FIX THE DEADBEAT RULES ALREADY!!!

[tahitiwahini]

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.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=185150#gmtop

Is this an exception? Perhaps, but it happens in 25% of the doubles games I've played.

Put me in the category of players who believe in rewarding people who miss turns and deadbeats as little as possible. Punishment should be meted out to the guilty not the innocent.

[Samus]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=185150#gmtop

Is this an exception? Perhaps, but it happens in 25% of the doubles games I've played.

Yes, exception, and once again there was more than one deadbeat and you managed to eliminate 2 of the remaining 3 opponents with an early set. Good for you, but that's a very rare occurance. Your 25% number is ridiculous, more like 0.1%.

Put me in the category of players who believe in rewarding people who miss turns and deadbeats as little as possible. Punishment should be meted out to the guilty not the innocent.

I don't see how you are guilty and deserve to be punished because your partner deadbeats. Why is that your fault? And I cannot understand why this is some "punishment" for the other teams. They are still facing almost the same number of armies (fewer when you minus out the 9 the deadbeat never deployed), and no one was controlling half of them for the first 3 rounds.

I recognize that some players are SO BAD that they can lose to even someone who doesn't play at all, but we can't orient the site around them. The partner of a deadbeat is punished significantly as is. If that is not enough of an advantage to win, it's because you are a bad player, not because you "deserve" a free win for facing a deadbeat. People already rake in way too many points from deadbeats, I'm glad they're putting a stop to it.

[Xayath]

stumbles in and looks around and wonders why people are still talking about this...

wait for the update and if ur still feeling hissy the that is what the suggest forum is for

just follow the rules for that forum, they seem strickter there....

[tahitiwahini]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=185150#gmtop

Is this an exception? Perhaps, but it happens in 25% of the doubles games I've played.

Yes, exception, and once again there was more than one deadbeat and you managed to eliminate 2 of the remaining 3 opponents with an early set. Good for you, but that's a very rare occurance. Your 25% number is ridiculous, more like 0.1%.

Samus, I'm guessing you lose a lot of bets. Why would you call my 25% number ridiculous when you can check it yourself in about 2 minutes?

Try game finder: http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?page=find

Game Status: Finished
With Player: tahitiwahini
Game Type: Doubles

I'll let you do the math, shall I?

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.

I provided you a game wherein my partner went deadbeat very early in the game and yet I went on to win the game. That pretty much disproves your first point, because you said "NEVER ONCE" and "ALWAYS," which to my mind doesn't leave you with a lot of wiggle room.

The percentage of my doubles games in which the team with a deadbeat went on to win is 25%, not 0.01%. Strike two.

You must realize that when you behave so bombastically you are giving people an incentive to prove you wrong.

Care to try for strike three?

[Adran]

Just adding in one of my early doubles game my partner never showed up once. Very annoyingly I'd fortified several armies over to him to do something of use. Eventually I got them back and went on to win.
It was a 3 way doubles game, but I don't think I've played in any more doubles games with deadbeats on either side.

It was certainly a handicap. I would have much rathered they had played

Phil

[GrazingCattle]

Just adding in one of my early doubles game my partner never showed up once. Very annoyingly I'd fortified several armies over to him to do something of use. Eventually I got them back and went on to win.
It was certainly a handicap.

Phil

Wow! you say it is a handicap when you went on to win. Deadbeat partners are good in three way doubles games, bad in 4 man doubles games. End of story!

[Samus]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=185150#gmtop

Is this an exception? Perhaps, but it happens in 25% of the doubles games I've played.

Yes, exception, and once again there was more than one deadbeat and you managed to eliminate 2 of the remaining 3 opponents with an early set. Good for you, but that's a very rare occurance. Your 25% number is ridiculous, more like 0.1%.

Samus, I'm guessing you lose a lot of bets. Why would you call my 25% number ridiculous when you can check it yourself in about 2 minutes?

Try game finder: http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?page=find

Game Status: Finished
With Player: tahitiwahini
Game Type: Doubles

I'll let you do the math, shall I?

LOL, I checked out the logs to uncover why the game turned out as it did, which you were less than forthcoming about. You think I didn't look at your game history? You've played 4 games and it happened in one of them due to extenuating circumstances, NOT because it provided you with some "advantage."

You mastery of the English language is lacking my friend, you said "happens" rather than "has happened." This indicates present and future tense, meaning if you were to join a doubles game now you'd have a 25% chance of this happening. That is a lie. You are wrong. My statement is that if you were to join a game now or in the future (keeping with the tense of your own actual statement), you would have closer to a 0.1% chance. I stand by it.

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.

I provided you a game wherein my partner went deadbeat very early in the game and yet I went on to win the game. That pretty much disproves your first point, because you said "NEVER ONCE" and "ALWAYS," which to my mind doesn't leave you with a lot of wiggle room.

