Conquer Club

God, I am sick to death of some turd deadbeating and his partner reaping a reward for it. What makes more sense--for the people on other teams to suffer for the deadbeat or for the person TEAMED with the deadbeat to suffer?

Neither it isn't you fault your partner deadbeated and tough luck it's a game who cares

I've ranted as much or more than anyone about this problem since i joined CC, and nothing whatsoever has been done about it, in spite of a plethora of complaints by CC members. I have even been told by one administrator (Robin) that my complaints were boring her. Here's the formula i've come to accept as the answer: more deadbeats=more members=more cash flow=dream on if you think anything's going to be done about it.

I doubt the deadbeats are going to pay to become premium members

It's a game I don't want to be punished by playing with a deadbeat
AND
Most the people I have played in team games with are ?

Like its hard to avoid deadbeats(Make some cc friends and set up private games)? And like its really a reward having a deadbeat partner(Maybe in a nocard game.. but those suck ).... What are you guys talking about?

Yeah i'm kinda sick of deadbeats my self!! it's getting to the point where it's very stupid now!!!


The problem with putting a password is that only the chat Room can join the games if you want an RT

To be fair it very rarely helps to have a deadbeat partner

AT THE VERY LEAST........

...why not just remove the multiplied-army feature? It's a built-in feature that some abuse and actually USE as a strategy!

Makes NO sense to me what-so-ever to receive your armies when you have not even taken a turn?

Those "real" players who happen to miss a rare turn won't mind and they certainly wont stop playing as a result! It will stop those who use this as a strat...and may actually end some of the "purposeful" deadbeating!

Com'n fair's fair!

RobinJ wrote:To be fair it very rarely helps to have a deadbeat partner

False. In a six person doubles game (especially), it's unlikely that one person will be eliminated (or even beat down very much) by the third round. So, all of the sudden, one player has 40 armies. In games with unlimited forts, this quickly turns into a very secure continent bonus somewhere.

And, to max, no one is saying it isn't "just a game." The point is, it makes less sense to punish the other teams than it does to punish the deadbeat's partner. If I find a person who I WANT as a teammate, we start a doubles game, then lose to some shittards just because one of them deadbeated in three turns and the other was a decent enough player to take advantage of the increased armies, how is that preferable to an alternative wherein the person who signs up to a doubles game without a partner in mind and gets stuck with the deadbeat suffers?

Jork wrote:AT THE VERY LEAST........

...why not just remove the multiplied-army feature? It's a built-in feature that some abuse and actually USE as a strategy!

Makes NO sense to me what-so-ever to receive your armies when you have not even taken a turn?

Those "real" players who happen to miss a rare turn won't mind and they certainly wont stop playing as a result! It will stop those who use this as a strat...and may actually end some of the "purposeful" deadbeating!

I have to agree. It seems like a quite reasonable request.

Jork wrote:AT THE VERY LEAST........

...why not just remove the multiplied-army feature? It's a built-in feature that some abuse and actually USE as a strategy!

Makes NO sense to me what-so-ever to receive your armies when you have not even taken a turn?

Those "real" players who happen to miss a rare turn won't mind and they certainly wont stop playing as a result! It will stop those who use this as a strat...and may actually end some of the "purposeful" deadbeating!

Com'n fair's fair!

We have something coming up in the next update hopefully that will change the way the multiplied armies work so that it wont be abused.

Maybe they should be given the armies in the round where they skip a turn, deployed at random by the computer. sounds like a fair compromise between losing the armies and doubling them for the next turn.

HoustonNutt wrote:

RobinJ wrote:To be fair it very rarely helps to have a deadbeat partner

False. In a six person doubles game (especially), it's unlikely that one person will be eliminated (or even beat down very much) by the third round. So, all of the sudden, one player has 40 armies. In games with unlimited forts, this quickly turns into a very secure continent bonus somewhere.

In some games I have seen that a player benefits from his partner deadbeating. But more often than not deadbeating in other teams have proven to my teams advantage. One major disadvantage for the remaining player is that his team (i.e. he) will only have a go every other turn compared to the teams with two members.

But dont't get me wrong, I hate deadbeaters, mainly because they prolong the waiting in between turns. And yes; sometimes they reappear and mess up my strategy.

werd

Look, it's just new players that think it's oh, so cool to come and play online risk, start a couple games, then never come back for some reason. Yeah it sucks, but you can't simply block new players from playing. That would defeat the purpose. If you really hate it that much, just start a private game, with players you know won't deadbeat.

b.k. barunt wrote:I've ranted as much or more than anyone about this problem since i joined CC, and nothing whatsoever has been done about it, in spite of a plethora of complaints by CC members. I have even been told by one administrator (Robin) that my complaints were boring her. Here's the formula i've come to accept as the answer: more deadbeats=more members=more cash flow=dream on if you think anything's going to be done about it.

