Is it considered cheating to...

[LazarusLong]

I think this is an excellent discussion of the pros and cons of multiplying the armies when you miss a turn. I agree with many of the things that alstergren has said and many of the things that Tahitiwahini has said.

The current rule seems kind of arbitrary. Why not give the person the true armies he missed if a continent was broken? Shouldn't he get what he would have gotten when the turn was missed? Why not give him a card for the missed turn too? Why give the armies but not a card? You can say that he didn't take a country but then he didn't take a turn either. Or you can just double up on the cards when he comes back and takes a country. Yes that would be much more fair to the person that missed the turn let's give them the bonus armies for the continent he held when the turn was missed and let's give him the cards he missed too. I mean we want to be fair right? Why give just a little of what he missed??

I understand that Lack has said that it is one of the things he uses to encourage new people to come back. Three missed turns before you get kicked out and you still get your armies if you just start taking your turns. Keeping new people coming to the site and playing has to be a high priority. Can't we come up with a solution that meets that goal but doesn't allow the current abuse. Maybe just new players get this advantage and once you've finished 5 games you don't get this anymore.

I've said before in other threads that this "problem" probably affects no card games more than any other. (I play a lot of no card games) There are times in no card games where attacking is the last thing you want to do so breaking a continent when someone misses is not a tactically good solution. In escalating games where the play is more aggressive it doesn't seem to be such a big issue. Plus in escalating games missing the card is more punishment than the reward of extra armies. It is only in certain situations in no card games where there appears to be little or no downside to missing a turn but a significant upside.

In flat rate games many people bide their time until then can turn in a set and make a move. The double or triple armies are like this. You can place more all at once and break someone or finish taking a continent. Can you imagine a game where you can take your previous turn's army placement and move them anywhere on the board before you take your current turn? That's what the double placement is like.

One of the worst places is at the beginning of a 6 player no card game where every army is crucial and people start to slowly attack and define where they want to be. Then someone comes in after skipping two turns and can decide who rolled the worst and take over an area quite easily. How do you fort against that? You can't break his bonus because he's only getting 3 and you certainly can't wipe him out.

[tahitiwahini]

I've said before in other threads that this "problem" probably affects no card games more than any other. (I play a lot of no card games) There are times in no card games where attacking is the last thing you want to do so breaking a continent when someone misses is not a tactically good solution. In escalating games where the play is more aggressive it doesn't seem to be such a big issue. Plus in escalating games missing the card is more punishment than the reward of extra armies. It is only in certain situations in no card games where there appears to be little or no downside to missing a turn but a significant upside.

In flat rate games many people bide their time until then can turn in a set and make a move. The double or triple armies are like this. You can place more all at once and break someone or finish taking a continent. Can you imagine a game where you can take your previous turn's army placement and move them anywhere on the board before you take your current turn? That's what the double placement is like.

One of the worst places is at the beginning of a 6 player no card game where every army is crucial and people start to slowly attack and define where they want to be. Then someone comes in after skipping two turns and can decide who rolled the worst and take over an area quite easily. How do you fort against that? You can't break his bonus because he's only getting 3 and you certainly can't wipe him out.

Very good points.

I hear people say that you know when someone misses his turn so the onus is on you to prepare for the double and triple allotment of armies that player will deploy when (if) he returns. I would like to hear about the defensive strategies for preparing against a triple deployment that may or may not involve a card cash. There are some things for which you cannot reasonably prepare. They will probably say that you should be attacking the player who missed turns and while that's certainly true and I tend to do that, sometimes you cannot attack that player for geographical reasons, and lest anyone forget there is still a game going on with all the remaining players and sometimes something going on with them will preclude concerted action against the player who is missing turns.

I find the implications of the missed turn bonus to be troublesome which is why I advocate for its elimination. Although I don't play no-card games I can imagine it would be even more of a problem there. If the concern is retaining new players I would suggest a more effective strategy would be to compel new players to take a simple short tutorial before they can join their first game. It would cover how to know when it's your turn, how much time you have to complete your turn, how to start the game, how to attack, etc.

[BobHacket]

If skipping a turn is to be considered a strategy and allowable, then there should be an option of simply skipping the turn, not just waiting the 24 hours for your time to run out. Also, as a matter pertaining to time, if someone does miss a 24 hour period, they should not get another 24 hours on their next time at bat. Either their time should be decreased or eliminated unless they come back and activate a button or something. Waiting on people who employ this strategy (hasn't happened to me) and deadbeating (happens to me all the time) are terrible because of the time issues. I HATE waiting for a whole day when someone decides to stop playing.

[oVo]

I agree that cutting a player's "go time" in half each time they miss a turn would be a cool option and should have an effect on the use of that tactic.

It would also rock if a player was ejected when they miss the first turn of a game. The email announcement could read, "Your patience has paid off and your game has started, should you choose to skip this round you're out."

Waiting three days for deadbeats to get kicked out of a game drives me nuts.