The percentage of my doubles games in which the team with a deadbeat went on to win is 25%, not 0.01%. Strike two.

My statement was the truth when I wrote it, I'd never once seen a team with a deadbeat win. I have now, but it was true at the time. Sorry, you're still at zero.

You must realize that when you behave so bombastically you are giving people an incentive to prove you wrong.

Care to try for strike three?

I have to say, if you think this is an advantage, please find a partner who is willing and I will challenge you to as many 2v2 games as you'd like. The deal is, your partner must deadbeat in all of them. Sound good? It does to me, because I know for certain I'm going to win every last one of them.

Seriously, I am not joking at all. Consider this a challenge. Find another one of these people who thinks this is a good idea. Both of you can put your points where your ridiculous mouths are.

[Anarchy Ninja]

im whole hearteadly with samus. and would gladly ally with them in this challenge unless they already have a partner, im up for simple points

[qeee1]

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.

I don't like the sound of changing...

[tahitiwahini]

You think I didn't look at your game history? You've played 4 games and it happened in one of them...

Ok, let me help you with the math on that Samus:

1 out of 4 games, means that it happened 25% of the time, not 0.1%. If it happened 25% of the time it is at the very least plausible to state that it happens 25% of the time.

So, if you looked at my game history (before I called it to your attention) then I can only believe your mastery of mathematics is lacking my friend.

Your answer is wrong. I won't call it a lie because that would indicate that I think you knew the right answer and chose to give the wrong one instead.

You mastery of the English language is lacking my friend, you said "happens" rather than "has happened." This indicates present and future tense, meaning if you were to join a doubles game now you'd have a 25% chance of this happening. That is a lie. You are wrong. My statement is that if you were to join a game now or in the future (keeping with the tense of your own actual statement), you would have closer to a 0.1% chance. I stand by it.

LOL, if it happens that it happened in the games I have played, then I guess it "happens" in the games I've played. Surely, you're not saying that it doesn't "happen" in the games I've played, since you have already acknowledged it has happened in the games I've played.

Just so you're clear. It happened in the games I've played. It happens in the games I've played. And for all I know it will continue to happen in future games I play.

Just so there's no doubt left in your mind, I'm positing that the fact that it happened refutes your contention that it has "NEVER ONCE" happened. I'm not sure it would refute the contention that it has "only rarely" happened, but I'm fairly certain it refutes your contention that it has "NEVER ONCE" happened. It happens that your statement was incorrect. It happened that you were wrong. And I'm fairly certain that if you persist in putting things in all caps, it will happen that you will be no more likely to be right in the future than you are now.

I have to say, if you think this is an advantage, please find a partner who is willing and I will challenge you to as many 2v2 games as you'd like. The deal is, your partner must deadbeat in all of them. Sound good? It does to me, because I know for certain I'm going to win every last one of them.

I never said deadbeating was an advantage. That's a strawman that you concocted and not surprisingly it doesn't stand up. To refresh your memory this is what I said.

Put me in the category of players who believe in rewarding people who miss turns and deadbeats as little as possible. Punishment should be meted out to the guilty not the innocent.

Considering the topic of this thread is "FIX THE DEADBEAT RULES ALREADY!!!" it seemed like a germane comment to make. Actually it still seems like a germane comment to make. And for all I know, it will seem to me a germane comment to have been made by me in the past, even in the future. There, I know you'll appreciate that since you seem to be a stickler for the tenses.

I just coudn't let your two incorrect statements go uncorrected. Maybe if they had been merely stated I would have let it go by, but when you said something that happened to me "NEVER ONCE" happened, and then that my factually correct and easily verifiable 25% was "ridiculous," well my friend, you were just begging for a slap-down.

Seriously, I am not joking at all. Consider this a challenge. Find another one of these people who thinks this is a good idea. Both of you can put your points where your ridiculous mouths are.

Sorry I don't have the time or inclination to help you disprove your strawman argument. I would think that even a little reflection on your part would convince you that it's not correct.

As for wanting to play with a deadbeat, I'm afraid that is another figment of your imagination. I think a more likely possibility is that I don't like to play with deadbeats, which was what probably attracted me to the thread topic entitled "FIX THE DEADBEAT RULES ALREADY!!!" Do you think that's possible?

I might even go so far as to state that I am in favor of measures that would fix the deadbeat problem so that CC is not plagued by the problems they present. I'm interested in being part of the solution to this problem, so strangely enough I'm not interested in taking you up on your kind propostion to perpetuate the problem.

Here's my position: remove any conceivable benefit to deadbeating and missing turns and we will see less deadbeating and fewer missed turns.

Now that's pretty simple isn't it? Even you should be able to understand that, notwithstanding the fact that my "mastery of the English language is lacking."