Just thought I'd point out that Robin isn't apart of our Mod team. Don't know where you got that idea bud.


--Andy

You people are insane. Out of the hundreds of team games that I have even clicked on, I have NEVER ONCE seen a team with a deadbeat win. They ALWAYS lose. The fortifications in the first rounds are CRUCIAL, if your partner isn't giving you armies where you need it and he isn't moving them out of the way so you can take a bonus, you are SCREWED. What's more, you probably gave him half of your armies expecting him to reciprocate, and now you are too weak to take significant action for 3 rounds. On top of that, that's 3 rounds of minimum 3 troops that person should have been adding to your team, you can kiss all those goodbye. And what if someone takes an early bonus region and your deadbeat partner is the only one in a position to break it up? Too bad.

Seriously, when you drive do you run into parked cars and then complain about how they make the road unfair for you?

How many players with multis have their multi deadbeat on purpose so they can "reap the benefits?" No one in the universe would ever do that because it's a guaranteed loss.

The real deadbeat problem is that they are free points. Not a lot, but 7 points adds up when you are guaranteed to get it every single time because they don't even play. This is getting fixed, and people who get their points by farming noobs are going to take a big hit to their score.

I was in one doubles game where my partner was a deadbeat. The sad thing is I think he/she has over 50 games played so it wasn't like he/she was a complete noob. Yes I fortified my partner and I was wiped out in round 6. Game over!

Now I recruit my doubles partners from standard games. I make sure they play their turns fairly quickly and that they have a completely different approach to the game. This way I can teach them my strategies and learn theirs, making us both stronger as teammates and in standard games.

Samus wrote:You people are insane. Out of the hundreds of team games that I have even clicked on, I have NEVER ONCE seen a team with a deadbeat win. They ALWAYS lose. The fortifications in the first rounds are CRUCIAL, if your partner isn't giving you armies where you need it and he isn't moving them out of the way so you can take a bonus, you are SCREWED. What's more, you probably gave him half of your armies expecting him to reciprocate, and now you are too weak to take significant action for 3 rounds. On top of that, that's 3 rounds of minimum 3 troops that person should have been adding to your team, you can kiss all those goodbye. And what if someone takes an early bonus region and your deadbeat partner is the only one in a position to break it up? Too bad.

Seriously, when you drive do you run into parked cars and then complain about how they make the road unfair for you?

How many players with multis have their multi deadbeat on purpose so they can "reap the benefits?" No one in the universe would ever do that because it's a guaranteed loss.

The real deadbeat problem is that they are free points. Not a lot, but 7 points adds up when you are guaranteed to get it every single time because they don't even play. This is getting fixed, and people who get their points by farming noobs are going to take a big hit to their score.

This one, he didn't completely deadbeat, he took one country but there were not forts between us, effectively a deadbeat.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=78482

so wat alternative do u propose, if not having having a deadbeated partners troops then wat happens, make them neutral? i personally hate neutral territories because they provide natural borders, thats at least another 2 that someone wont need to fort onto a specific border.
and it is not an advantage to play with a deadbeat as a partner as many have already pointed out, without gaining their troops it would be virtually impossible for victory. However heres an example of victory with a deadbeat partner but i like to think that it was mainly due to my own competence and using of neutrals that i achieved this (see yet another reason to not have them as neutrals, for that is the only other thing i could see would happen to the territory).

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=112929

I just played a match with 3 higher ranked players and three deadbeats, I thought it added some need for guile and working around neutral territorys. It got me thinking of a match style where each person starts with one territory and all others are nuetral.
sound at all like a good idea?

I can imagine that on world 2.0.
The problem is if you border someone you could take them out on the first turn

Samus wrote:
Seriously, when you drive do you run into parked cars and then complain about how they make the road unfair for you?

ROFLOL

Deadbeats aren't really a bonus. I could see in a 6 man doubles game, how they might not be a hinderance, but come now.

I liked the other point about how multis don't deadbeat with their other accounts. lol

Dawen wrote:
This one, he didn't completely deadbeat, he took one country but there were not forts between us, effectively a deadbeat.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=78482

Yes, but Team 2 also had a deadbeat, and you guys formed an alliance against Team 1. There's a reason you formed that alliance, you both recognized the substantial disadvantage you were both in.


As for Anarchy Ninja's game, all of Team 2 deadbeated as well and the positioning worked out so that he could recover. That's a very impressive victory, but I'm sure he'd agree that it would not have been the case if it were a 2v2 match and his partner had deadbeated the same way.


I'd also like to point out that these games are notable because they are so rare, it's not like they happen all the time. Most players will never see a single game like this. Saying this is some "huge problem" that we need to change the rules of the game to accommodate is just wrong.