Another DeadBeat Idea

[Baronovich]

I know this has been mentioned a lot here but when a problem is as rampant as the deadbeat issue is I think it is only appropriate for lots of people to gripe about it.

So here is MY take on the issue and a new twist on an old idea…

1) Allow the creator of a game the option of approving or kicking any and all players before the game initializes.

2) Attach a deadbeat percentage to all accounts. You could even make some sort of little icon to go along with the rank icon to indicate it.

That way the creator of a game can decide on the fly if he wants to let a dead beater join or not. He could even PM the deadbeat to ask him about his intentions and availability to play the game before deciding to kick him or allow him.

If a player doesn’t want to get kicked out of games all the time then they should THINK BEFORE THEY JOIN. If you are going to be busy in the next few days and won’t have time to play then DON’T COMMIT to a game by joining it. If a game runs long and someone has to drop out later, a vacation or drop out feature would be nice so as to not artificially inflate ones deadbeat score. A drop feature that required the approval of all or a majority of the other players before the player could drop out gracefully might be a good idea as well.

Now I know there have been lots of replies to posts on this issue in the past that seem to suggest that speeding up games by eliminating dead beating will detract from the value of a premium account and thereby detract from the financial stability of this fine site that we all love so much.
However, to that I say, why would I want to PAY to play long slow boring games in which half the people in them don't even play. I am NOT a premium member as yet for this very reason. I LOVE this site a lot. Especially when in the rare occasion you get a group of people together who actually play the game. If those types of games were the norm I would have ponied up for a premium long ago. But as it is, why would I want to play an unlimited amount of games most of which have been ruined by a bunch of dead beating players. 4 at a time are all I can bear as it is.

Anyway it is something to think about and I hope I haven’t offended anyone in any way. It was not my intention.

THanks for you attention.
Baronovich

[AndyDufresne]

I know this has been mentioned a lot here but when a problem is as rampant as the deadbeat issue is I think it is only appropriate for lots of people to gripe about it.

So here is MY take on the issue and a new twist on an old idea…

1) Allow the creator of a game the option of approving or kicking any and all players before the game initializes.

If I understand this correctly a setting would be available that allows a set time before the game starts, essentially a Limbo, where the creator could remove people they do not wish to play with? Something somewhat similar to this has been suggested before, and I do believe it was rejected.

2) Attach a deadbeat percentage to all accounts. You could even make some sort of little icon to go along with the rank icon to indicate it.

This has also been suggested, along with in the profile displaying how many turns a player has missed. But I believe this was rejected also, because it can be a missleading stat.

...
If a player doesn’t want to get kicked out of games all the time then they should THINK BEFORE THEY JOIN. If you are going to be busy in the next few days and won’t have time to play then DON’T COMMIT to a game by joining it. If a game runs long and someone has to drop out later, a vacation or drop out feature would be nice so as to not artificially inflate ones deadbeat score. A drop feature that required the approval of all or a majority of the other players before the player could drop out gracefully might be a good idea as well...

A Vacation Setting is on the To-Do list already. A Drop Feature has been rejected I believe.

Now I know there have been lots of replies to posts on this issue in the past that seem to suggest that speeding up games by eliminating dead beating will detract from the value of a premium account and thereby detract from the financial stability of this fine site that we all love so much.
However, to that I say, why would I want to PAY to play long slow boring games in which half the people in them don't even play. I am NOT a premium member as yet for this very reason. I LOVE this site a lot. Especially when in the rare occasion you get a group of people together who actually play the game. If those types of games were the norm I would have ponied up for a premium long ago. But as it is, why would I want to play an unlimited amount of games most of which have been ruined by a bunch of dead beating players. 4 at a time are all I can bear as it is.

You seem to be having some bad luck regarding users deadbeating, so for now I suggest instead of perhaps creating a game, use the game finder to find an open game with settings you like and evaluate if to join or not.


--Andy

[Baronovich]

Thanks for the reply!

If I understand this correctly a setting would be available that allows a set time before the game starts, essentially a Limbo, where the creator could remove people they do not wish to play with? Something somewhat similar to this has been suggested before, and I do believe it was rejected.

Actually I was thinking that the game would only begin after 2 things happen... 1) all player slots are full and 2) the creator hit a begin game button. While the game is in the waiting stage the creator would have the ability to drop any player he wishes. Once he hits begin all players are locked in then. It would give the creator of a game the power to decide who plays and who does not.

Of course this would mean that newbs would not get a chance to play though so it is prolly a terible idea.

Forget I said anything.

I do think the deabeat issue needs some serious attention soon. In my mind it is the number one problem with this site. Perhaps it's just me though since all the ideas to remedy it in some manner have been rejected. It is a tough one to figure out. The idea of better newb education would help a great deal although a disturbingly high percentage of deadbeats I have seen are not newbs.

[AndyDufresne]

We've got a few things in the works. Some are further down the road, and some will be out within the next update or so. Stay tuned!