[Samus]

Ok, let me help you with the math on that Samus:

1 out of 4 games, means that it happened 25% of the time, not 0.1%. If it happened 25% of the time it is at the very least plausible to state that it happens 25% of the time.

Wrong. NOT plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistically_significant

blah blah blah blah blah

I didn't read your unnecessarily long thread because I'm tired of listening to you say the same things over and over. All you did was edit out the parts where I already refuted this crap.

Here's my position: remove any conceivable benefit to deadbeating and missing turns and we will see less deadbeating and fewer missed turns.

Look, if you still believe that having a deadbeat partner offers even the slightest advantage, then step on up and accept my challenge. My score is higher than yours so you only need to win 50% to come out ahead on points. If deadbeating is the benefit you say it is, you should have no problem taking points off of me.

The time for talk is over. Are we going to throw down or what?

[tahitiwahini]

I didn't read your unnecessarily long thread because I'm tired of listening to you say the same things over and over. All you did was edit out the parts where I already refuted this crap.

Let me get this straight, you're "tired of listening to [me] say the same things over and over," but that couldn't be... because you just said you didn't read "my unnecessarily long thread."

I think I'll just let that logical fallacy lay there and gather the dust it deserves.

When someone stops reading my "unnecessarily long thread," and stops listening to me that's pretty much when I declare victory and move on to something else.

If you want to continue making sweeping, bombastic STATEMENTS (got to love the all caps) that are easily disproved, go ahead, that's your right. It's my right to watch with a bemused smile when you trip over your own rhetoric as you furiously backpedal away from your argument.

Oh, by the way, my answer to your challenge is contained in my "unnecessarily long thread." So, unless you're clairvoyant, you're going to have to read if you want the answer. I exend you my sympathies; I know how onerous it is for some to read anything longer than a few sentences.

[Samus]

My clairvoyance is sensing a disturbingly large amount of back-pedaling.

I'm just going to assume that means you acknowledge having your partner deadbeat is definitely NOT an advantage, but are too stubborn to admit it here. I'd say "put up or shut up," but it seems clear you're unwilling to do either.

[insert chicken noises]

[razor34]

Deadbeats!Selfish wasters.The way i see it is these lurchers won`t pay for premium but more serious gamers will to see the back of them.
Its worth 20 rather than sit wating with your thumb(or someone elses)upyour rear entryX [--0-X

[Anarchy Ninja]

tahitiwahini wrote:
Here's my position: remove any conceivable benefit to deadbeating and missing turns and we will see less deadbeating and fewer missed turns.

if not give the person unfourtunate enough to have a deadbeat partner there troops what happens with them? surely you can see that this is the only possible course of action to keep things equal and about fewer missed turns, yes something should, can and i rember reading in this thread, will be done about it. so back to my original point, what happens to the deadbeaters armies?

[tahitiwahini]

tahitiwahini wrote:
Here's my position: remove any conceivable benefit to deadbeating and missing turns and we will see less deadbeating and fewer missed turns.

...what happens to the deadbeaters armies?

Let me explain my position.

First of all, get rid of the missed turn army bonus. It unfairly affects the game. If you miss a turn then -- suck it up cupcake -- there are going to be some bad consequences and they're going to come down on the head of the player who missed the turn, not the other players in the game (who I like to call innocent bystanders since they have absolutely no control over whether a player misses a turn or not).

In a non-partner game the deadbeat's armies go neutral. I think that's reasonable, only because I can't figure out anything else to do with them. I don't really like a random reallocation scheme to the remaining players because I don't think it's workable.

Now for partner games. I should explain that I don't play a lot of doubles games (4 to be exact) so I may be missing some of the finer points of doubles play.

First of all, it is my understanding that in a high percentage of doubles games players play with a doubles partner that they know and have played with in the past.

Second, the missed turn bonus is eliminated (as stated before), so there are negative consequences to missing your turn here as well.

I think deadbeat armies should go neutral if a player deadbeats. I can hear the wails of disbelief even as I type this. These are my reasons:

1) The partners are known to each other (see previous assumption).

2) A player deadbeated, someone is going to suffer the consequences. Better the partner (who exercised some degree of judgment in his selection) than the innocent members of the other team(s).

3) Transfer of all the deadbeat's armies over to the partner is unfair as the following examples show:

3.1) Player A and Player B share Asia between them consequently neither player is receiving the continent bonus. Player A deadbeats leaving Player B all his countries. Without lifting a finger Player B will start collecting the continent bonus for Asia as a direct result of his partner's deadbeating.

3.2) Once Player A and B become one, they never have to be concerned with the fortification restrictions that are normally placed on partners. It's much more easy to fortify as a single person than it is as partners. It's easier to coordinate attacks if you are one person than if you are partners (for one thing you essentially have access to twice the armies to attack with than you would have had if you were a partner). And finally, unless you suffer from multiple personality disorder, the communication between you and yourself is perfect. No disagreements, no misunderstandings, etc.

