]

if people are missing turns tactically then i don't understand why they make people wait?

if you are going to miss a turn on purpose all you have to do is begin your turn, get your armies and then not attack. simple.

Why do people do it by just waiting? all that does is annoy people.


either i've missed something important or people are just being retarded by missing their turns the slow way rather than having a turn but not doing anything.

[tahitiwahini]

if people are missing turns tactically then i don't understand why they make people wait?

if you are going to miss a turn on purpose all you have to do is begin your turn, get your armies and then not attack. simple.

Why do people do it by just waiting? all that does is annoy people.


either i've missed something important or people are just being retarded by missing their turns the slow way rather than having a turn but not doing anything.

Yes, you are missing something. There is a substantial difference between deploying 5 armies in one turn and then 5 armies in the next turn, and deploying 10 armies in one turn. I think the difference is obvious but I'll spell it out if necessary.

As for making everyone wait, it you believe the game is all about you, why would you even think about the other players? Doesn't even enter into their consideration. The annoyance of other players is a very small price for them to pay primarily because they are not the ones paying it.

[Bodmanbod]

ok, i didn't realise they got them once they get back, i thought they just got them when they miss their turn and are just deployed by the game.

ty



anyway now i know exactly what they are doing then yes i would say it is cheating.

[alster]

anyway now i know exactly what they are doing then yes i would say it is cheating.

1. It's not cheating.

2. It's not beneficial.

3. If people are in a hurry, they should play a different games. The game is designed for casual players. If you want it quick, make it RT.

All you whiny cupcakes, just suck it up...

It only becomes a problem if you let it be. There are so many ways to annoy people in this game, it would all be better if people relaxed a little bit.

[tahitiwahini]

1. It's not cheating.

2. It's not beneficial.

3. If people are in a hurry, they should play a different games. The game is designed for casual players. If you want it quick, make it RT.

All you whiny cupcakes, just suck it up...

It only becomes a problem if you let it be. There are so many ways to annoy people in this game, it would all be better if people relaxed a little bit.

1. While it is not cheating, it is using a feature of the game for other than it's intended purpose. If you cannot take your turn within 24 hours, then you are given your deferred deployment in your next turn. Using it as a deliberate tactic was never intended and leads to needless delay of the game.

2. That's wrong, it can be beneficial. I don't think it's necessary for me to explain how but I will if asked.

3. Why is it any more wrong to pull this tactic in a RT game than a non-RT game? If I did it in a RT game and you complained about it, wouldn't you be a whiny cupcake and shouldn't you just suck it up? It would only be a problem if you let it be. And if people relaxed a little bit I guess no one would complain if someone did this in a RT game. After all it's definitely not cheating, it's merely using a feature of the game for other than it's intended purpose.

The thing is that this little way to annoy people in this game would completely disappear if the missed turn bonus were eliminated. It may be whining to point this out, but this cupcake would rather think there's an easy fix to an annoying problem.

[oVo]

Maybe it's time to consider two new buttons on the map.
#1 ) resign, where you are done and remaining armies become neutral
and
#2 ) skip turn, where the game can proceed without a 24 hr pause.

[RobinJ]

Maybe it's time to consider two new buttons on the map.
#1 ) resign, where you are done and remaining armies become neutral
and
#2 ) skip turn, where the game can proceed without a 24 hr pause.

#1) Surrender/resign button was around in the beginning (when I wasn't) and it was done away with because it fucked up the game for other people. Neutral armies can be a big advantage sometimes, especially when they happen to help in defending continents (I've got a game like that right now on the Arctic map where I am defending E. Asia and the Ice Cap on one country (Barents Ice) because another team deadbeated, but not before they had forted their armies into very useful positions for me.
)
#2) A skip turn button is currently in the works - either pending or "To-do". Go check it out in the suggestions forum

[oVo]

At least neutral armies don't grow any larger from that point on in the game.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

At least neutral armies don't grow any larger from that point on in the game.

