Conquer Club

I'm in a game with 2 others and one skipped a turn to get more troops and took a continent with it. Now both have skipped a turn, how would you deal with this sort of situation?

It depends on the board.

You have to try and read their intent, and make a plan based on your conclusion.

the difficulty is that they will have the option to modify their plan based on what you do.

It's best (generally speaking) to prepare to cope with what you see as their strongest play on their return. If possible, prepare for the next one or two most likely contingencies.

As always, there is no "easy button" strategy. You have to read the board, make a plan, and hope you got it right.

stringybeany wrote:It depends on the board.

You have to try and read their intent, and make a plan based on your conclusion.

the difficulty is that they will have the option to modify their plan based on what you do.

It's best (generally speaking) to prepare to cope with what you see as their strongest play on their return. If possible, prepare for the next one or two most likely contingencies.

As always, there is no "easy button" strategy. You have to read the board, make a plan, and hope you got it right.

Personally, I hate that sort of strategy. I hope they implement the "skip turn" button, because it makes it more obvious that that's what they are doing.

In any case, those players are never truly out, unless they get kicked out. So you have to act as if they ARE skipping their turn to build up their armies quicker.

In those cases, if it's advantageous on MY part, I try to at least take away territory bonuses, so those aren't getting doubled as well.

ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

Of course, that doesn't solve the issue if you are in a game with players skipping turns. Nor, does that technique insure you never play a "skipper" again.

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

i personally consider it a legitimate strategy which is why i wholehaertedly support the skip turn button

robbart wrote:

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

Of course, that doesn't solve the issue if you are in a game with players skipping turns. Nor, does that technique insure you never play a "skipper" again.

yes it does ....

boberz wrote:

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

i personally consider it a legitimate strategy which is why i wholehaertedly support the skip turn button

Ok, while you might feel it's a legitimate strategy, it sucks for everyone sitting around waiting for you to take your turn, not knowing if/when you are going to go.

Personally, with the lack of a "skip turn" button, that players should announce they are doing that...

chessplaya wrote:

robbart wrote:

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

Of course, that doesn't solve the issue if you are in a game with players skipping turns. Nor, does that technique insure you never play a "skipper" again.

yes it does ....

Um, how? If you are in a game with a skipper, how does the ignore list insure they don't skip?

And how do you know who is going to skip ahead of time to put them on your ignore list?

All that does, is put a known skipper on your ignore list. You won't play THAT skipper again.

It's the unknown ones that will continue to get you though.

robbart wrote:

boberz wrote:

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

i personally consider it a legitimate strategy which is why i wholehaertedly support the skip turn button

Ok, while you might feel it's a legitimate strategy, it sucks for everyone sitting around waiting for you to take your turn, not knowing if/when you are going to go.

Personally, with the lack of a "skip turn" button, that players should announce they are doing that...

i dont like it when other players miss a turn unless they tell me in chat why they missed a turn

but nothing i can do about it , unless try to weaken that player as much as i can ( doubles games talkin here )

in singles there isnt much to do.....but hope when he comes back and wants to attack he attacks the other players!

chessplaya wrote:

robbart wrote:

boberz wrote:

chessplaya wrote:ummm ignore list and neg feedback this is how i resolve it

i personally consider it a legitimate strategy which is why i wholehaertedly support the skip turn button

Ok, while you might feel it's a legitimate strategy, it sucks for everyone sitting around waiting for you to take your turn, not knowing if/when you are going to go.

Personally, with the lack of a "skip turn" button, that players should announce they are doing that...

i dont like it when other players miss a turn unless they tell me in chat why they missed a turn

but nothing i can do about it , unless try to weaken that player as much as i can

Right, as I said above, that's the way I think it should be handled, just an FYI to us other players. Shows a little courtesy. However, noobs don't seem to have any of that...

the best strategy I have found against this is to give them too many choices, if you can, try and gain two bonuses (it doesn't even matter if the borders are forted well) so that the person who comes back with D.A.D. (double army d*ck) has to break too many bonuses or take too many territories away from you to make a difference, of course this doesn't always work but it's something I use a lot to try and counter this tactic. It's worked many times too, oh and it helps if the bonuses aren't like right next to each other lol but you get the idea....oh and this only works if you are winning the game....if you are losing...well that's different lol

Jove wrote:I'm in a game with 2 others and one skipped a turn to get more troops and took a continent with it. Now both have skipped a turn, how would you deal with this sort of situation?

One way is to grab areas to boost your own round-bonus while at the same time decreasing theirs. The longer they wait, the less troops they'll get.

Just to clearify- 3 people, Standard, Freestyle, no cards, fort. unlimited

Wait for Lack to change it so skipped turns don't provide extra armies.

pancakemix wrote:Wait for Lack to change it so skipped turns don't provide extra armies.

That's a tough line to draw. I missed a turn in a few games this weekend because I was on travel and the hotel wireless was acting up before I left. I tried to have no games going when I left, but many games will run longer than a few weeks so it's tough to plan accordingly. If you completely remove any armies gained on a missed turn then anyone with occasional commitments in real life is discouraged from playing at all.