--Andy

[Baronovich]

Thanks Andy! Sorry to make my first post here a gripe. Heh Heh

At any rate you may be pleased to know that I DID go ahead and purchase a premium. In fact I am now playing in my first RT (real time)game thanks to your new live chat and my newly found ability to create a private game and invite good people into it. No dead beats in this one. LOL

THANKS AGAIN! and keep up the good work on this fine site.

[Bob Janova]

Any 'anti deadbeating' measure has to allow new recruits to join, even though they have the most chance of deadbeating (the typical 'sign up, join four games, decide you don't like it after all and never log in again' one).

[congobill]

Quote:
2) Attach a deadbeat percentage to all accounts. You could even make some sort of little icon to go along with the rank icon to indicate it.

This has also been suggested, along with in the profile displaying how many turns a player has missed. But I believe this was rejected also, because it can be a missleading stat.

Why would a deadbeat % be missleading? I don't see how it could possibly be missleading. If someone deadbeats out of say 25% of their games then that is exactly what they have done, there is nothing missleading or confusing about it! Also I have to agree with Baronovich that I have noticed a good number of non-newbs are deadbeating, and this is more of a problem to me than the newb deadbeat. I had the misfortune of playing a game with bolle85 who had played in ~350 games and had deadbeated over 80% of them. bolle85 was eventually kicked off the site but not before messing up almost 300 games. I don't think it is too much to ask that we be able to identify people like this and ignore them. And yes I know that I could read the feedback, but I don't want to.

What I realy want is to be able to set up a game, and in the setup screen, enter a max deadbeat % to join the game. So if you want to only play with people that deadbeat less than 25% you enter 25% and anyone with a higher DB% would not be able to join. This also alows newbs to still join any game they want because newbs who have never finished a game will have a DB% of 0.

[Keebs2674]

I hate deadbeat Question Marks just as much as anyone. CC needs to do something, but this suggestion is just way too complicated. It also delays the start of games as we all would have to wait for the organizer to decide who he or she does and doesn't want in the game.

My solution would be to kick Question Marks who miss a turn out of the game after one missed turn instead of three, but apparently that's been rejected because it would mean lost potential revenue for CC. So we'll continue to put up with deadbeats while they make some sort of training video for the next six months... One way of objecting is to withhold your premium membership renewel until they fix it. Apparently, the potential of getting more people to pay premium outweighs their desire to keep the people happy who have already paid.

[calkid]

everyone wants to eliminate the deadbeaters but you have to see this in a new percpective without trying to label someone a deadbeater.

the issue can be solved in a couple ways without labeling people deadbeats.

lets be honest. it's not the actual deadbeat that causes frustration, it's the 24 hour period of time you have to wait for til the game can progress. people are here to play. correct? then solution #1 has been stated in another topic to illiminate a player who misses his/her very first turn. #2 solution has been stated in another topic to limit time between turns.

both these solutions don't really solve labeling deadbeats and getting rid of them. what these solutions do is to nip the problem at the base. the MAIN problem being the wait period between turns.....not because there is someone not taking their turns.

in FACT, having a so-called "deadbeat" in a game adds to the uncertainty of a game and can change someones strategy during a game. it adds a little bit of excitement sometimes because of this uncertainty. also, it makes the game more realistic. life isn't perfect and "deadbeat" here and their(in about 10% of my games) makes the game more interesting.

ALSO! sometimes there is a good reason why someone hasn't made their turns and to label them a deadbeat is just plain WRONG!

SO! my final solution for those who wants to minimize "deadbeats" in their games is to not join any games where the other players haven't been promoted to private first class. this will illiminate a high percentage of the players who don't take their turns and NEVER play with a question mark.

me, i will continue to play with everyone and just use my best judgment in future games.

this site has a problem because you can't please everyone. if you satisfy the deadbeat problem with some of these ridiculous suggestions, then you limit new players from getting past the b.s. to actually enjoy this site. this site cannot please everyone but they can do the best they can what is fair for everyone....so in fact, everyone needs to compromise and be happy that this site is even here and enjoy themselves....or.....create that perfect site their own selves so the only person they can grip to is their own selves when others complain about issues that will never be perfect.

[Keebs2674]

Calkid - You clearly haven't thought much about this issue. First of all, those of us who complain about deadbeaters didn't create the label of "deadbeat." This was created by the creators of Conquer Club and therefore isn't "so-called." It was meant to be a derogatory name for someone who decided not to play and slowed the game down for everyone else. So don't blame us for this labelling.

Second, I don't choose to join games with Question Marks. I start games and they join the games and then deadbeat. I don't have a choice when they join the game I created. So your "solution" really isn't one.

Third, while the having to wait 24 is the main cause of my criticism of deadbeats, I also think deadbeating, even if it didn't delay the game is wrong. I've been in games when someone holds a continent, South America, for example and someone who deadbeats holds N. America and has 20 armies on the border between the two. Now the guy in S. America only need to protect one border because he has 20 some neutral armies protecting his other border. This is not how the game was meant to be played.