I'd take someone missing every other turn rather than have neutral armies mess my game up.

[Nous-irons]

The tactic is a bluff. What is a bluff? Well, it is something that if the opponent plays it right, it will end up being harmful (or useless) to you, but the opponent has a large chance of falling for it.

Most people are immersed in their own interests, and when someone skips a turn, the thought tends to be, "oh good, he missed his turn, one less player to worry about"; it is a bluff, because it uses psychology -- trusting people not to attack because one acts passively. As a result, armies are allowed to accumulate ...

[alster]

1. While it is not cheating, it is using a feature of the game for other than it's intended purpose. If you cannot take your turn within 24 hours, then you are given your deferred deployment in your next turn. Using it as a deliberate tactic was never intended and leads to needless delay of the game.

2. That's wrong, it can be beneficial. I don't think it's necessary for me to explain how but I will if asked.

3. Why is it any more wrong to pull this tactic in a RT game than a non-RT game? If I did it in a RT game and you complained about it, wouldn't you be a whiny cupcake and shouldn't you just suck it up? It would only be a problem if you let it be. And if people relaxed a little bit I guess no one would complain if someone did this in a RT game. After all it's definitely not cheating, it's merely using a feature of the game for other than it's intended purpose.

The thing is that this little way to annoy people in this game would completely disappear if the missed turn bonus were eliminated. It may be whining to point this out, but this cupcake would rather think there's an easy fix to an annoying problem.

1. Well. Intended purpose? What on earth is that? The feature is there in order to let people get their basic armies even if missing a round. This is good since CC is (i) designed for casual players, and (ii) if not getting these basic armies, one missed turn would be disproportional harmful. Now, whose intentions are so sacred that they must be upheld at all costs? Lack’s then presumably, being the creator and legislator of CC. But, to trace such “intentions” is an impossible task. Here, he may not have thought about it. So, why is it then wrong to follow the rules and play as the game engine allows? Nothing I think. Legislators cannot consider all possible issues, therefore we must satisfy ourselves by following the text of the explicit rules laid down (rule 1 and 2). Therefore, missing a turn can never be considered cheating.

Delays of the game? Well, we all know when entering a game that turns may be taken 24 hours apart. CC is designed for the casual players. If you want fast games, play RT. Delays is a non-issue since the game moves forward at least every 24 hour.


2. Beneficial? Well, only if the other players allow it to be beneficial. When someone misses a turn, we all know that they will get double placement armies next round. Then all players can attack to prevent any beneficial effects (and these attacks are made easier since the player missing his turn has fewer armies). But, players here tend to end up in game theory situations. Decisions to attack or not are based on what they believe other players will do. If you gamble, and doesn’t attack even though it would be beneficial for all other players, that decision may come back and bite you in the ass. But that doesn’t make skipping turns beneficial in itself. People chose not to attack other players hoping others will all the time, this situation is not confined to times when a player has missed his turn.


3. The difference between RT and non-RT is so obvious I shouldn’t have to spell it out: If playing RT, the players have agreed to take their turns in a consecutive manner. Not doing that by leaving the RT game, you have violated the formal agreement set up before the game started. In a non-RT game, there’s no such formal agreement. That has nothing to do with the game engine or the rules, it’s private contract law to use an analogy.

[tahitiwahini]

2. Beneficial? Well, only if the other players allow it to be beneficial. When someone misses a turn, we all know that they will get double placement armies next round. Then all players can attack to prevent any beneficial effects (and these attacks are made easier since the player missing his turn has fewer armies). But, players here tend to end up in game theory situations. Decisions to attack or not are based on what they believe other players will do. If you gamble, and doesn’t attack even though it would be beneficial for all other players, that decision may come back and bite you in the ass. But that doesn’t make skipping turns beneficial in itself. People chose not to attack other players hoping others will all the time, this situation is not confined to times when a player has missed his turn.