4) This is a deterrent to deadbeating. Why would I deadbeat voluntarily knowing it's going to have such draconian affects on my partner, who barring a miracle is going to lose the game?

I can anticipate some of the objections:

1) It's not fair to the partner. No, it isn't. But it's marginally more fair to punish the partner than it is to punish the other team(s), who are, it has to be remembered, innocent bystanders. What's more if I know that by deadbeating on my partner I'm basically dooming him to lose the game, I'm going to do everything in my power not to deadbeat -- the deterrent effect.

2) It's especially not fair if you don't know your partner before the game. Yes, it is. Sorry, it's dangerous to go into a doubles game with a partner you don't know. Don't do it unless you like living on the edge. But my understanding is it's dangerous to go into a doubles game with a partner you don't know anyway. Isn't that the allegation made by some against some of the highly rated players -- that they enter into a game with a partner they have played with a zillion times against two people who just happened to sign up in the game as partners. My recommendation would be don't play a partner's game unless you know your partner and his reputation. Note: this might mean that you should only join private partner games. That's true. But it's like the four game restriction for standard members. If you don't like it, pony up for a premium membership.

3) Deadbeating never happens, at least not enough to be a problem deserving of a solution. Great! Then we won't have to apply this draconian measure very often. Even if the worst happens and a partner deadbeats, then the worst thing that will happen to the partner is that he will lose his share of the points for the game. And I would say the deadbeat then owes his partner at least a couple of beers. The point is if it doesn't happen except in rare occasions, that's great. I'm glad to hear that people aren't deadbeating. But when they do, they should suffer the consequences. Yes, and unfortunately their partners too (even though they are obviously not at fault). The people who should suffer no ill effect from the deadbeating is the other team (again they're innocent bystanders). In fact, not only is the other team not punished, they are actually compensated for having their game ruined by being able to fairly easily and quickly win the game.

Maybe the deadbeat should lose double points for the game and the partner should lose 0 points for the game.

Like I said I don't play doubles so I haven't thought about the deadbeating problem as applied to doubles much. Maybe there's some way to give the deadbeat's partner the his armies minus a deadbeating attrition penalty. Maybe the deadbeat's partner gains control of all his partner's armies but loses a single army from every country the deadbeat owned (except for those held by just one army to begin with). Perhaps there are other suggestions that people who play doubles would have. I'd like to hear them. They're probably worth more than my ideas because as I've said I don't really play doubles much.

If the deterrent effect reduces the number of players missing turns or deadbeating then I think everyone's experience at CC will improve.

[Samus]

Do you get paid by the word, bud?

[tahitiwahini]

Do you get paid by the word, bud?

Yes, I do. But not very much, hence the verbosity.

[Windparson]

Why not 24 hours the first miss (Like now), 12 hours the second miss, and 2 hours the 3rd miss? Armies only multiplied when and if the person logs back in to take their 2nd move. If they miss the second move, no armies are added and they would not be added if they come in on the third.

The missed turns would be handled this way. You are only allowed 3 total misses in a game. No more of this miss 2 turns, get your armies doubled up, play a round, and skip out for 2 more rounds. You have 3 misses in the game period!

I think this would give some incentive to play and not to deadbeat. And, it would stop the play, skip, skip, play, skip, skip, play as a strategy.

Just a thought. Shoot it down, add to it, love it. Its up to you.

Windparson

[jaseleo]

If i get a deadbeat on my team i feel guilty for the opposition for the game to take so long to kick him out and lose my points gracefully, I know i should have found a partner in advance who turns up for their turn, sometimes you just want to get "games on the go" and join anything and the only person who suffers is the partner, I hope I never do that to someone.

[cricket]

well, we have to think from the deadbeats point of view.

why would they not come back?

other things to do?
forget?
email notification problem?
boring game?
being jerks?

[Anarchy Ninja]

you raise valid points tahitiwahini, however they are based on assumptions as you have stated, which are often not wise to make. Also many other things could influence what happens in the game for example if you do know your teammate and play with them alot chances are you take your turns at the same time so instead of gaining asia in 3 turns from your deadbeat partner you would recieve troops from your ally and gain it in 1 turn this is in refrence to 3.1 of your extended spiel. Also if you are the opposing team and see that both players share 1 bonus and you do not have any troops inside there and one of them begins missing turns, 2 turns should be more then suffecient to stop a bonus from occuring, especially considering this would be a team game so your partner(s) could assist. the advantage given by recieving these troops helps negate the fact that they missed 3 turns, in which time it is perfectly possible to eliminate somone. What if you do have a regular partner but for some unforseen reason they are unable to play should you have to give away your points so easily just because your partner was unable to take their turn? i dont believe you should thats why i think the current rules are in place so it still gives a chance of victory.