You're right that the game can't please everyone, but it's clear from the comments that there are a lot of people here who are tired of deadbeat Question Marks. Something should be done. Maybe you're the one who shouldn't be pleased in this case.

[calkid]

because you duisagree with me, that means i haven't clearly thought about this issue? wow. i clearly suggest a different positive perspective on something that people are looking negative on and i shouldn't be pleased? hmmm....so lets see....if someone is sick and needs medical attention and an ambulance picks them up and takes hem to the hospital where they have to stay for 3 days, according to you, those people are deadbeats.....but in fact, you didn't call them that, the creators did?

so when you create games, you basically don't look or may attention who joins....is that what i am hearing? so you don't give yourself an obvious out if someone joins you don't want to play with....or what i am hearing is that you haven't gone so far as to buy premium to protect yourself from the so called "deadbeaters"(and yes...they are so-called to me....i put them in quotes because its the only label you are able to understand what i'm talking about unfortunately). you don't with to start private games which can litterally avoid most people who miss turns. so instead of doing things to protect yoruself from those game, you don't. you don't blame yourself partially....it's just everyone elses fault basically. wow, bud. you have a grip on the situation here i see.

oh....and i am also sorry you don't like to change your strategy mid game. is it hard for you to think outside the box? if so, once again, there is a strategy thread tht i suggest you read and participate in where you can be taught to actually play the game with people in it missing turns. its obvious you need help in that area or you wouldn't be complaining about it.

anyway, sorry, i haven't really put a lot of thought in this like you said because you disagree with me....so i suggest that you don't read or respond to what i have to say on this subject again.

personally bud, i think it's people like you and your attitudes that give others a bad name for no reason. you are the people who write negative feedback on those that win using good strategy and whine about losing. you are the one that give cc a bad name where others don't feel comfortable coming back to play another game. if you ask me, i would rather play with someone who misses a turn now and than, then with soeone like you....but heck....that's only if you ask me, and you didn't....so i'm done here. you go continue living your life, giving yourself a heartattack with this "deadbeater" issue haha.

your too funny, bud. a simple comment put you all out of sorts and defensive and i wasn't even talking to you

[Keebs2674]

Whoa...it appears I touched a nerve here. Calm down Calkid. I thought people from California are supposed to be chill.

While obviously none of us knows for sure, I'd bet that 99% of deadbeats aren't due to medical emergencies. They are because of other, avoidable circumstances or just plain irresponsibility. So let's not confuse this with the 1% of people who get in car accidents and can't play. (If the hundreds of Question Marks who deadbeat are all laid up in hospital then I apologize for my comments.)

Moving on to the more serious comments you've made... The reason I said I don't think you thought enough about this is that most people don't have a choice about who joins games with them, unless they play solely private games. After I create a game or join a game I don't have the time to log in every couple minutes to see if a Question Mark has joined the game. I create or join games, other people join in, and they start all within a matter of hours.

I'm not blaming "everyone else" for the problem of deadbeats, I'm blaming them in particular. But the reality is, I shouldn't have to take precautions to not get involved in games with deadbeats. When people pay money to play here (and I was a premium member up until a month or so ago), Conquer Club should institute controls so that those of us who play responsibly don't have to put up with deadbeat Question Marks (or at least keep them to a minimum).

Again, your solution that those of us who don't like waiting repeated 24 hour periods should just "avoid" getting involved in games with someone we think might turn out to be a deadbeat, is not a solution. It's like saying "stop complaining about that guy pissing on your front door, just use the back door or climb out a window." I shouldn't have to take measures to avoid people who shouldn't be doing what they're doing in the first place.

[spidey]

We are never going to truly be able to stop deadbeating, it's a part of life on conquer club but here is a suggestion in regards to it. I know one of the gripes I've been hearing are about the people who deadbeat a turn or 2 on purpose and then get the multiplier. Most of these people are still playing games just not that one, I think it is a good strategy, I'm not one to ever play that way, but one that is abused. If I skipped my turn on the board game of risk, there is no way that the people around the table are going to give me double the amount of armies on my next turn. Here is my proposal. Sometimes we can't help it we just can't get to the computer or our internet has crapped out or some other excuse and we can't get our turn in. So be it. There are other times that people are purposly missing their turns, I don't think that they should be awarded the multiplier if they have signed onto conquer club in the 24 hours that their turn is. If they are able to sign on, they are able to take their turn. For those who are unable to make it to their computer, ie long weekend, car accident, whatever, I don't think that they should be penalized. I don't know if such a thing is possible but I thought I would throw it out there if it hasn't been suggested already.

[HorusKol]

i don't think that restricting the turn time to less than 24hours is a good idea - I'm playing a number of games where we have Australians, Europeans and Americans - so, we're kinda spread across the globe, and seeing as I'm about 14 hours ahead of the US west coast, i think we're stuck with the 24 hours...


but i agree with the original poster that some sort of rating be given the deadbeaters (and for those who have medical emergencies and so on, there could be an appeal system).