It seems that after all you do agree that the tactic of purposefully missing turns is beneficial because you spend the rest of the above paragraph outlining how the benefit can possibly be minimized by the other players in the game. You then further indicate that under game theory such actions to minimize the beneficial effects of the missed turn bonus may not be taken by any individual player, thereby leaving intact the entire benefit to the player receiving the missed turn bonus. All of which contradicts the initial claim that the missed turn bonus is not beneficial.

The sole remaining area of disagreement it seems to me is whether this tactic of purposefully missing a turn in order to collect the missed turn bonus is a desirable or undesirable aspect of the game as it stands.

I find this tactic to be undesirable as I find any tactic that requires purposefully delaying the game in order to succeed to be undesirable. Doing away with the missed turn bonus would completely remove a player's incentive to engage in what I regard as an example of poor sportsmanship.

[Nikolai]

Simple answer: it's not wrong, and it's not some kind of abuse. It's tactically stupid, and has a tendency to get you attacked by others in the game, so strategically stupid... and thus not really a viable strategy... but not abusive.

[alster]

It seems that after all you do agree that the tactic of purposefully missing turns is beneficial because you spend the rest of the above paragraph outlining how the benefit can possibly be minimized by the other players in the game. You then further indicate that under game theory such actions to minimize the beneficial effects of the missed turn bonus may not be taken by any individual player, thereby leaving intact the entire benefit to the player receiving the missed turn bonus. All of which contradicts the initial claim that the missed turn bonus is not beneficial.

The sole remaining area of disagreement it seems to me is whether this tactic of purposefully missing a turn in order to collect the missed turn bonus is a desirable or undesirable aspect of the game as it stands.

I find this tactic to be undesirable as I find any tactic that requires purposefully delaying the game in order to succeed to be undesirable. Doing away with the missed turn bonus would completely remove a player's incentive to engage in what I regard as an example of poor sportsmanship.

It seems like you don’t understand the most basic concepts of game play (or are unable to understand my writings).

Missing turns on purpose is basically not beneficial. But, yes of course it can be beneficial if the other players don’t attack you. But this is really not limited to these situations. In any kind of game, if the other players don’t attack you, it’s pretty beneficial I would say.

I did not indicate any such things with regard to game theory. What I wrote was that all players (unless not considering their moves at all) are trapped in game theory thinking. Issues like, “shall I personal attack the player holding a continent, or shall I save my troops hoping a later player will make the attack” comes up. But again, that is not an issue exclusively applicable to situations when a player misses a turn. Thus, missing a turn on purpose doesn’t grant any particular benefits.

Again (I’ll write this in bold in order to minimize the risk of you not being able to understand) – in my opinion missing a turn is not beneficial. Any one playing in my games are more then welcome to miss a turn or two, it just makes it easier for me to win.


What is and what is not “poor sportsmanship” is at the end of the day a purely subjective notion. However, this isn’t the issue here I believe. We can all agree however that it is not cheating.

[tahitiwahini]

It seems like you don’t understand the most basic concepts of game play (or are unable to understand my writings).

If you don't understand how it's beneficial to have two or three times the normal allotment to deploy in one turn than I think you may be the one who has difficulties understanding game play.

Missing turns on purpose is basically not beneficial. But, yes of course it can be beneficial if the other players don’t attack you. But this is really not limited to these situations. In any kind of game, if the other players don’t attack you, it’s pretty beneficial I would say.

Of course missing turns on purpose is basically not beneficial; it's receiving two and three times the normal deployment in a single turn that's beneficial -- that's the missed turn bonus. Whether other players attack you or not does nothing to change whether the missed turn bonus was beneficial, it only mitigates the degree of benefit.

I did not indicate any such things with regard to game theory. What I wrote was that all players (unless not considering their moves at all) are trapped in game theory thinking. Issues like, “shall I personal attack the player holding a continent, or shall I save my troops hoping a later player will make the attack” comes up. But again, that is not an issue exclusively applicable to situations when a player misses a turn. Thus, missing a turn on purpose doesn’t grant any particular benefits.