My suggestion would be to make it so that if you miss 3 turns in a game (and they don't have to be consecutive) then you're out. It may be tough for those longer games, but it will provide some incentive to play the game as it was meant to be. While it's a valid tactic, I don't consider it to be an honorable one.

Jove wrote:Just to clearify- 3 people, Standard, Freestyle, no cards, fort. unlimited

<Spits out some tobacco juice> Well, that's yer problem right there...

My method is mentioned above: concentrate on reducing their payout. The first thing I do is a little 'background' check on their other games. If I were to see that someone was actually playing other games while allowing their turns to pass in mine... well,

1. I'd be ticked off.
2. I'd do my best to reduce them in this game.
3. I'd make other people in the game aware of my evidence.
4. I'd give negative feedback.
5. I'd add them to my ignore list.

So, far I haven't seen that. Now, maybe the people who have missed turns and then come back in my games were skipping all of their games on purpose and then coming back to play them all - I can't say. But I've given everyone the benefit of the doubt and assumed legitimate absences.

I don't think semi-deadbeating is a fair tactic. I think it is abuse of the system that is meant to account for the fact that sometimes you can't check in frequently enough to take care of a game. It's not just that you are 'gaming the system' to gain advantage, but by doing so you are slowing down the game to the detriment of everyone else's enjoyment of it. Semi-deadbeating on purpose is inconsiderate and unsportsmanlike. It's just wrong in my book.

The current freestyle system is not to my taste. There is too much advantage to be gained by 'gaming the system' and sniping people - but if anything, it speeds the game up, and more importantly, I can choose not to play freestyle. I can't choose not to play with semi-deadbeats.

Chalupacabra wrote:If you completely remove any armies gained on a missed turn then anyone with occasional commitments in real life is discouraged from playing at all.

Well, it's either do it and have players like you occasionally suffer, or leave it as is and have asses continue to use it as a basic strategy, particularly on no cards games where there's little chance of their being eliminated so quickly.

And while I'd be nice to say "well, don't play with those people"... sorry, I do lots of feedback checking at times when I join games, and I often don't see this kind of stuff showing up. But I've seen it several times recently, both in singles and doubles games, and I need to start leaving feedback about it.

Chalupacabra wrote:My suggestion would be to make it so that if you miss 3 turns in a game (and they don't have to be consecutive) then you're out. It may be tough for those longer games, but it will provide some incentive to play the game as it was meant to be. While it's a valid tactic, I don't consider it to be an honorable one.

This sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. Arguments against?

Chalupacabra wrote:

pancakemix wrote:Wait for Lack to change it so skipped turns don't provide extra armies.

That's a tough line to draw. I missed a turn in a few games this weekend because I was on travel and the hotel wireless was acting up before I left. I tried to have no games going when I left, but many games will run longer than a few weeks so it's tough to plan accordingly. If you completely remove any armies gained on a missed turn then anyone with occasional commitments in real life is discouraged from playing at all.

My suggestion would be to make it so that if you miss 3 turns in a game (and they don't have to be consecutive) then you're out. It may be tough for those longer games, but it will provide some incentive to play the game as it was meant to be. While it's a valid tactic, I don't consider it to be an honorable one.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2970

It will be done eventually. No telling when though. My suggestion would be to get an account sitter should you ever have to go on a trip again. I would.

Sparqs wrote:

Chalupacabra wrote:My suggestion would be to make it so that if you miss 3 turns in a game (and they don't have to be consecutive) then you're out. It may be tough for those longer games, but it will provide some incentive to play the game as it was meant to be. While it's a valid tactic, I don't consider it to be an honorable one.

This sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. Arguments against?

missing 3 turns out of 500 rounds in a 6 month game is not deadbeating

yorkiepeter wrote:

Sparqs wrote:

Chalupacabra wrote:My suggestion would be to make it so that if you miss 3 turns in a game (and they don't have to be consecutive) then you're out. It may be tough for those longer games, but it will provide some incentive to play the game as it was meant to be. While it's a valid tactic, I don't consider it to be an honorable one.

This sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. Arguments against?

missing 3 turns out of 500 rounds in a 6 month game is not deadbeating

Good point. The formula could be a little more complex. For example, it might include some or all of these components:

• Miss 3 consecutive turns and you're out, overrides everything else.
• Miss a turn, get a strike.
• 3 strikes and you're out.
• Clear a strike for taking X turns in a row (e.g. 10).
• To accommodate those with access limited to the work week, allow players to register a 60-hour weekend (shown in their profile) when they won't have access. No booting if your 3rd strike falls on the weekend (consecutive missed turns still applies).
• When a player takes a turn, note that in a "timestamp of most recent turn" field in the DB (I'm sure it does this already, given the 'active players' list). When it comes time for CC to skip a player's turn in a game, check that player's timestamp. If they took a turn in different game in the last 24 hours, then BOOT.

It would seem this is all moot, though, if the plan is really to eliminate the army multiplication.