[urbansloth]

Is it considered cheating to skip a turn on purpose just so you can get a surge of armies? I read the FAQ/Contact area and it said...

20. Why do people get extra armies when they miss turns?

The fact is that things come up in real life and many people cannot reach a computer every single day. People who missed a turn are not receiving any bonus, only the armies they would have normally received. Getting the armies for turns missed encourages people to return and continue playing the game, which is one the most important things. A decent player will be able to keep track of how many missed armies an opponent can add, and act strategically to counter the extra armies.

The reason I'm asking is because I am currently in a game with GuRoove and he won't shut up about it in and out of the game (I know him outside of Conquer Club.) so I want to see what other people think about this in hopes that he will stop harrassing me about it.

Do you play for snookers when playing pool too?

[TomaCzar]

I'm not an avid CCer (just have my measly 4 game free account) and this whole skipping-as-strategy thing is new to me which is why I found this thread so interesting. Not the parts where people kept saying the same thing over and over again in slightly different ways, but the rest of it.

Here's the thing, as I see it. Skipping is legal (obviously) and it's a tactic. Is it a kewl, honorable, fun tactic? No. But hiding behind trees wasn't considered cool, honorable, or fun during the revolutionary war either (I had to reach for that one). At end of day, this is a war simulation game with total domination as it's end goal, to say using the rules to your benefit (perceived or otherwise) is ethically wrong or against the "spirit of the game" is IMHO stupid.

More to the point of what I wanted to express, the main group of whiners here (although several are present) don't like the fact that it lengthens their wait time. I think this comes from a misconception that there is a responsibility on the part of the players to make their play ASAP. This is wrong. Each person has the right to take as long as they like for whatever reason they choose to make their play, up to the 24 hour limit. If they take their turn under 24 hours HOORAY!! If they take their turn religiously at 23 hours and 55 minutes, such is their prerogative. Who are you to judge whether they deserve the full 24 or not??

Solutions: Blacklist (as I'm sure I will be by someone, which is fine by me as I'll take blacklist over neg feedback any day). Skip-Turn-Button, I don't think this will work as it defeats the action of missing the turn which is a feint (or bluff as it's been described). If other players know that I consciously choose not to take my turn they'll be more apt to prepare for augmented deployment. That being said there will always be those that if they don't see it, it must not be there. Shortened rounds is what I think some people really want to see. An option for 16-hour/8-hour/4-hour rounds would be interesting but wouldn't solved the problem, just mitigate the damage. At the end of the day, make it illegal or stop whining about it. If it's not your chosen method don't do it and don't play games with people who do. With 3000+ members, I don't see why anyone should have to play with anyone that they don't want to.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate, each person has the RIGHT to a 24 hour time period to take their turns. It is right granted by the framework of the site, independent of whatever reason they (or you) deem is appropriate. Get off your high horse with neg feedback for missing turns!!

BTW, I'm in a game right now with a guy that misses about every other turn and usually if he does take a turn it's within the last hour possible. Yes, it's annoying BUT it's also interesting and adds a dynamic to the game I've never played with before. He will not receive neg feedback for exercising his rights (at least not from me).

[tahitiwahini]

Solutions: Blacklist (as I'm sure I will be by someone, which is fine by me as I'll take blacklist over neg feedback any day). Skip-Turn-Button, I don't think this will work as it defeats the action of missing the turn which is a feint (or bluff as it's been described). If other players know that I consciously choose not to take my turn they'll be more apt to prepare for augmented deployment. That being said there will always be those that if they don't see it, it must not be there. Shortened rounds is what I think some people really want to see. An option for 16-hour/8-hour/4-hour rounds would be interesting but wouldn't solved the problem, just mitigate the damage. At the end of the day, make it illegal or stop whining about it. If it's not your chosen method don't do it and don't play games with people who do. With 3000+ members, I don't see why anyone should have to play with anyone that they don't want to.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate, each person has the RIGHT to a 24 hour time period to take their turns. It is right granted by the framework of the site, independent of whatever reason they (or you) deem is appropriate. Get off your high horse with neg feedback for missing turns!!

BTW, I'm in a game right now with a guy that misses about every other turn and usually if he does take a turn it's within the last hour possible. Yes, it's annoying BUT it's also interesting and adds a dynamic to the game I've never played with before. He will not receive neg feedback for exercising his rights (at least not from me).

Here's the problem I have with what you just said. The solution you proffer is not to play with a player who wishes to exercise his right to miss turns. That's fine. Explain to me how I can identify players who wish to miss turns (as is their right) for tactical reasons, if it's not appropriate to leave negative feedback when a player does this in a game. If it's not appropriate for a player to leave negative feedback for someone who misses his turn for a tactical advantage, then how will I know not to play with that person, how will I know I should add that player to my ignore-list? If you really believe in the solution you proposed, namely a blacklist for players who use missing their turns for tactical advantage, then you either have to be in favor of players leaving such people negative feedback for missing their turns, or you have to be in favor of a community ignore-list that lists such players, or the solution is effectively useless and unlikely to lessen the amount of whining that offends you so much.