I didn't bring up the subject of game theory since I didn't see it as being particularly relevant to a discussion of the missed turn bonus. You did, and I merely commented on the fact that you felt it necessary to explain how the benefit of the missed turn bonus could be mitigated having previously claimed that there was no benefit at all.

Again (I’ll write this in bold in order to minimize the risk of you not being able to understand) – in my opinion missing a turn is not beneficial. Any one playing in my games are more then welcome to miss a turn or two, it just makes it easier for me to win.

I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you can read this even though it's unbolded. If you really believed the missed turn bonus was not beneficial you wouldn't have felt it necessary to explain how players could ameliorate the advantage from such a tactic. If the tactic provided no benefit to the player then the other players would have to do nothing to counteract the advantage given by the missed turn bonus because there wouldn't be one. You seem to see this if one takes the rest of your argument seriously, but then you fail to draw the obvious conclusion. I don't know what to make of that inconsistency.

What is and what is not “poor sportsmanship” is at the end of the day a purely subjective notion. However, this isn’t the issue here I believe. We can all agree however that it is not cheating.

If what your saying is that since "sportsmanship" is a purely subjective notion it's useless or futile to aspire to then I'll have to respectfully disagree. As regards whether the purposefully missed turn is cheating, I have to agree with you there. It violates none of the rules of the game, just like purposefully missing your turn in a RT game violates none of the rules of the game. Both however are reprehensible and ought to be discouraged with appeals to "sportsmanship" and the principles of ethical behavior.

[alster]

If you don't understand how it's beneficial to have two or three times the normal allotment to deploy in one turn than I think you may be the one who has difficulties understanding game play.

It’s not beneficial because:
(a) You would have gotten those armies anyway,
(b) by not making your move, you miss the opportunity to redeploy your armies and to attack a threat, and
(c) by not making your move, it’s easier for your opponents to kill you off or break any bonuses.

I do not understand why these simple things are so difficult to understand.

In a best case scenario, after having missed a turn you end up with the same amount of armies you would have gotten anyway. You achieve status quo by risking loosing bonuses. For example, if you hold a continent, then missing a turn, and someone breaks you, you loose your continent and the continental bonus for both rounds. This should be pretty basic I think.

Now, the reason why people are upset by this issue is because they are stupid, gambler who whine when they loose a bet and/or just whiners.

If you see a guy missing a turn, and you notice him holding a continent. Well, attack him. Don’t come crying later because you assumed he would go deadbeat.

You did, and I merely commented on the fact that you felt it necessary to explain how the benefit of the missed turn bonus could be mitigated having previously claimed that there was no benefit at all.

It is no benefit because (see (a) above) You would have gotten those armies anyway. The game theory goes back to the issue why people become upset - they because they are stupid, gamblers who whine when they loose a bet and/or just whiners.

(a) If they are stupid, they don’t understand the whole concept.
(b) If they are gamblers who whine when they loose a bet, they gamble on the fact that the guy who missed a turn will go deadbeat or that any other player would attack the player in question. If that bet didn’t pay off, well too bad. If you gamble, you need to be prepared to pay the wager.
(c) There are a lot of whining people around in this world.

Thus, it has nothing to do with mitigating any damages, it’s about taking into account the missed turn bonus and play accordingly. Basically, it’s enough by playing as usual, pretending that the guy in question made his move. Doing that, you don’t serve any “benefits” on a silver plate.

[PerkinsRooster]

Although I've never done it because I consider it poor sportsmanship, I've never missed a turn on purpose.

It is clear to me that if you miss a turn and no one attacks you that missing a turn is an advantage. If you can't understand this there really is no hope for you.

[alster]

Although I've never done it because I consider it poor sportsmanship, I've never missed a turn on purpose.

It is clear to me that if you miss a turn and no one attacks you that missing a turn is an advantage. If you can't understand this there really is no hope for you.

Although I've never done it because I consider it poor sportsmanship, I've never missed a turn on purpose.