Sparqs wrote:
[...] The formula could be a little more complex. For example, it might include some or all of these components:

• Miss 3 consecutive turns and you're out, overrides everything else.
• Miss a turn, get a strike.
• 3 strikes and you're out.
• Clear a strike for taking X turns in a row (e.g. 10).
• To accommodate those with access limited to the work week, allow players to register a 60-hour weekend (shown in their profile) when they won't have access. No booting if your 3rd strike falls on the weekend (consecutive missed turns still applies).
• When a player takes a turn, note that in a "timestamp of most recent turn" field in the DB (I'm sure it does this already, given the 'active players' list). When it comes time for CC to skip a player's turn in a game, check that player's timestamp. If they took a turn in different game in the last 24 hours, then BOOT.

It would seem this is all moot, though, if the plan is really to eliminate the army multiplication.

Overly complicated and draconian in my opinion. I really don't think this phenomenon is much of a problem. People miss turns - things happen in real life unexpectedly and especially over longer games. Players sometimes have limited times to take there turns (wife/gf/boss screaming at them to leave the computer alone!) and sometimes it’s just not possible to get through all your games in the limited time you have – your rule would penalise you harshly for this. I really don't think the double army is much of a problem either (or an effective strategy) - just deploy a defense towards the expected counter assault. You had the same amount of troops - what did you do with yours? Waste them? Why complain then? I personally see it as a lucky bonus if an opposing player misses a turn – I have free reign for a turn to make him/her respond to my move.
If you’re premium then it doesn't matter if the game is slowed up by someone missing a turn and if you’re not premium and you’re so worked up about it - for f***'s sake go premium tight fist, it'll hardly break the bank!

I was actually hoping the thread would go towards the best way to deal with it strategically not with changes with CC, but a skip turn button would be helpful.

The main thing I find with it, is if the person's on the opposite side of the map and you have no connections with them, you can't deal with it. And some other players deal with it, but others don't and then they get wiped out by the skip-turn-person and then he has like a couple more continents/countries and when cards get thrown in you can find yourself with a huge disadvantage.

flashleg8 wrote:

Sparqs wrote:
[...] The formula could be a little more complex. For example, it might include some or all of these components:

• Miss 3 consecutive turns and you're out, overrides everything else.
• Miss a turn, get a strike.
• 3 strikes and you're out.
• Clear a strike for taking X turns in a row (e.g. 10).
• To accommodate those with access limited to the work week, allow players to register a 60-hour weekend (shown in their profile) when they won't have access. No booting if your 3rd strike falls on the weekend (consecutive missed turns still applies).
• When a player takes a turn, note that in a "timestamp of most recent turn" field in the DB (I'm sure it does this already, given the 'active players' list). When it comes time for CC to skip a player's turn in a game, check that player's timestamp. If they took a turn in different game in the last 24 hours, then BOOT.

It would seem this is all moot, though, if the plan is really to eliminate the army multiplication.

Overly complicated and draconian in my opinion. I really don't think this phenomenon is much of a problem. People miss turns - things happen in real life unexpectedly and especially over longer games. Players sometimes have limited times to take there turns (wife/gf/boss screaming at them to leave the computer alone!) and sometimes it’s just not possible to get through all your games in the limited time you have – your rule would penalise you harshly for this. I really don't think the double army is much of a problem either (or an effective strategy) - just deploy a defense towards the expected counter assault. You had the same amount of troops - what did you do with yours? Waste them? Why complain then? I personally see it as a lucky bonus if an opposing player misses a turn – I have free reign for a turn to make him/her respond to my move.
If you’re premium then it doesn't matter if the game is slowed up by someone missing a turn and if you’re not premium and you’re so worked up about it - for f***'s sake go premium tight fist, it'll hardly break the bank!

Overly complicated

Using all components may be too complicated, but those are just some options.

sometimes it’s just not possible to get through all your games in the limited time you have – your rule would penalise you harshly for this

I disagree. If you don't have time to play enough of your games in a CC session to keep from being booted under such flexible conditions, you are entered in too many games. And your inability to manage your time is affecting other people. Yes, real life takes priority - by far - but the point of additional complexity it to help account for that while retaining fair play. The current system might be considered draconian by someone who gets booted under its rules - there's always a line. The question here is, where should that line be drawn?

I really don't think the double army is much of a problem either (or an effective strategy)

I somewhat agree with this. I used to fully agree, but when someone put forth the explanation that the double or triple armies have much more flexibility in placement than you did, that they get to deploy a big stack on whatever your weakest available point is, and you had to spread thin to keep from leaving a hole - it changed my perception. Suffering the results of such occurrences, intentional strategy or otherwise, helps too. While not a magic roll-a-6 button, it is certainly an advantage. As mentioned, it appears that the PTB have this on the change list, so it might be that they agree it is an unfair advantage.

If you’re premium then it doesn't matter...

I'm going to assume that this whole section is rhetorical, as clicking the Profile button would indicate my membership status. I play plenty of games, and it matters to me when they're slow. I'm not looking for realtime in these games, but only 1 turn every 4 or 5 days due to semi-deadbeats absolutely matters. And I've seen plenty of chat in games from New Recruits who didn't expect 2-4 days between turns. Some didn't come back. That's a potential loss of not-yet-premium players that is unnecessary.

The sky isn't falling, but this is valid issue.