[TomaCzar]

Here's the problem I have with what you just said. The solution you proffer is not to play with a player who wishes to exercise his right to miss turns. That's fine. Explain to me how I can identify players who wish to miss turns (as is their right) for tactical reasons, if it's not appropriate to leave negative feedback when a player does this in a game. If it's not appropriate for a player to leave negative feedback for someone who misses his turn for a tactical advantage, then how will I know not to play with that person, how will I know I should add that player to my ignore-list? If you really believe in the solution you proposed, namely a blacklist for players who use missing their turns for tactical advantage, then you either have to be in favor of players leaving such people negative feedback for missing their turns, or you have to be in favor of a community ignore-list that lists such players, or the solution is effectively useless and unlikely to lessen the amount of whining that offends you so much.

Here's the problem I have with what you just said. You expect to know that someone plays the game in a way that you find distasteful prior to playing with them. 1) You can't know that. You can't know how someone will play until you're actually playing with them. 2) You seem to be looking for some type of registry of everyone you think is a bad player. Not only is such a registry impossible (except as created and managed by you) but I wouldn't want something like that available to all. Here is a list of everyone "X" thinks is a bad player. That's just wrong.

Feedback, IMHO, shouldn't be used for blacklisting. It's current setup isn't designed to compliment that purpose (I can't auto ignore everyone with 5 or more negs) and so based on that I would venture to guess that's not what it was intended for. End of day, play a game with a person, if you don't like how they play, ignore (blacklist) them and you'll suffer their existence no longer.

Personally, I only leave negative feedback for people who break the rules, which in this game means secret alliances, multis, or not following a rule they agreed to, such as a truce. IF I wanted to pass on information about another player I would use the neutral feedback option instead of the negative feedback. No feedback goes to average/regular players and if a player does something outstanding they get positive feedback. Which is why I very rarely give (or receive) positive feedback. All of this "he deploys his armies so well!!" positive feedback is ridiculous.[/b]

[tahitiwahini]

Solutions: Blacklist (as I'm sure I will be by someone, which is fine by me as I'll take blacklist over neg feedback any day).

If what you meant by saying a "blacklist" was a solution to the problem, then as you've explained it it's next to useless to me. So I will continue to whine about players purposefully missing turns to achieve a tactical advantage until CC corrects the problem by eliminating the missed turn bonus.

Personally, I only leave negative feedback for people who break the rules, which in this game means secret alliances, multis, or not following a rule they agreed to, such as a truce. IF I wanted to pass on information about another player I would use the neutral feedback option instead of the negative feedback. No feedback goes to average/regular players and if a player does something outstanding they get positive feedback. Which is why I very rarely give (or receive) positive feedback. All of this "he deploys his armies so well!!" positive feedback is ridiculous.

Since someone who engages in secret alliances or is a multi is breaking the rules of the site, that is cheating, they should be reported to the Cheating and Abuse Forum in addition to garnering negative feedback. The problem with neutral feedback is that it doesn't show up in the positive -negative feedback summary that attaches to a player's name when they join a game, so I would put it to you that it's not an ideal way to pass on information about another player.

You're free to use the ignore-list as you see fit. You're also free to whine about other players whining about players using missed turns for a tactical advantage. You're free to propose solutions that you hope will result in less whining. In doing so you're likely to get feedback from people about how useful they find your solution to be.

[Guroove]

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.

Hey, I'm not the one who made the topic buddy boy!

[Cheesemore]

I don't consider it cheating, I just consider it annoying if you do that every game

[Adran]

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.

But why do they still hold all three of those territories?
Frankly, if I held north America, and all three of the entrances were held by weak forces of a player who just missed a turn, I would capture two or three of them in my extra turn with the (at least) 8 armies I'd received. And if they tried missing another turn, then they aren't likely to have austrialia as a bonus.
The advantage is only there because you allowed it

There is an advantage, although only a small one, in getting a double deploy. But there is a risk in missing your turn as well.
I don't like it as a tactic and I will admit it puts the emphisis upon the player making the turns to stop the tactic being used in an advantagous manner, but I also reagually am away from a computer for all of Sunday, so sometimes miss turns because of it.
It has hurt me much more than it has benifited me, that is for sure

Adran

[jiminski]

deleted by me due to nonsense.

[Sargeant_Pepper]

I think it is cheating. Deliberately violating the rules of the game is cheating. There is also method that I consider cheating. Let's say you begin your turn with 6 armies. After deploying your armies, attacking, you time out (60 minutes). In this way, you can still take your turn and do not get a card for taking over territories. You can have four cards, and continue to attack until the rate is high enough for you to take your 5th card, and cash in next turn.

I have never done this, nor seen it done. But it would be interesting . . .