It is clear to me that if you miss a turn and no one attacks you that missing a turn is an advantage. If you can't understand this there really is no hope for you.

Hehe… Of course it’s very good if no one attacks you. But really, if no one attacks you in rounds when you take a turn, that is also an advantage. Frankly, not being attacked is probably the greatest advantage you can get!

But why on earth wouldn’t you attack a guy who missed a turn? That’s just stupid. Especially if he holds a continent. And, if a player holds a continent and misses a turn, that is a great, great advantage for the other players. They are then able to attack him without having to go through the continental bonus he would have deployed as defense.

So: If some guy misses a turn. Be happy and attack accordingly. If you do that (i.e. play as you usually would have done, not betting he will go deadbeat) there’s no benefit at all involved in missing a turn. Luckily though, the harm done to you when missing a turn is mitigated by you getting the armies you should have gotten.

[PerkinsRooster]

But why on earth wouldn’t you attack a guy who missed a turn? That’s just stupid.

Because very often the person who missed a turn is, in fact, going to deadbeat the game and get kicked out. There is no way to know for sure, so therefore the person missing the turn as an advantage.

If I spend my armies attacking someone who is not even playing, I am weakening myself to the advantage of the other players.

[alster]

But why on earth wouldn’t you attack a guy who missed a turn? That’s just stupid.

Because very often the person who missed a turn is, in fact, going to deadbeat the game and get kicked out. There is no way to know for sure, so therefore the person missing the turn as an advantage.

If I spend my armies attacking someone who is not even playing, I am weakening myself to the advantage of the other players.

1. The person missing a turn does not have an advantage unless you give him one.

2. A lot of people miss occasional turns, why would you expect him or her to deadbeat? Perhaps if you’re playing a private or a really new, non-premium player I give you that deadbeating can be expected. But if facing a regular player, nah… then I wouldn’t say that deadbeating can be expected. Far from it.

3. You should definitely spend your armies attacking a player who has missed a turn if you see that he can hurt you when getting back into the loop. If not doing that, you gamble on him deadbeating.

4. This is a good point with respect to game theory though. A player who has missed a turn, adds an additional variable to the other players considerations in respective decision-making process. But to call it an advantage, no. The negative effects of missing a turn far outstrips the small advantage this may bring.

[tahitiwahini]

I'm still amazed it's so difficult to see that having the ability to deploy 2 or 3 times your normal allotment is an advantage.

In a phrase it's called the element of surprise and it can have a powerful impact in the right circumstances. It introduces uncertainty into the game and since the player using this tactic is the only one who knows what he will do he holds a strategic advantage.

If you really can't think of circumstances where this would be an advantage, perhaps a simple example will help enlighten. I'll take the example from the Classic gameboard:

You own Oceania for which you are getting a 2 army bonus. You own less than 12 countries so you are getting 5 total armies per turn. Your continent is protected by the formidable standard configuration (India, China, and Siam), to the point where it may be said to nearly impregnable at this stage of the game.

Your opponent owns North America which he controls with forces at each border (Alaska, Greenland, and Central America). Your opponent maintains 7 armies on each border.

You are lucky enough to own Kamchatka, Iceland, and Venezuela, each with 2 armies.

You can deploy your 5 armies adjacent to one of your opponent's borders, where you may launch a 7v7 with expected probability of success of 42%.

If you don't launch the attack, your opponent merely forts the border adjacent to where you deployed.

Or you can miss your turn and deploy your 10 armies one turn later on one of your opponent's borders, where you will launch a 12v9 attack with expected probability of success of 72%.

At any point in the game where a player can reasonably deploy to more than one area (and that is the case the vast majority of the time), the ability to deploy with 2 or 3 times his normal allotment is of strategic significance, not only in what it allows that player to do but what the uncertainty does to the plans of the other players. The advantage is further enhanced when the fortification is not unlimited because that magnifies the importance of deployment since fortification is restricted.