Suggestion: No card inheriting due to deadbeating

[casper]

SO ONCE AGAIN a simple question to your wise crew of cc : why make not a simpler and honest solution for deadbeats and turnmissers.
"sitter" like you have on travian, 2 each account , not by using a pass but with a function at the profile options.

is it ourfault that a turnmisser misses his turn? so why must we pay for it ????

not sure what travian is but i agree.



jennifermarie -> if someone's internet connection goes down then surely can get to a library, internet cafe, friend's house, work, school, etc. within 72 hours and log on and move or private message a friend on CC to take their turns for them. and if there's a death in the family or a friend then that person will have a lot more serious emotions to deal with than losing one game on CC because they couldn't move. i think they'd get over it.

[Wild_Tiger]

Agreed, Its pretty stupid to ruin it for the honest fair players that always do their best to be online. For the few % of good reasons it would happen, most will be for abuse and people that simply don't care if they miss turns / deadbeat.

[khazalid]

Attica! Attica! Attica!

This is a travesty.. Can we galvanise some more support?
(Tiger brought my attention to it.) i suppose most of the Thotasians have been made aware.. How about your tribe Scott?

we all got indignant PMs : P

yeah, this rule is fucking terrible on pretty much every level. its all about money, and i find it fairly incredulous that it was implemented so covertly. there is no way this can be allowed to stand! - love from your horse friends at thota.

[insomniacdude]

the problem is the greater opportunity for abuse.. apportioning different point ratio's won't deter this insomniac.

No, it won't It will help subside both sides of the argument though. It's called a compromise.

[jiminski]

the problem is the greater opportunity for abuse.. apportioning different point ratio's won't deter this insomniac.

No, it won't It will help subside both sides of the argument though. It's called a compromise.

hmm I can't agree that this reaches compromise at present Insomniac...

The way i read it at the moment... your solution is about as helpful as handing a sick-bag to an bulimic

No offense intended... i just can't see how it would stop partners abusing the system...

Assuming we apportion 80% of the points to the non deadbeat winner and 20% to the DB partner?- then the DBer still gains points...
And in order for the DBer to gain more points next time the pair only need swap roles.

Am i missing something in your plan mate?

[insomniacdude]

the problem is the greater opportunity for abuse.. apportioning different point ratio's won't deter this insomniac.

No, it won't It will help subside both sides of the argument though. It's called a compromise.

hmm I can't agree that this reaches compromise at present Insomniac...

The way i read it at the moment... your solution is about as helpful as handing a sick-bag to an bulimic

No offense intended... i just can't see how it would stop partners abusing the system...

Assuming we apportion 80% of the points to the non deadbeat winner and 20% to the DB partner?- then the DBer still gains points...
And in order for the DBer to gain more points next time the pair only need swap roles.

Am i missing something in your plan mate?

Yes, the deadbeater would still gain points, but since the deadbeater gets a reduction in points they might not be so willing to deadbeat. If players A and B play together, they'd probably argue over who should deadbeat. And it's not a perfect solution. Compromises never are. But obviously Lack wants to keep it the way it is since he shanged the way deadbeat teammates deal with territories and cards. He specifically changed them this way. My guess is that he wants to keep it that way. My solution isn't perfect, but I think it takes a fairly even ground between his side and your side.

[Risktaker17]

If your teammate deadbeats, then it would suck for you for the rest of the game. Bad idea.

[jiminski]

Yes, the deadbeater would still gain points, but since the deadbeater gets a reduction in points they might not be so willing to deadbeat. If players A and B play together, they'd probably argue over who should deadbeat. And it's not a perfect solution. Compromises never are. But obviously Lack wants to keep it the way it is since he shanged the way deadbeat teammates deal with territories and cards. He specifically changed them this way. My guess is that he wants to keep it that way. My solution isn't perfect, but I think it takes a fairly even ground between his side and your side.

sorry mate but yours is not a compromise at all.

[insomniacdude]

Yes, the deadbeater would still gain points, but since the deadbeater gets a reduction in points they might not be so willing to deadbeat. If players A and B play together, they'd probably argue over who should deadbeat. And it's not a perfect solution. Compromises never are. But obviously Lack wants to keep it the way it is since he shanged the way deadbeat teammates deal with territories and cards. He specifically changed them this way. My guess is that he wants to keep it that way. My solution isn't perfect, but I think it takes a fairly even ground between his side and your side.

sorry mate but yours is not a compromise at all.

Meh. Just because you aren't satisfied with my idea doesn't mean it's not a compromise. What you want is your way. You don't like the rule change, and you want it rescinded completely. I agree with you, but I'm at least trying to show some reason and willingness to get things done to the administration instead of saying "no way it is totally horrible and it HAS to be the old way because that's the way I want it".

But hey, live and let live. I'll keep trying to the administration that the userbase is worth listening to and talking to, and you can be stubborn.

[jiminski]

hehe .. a compromise draws 2 diametrically opposed views together. Your idea only muddies the issue.... . were you sent here by Lack to weaken our resolve? (i think there may be a spy in the coop )

I don't really want a pointless debate.... we want the new rule changed back and you are distracting from the issue at hand ... IMSNVHO* at least.


The new rule is open to abuse.


*in my sometimes not very humble opinion

[insomniacdude]

The new rule is open to abuse.

Indeed it is. At least we can agree on that.

But to be fair though, so are a lot of the rules set up by CC. Multipliers for missed turns, timing out a turn and not getting a card, and timing out the end of your turn in freestyle and still starting the next round all come to mind (especially the first).

[jiminski]

The new rule is open to abuse.

Indeed it is. At least we can agree on that.

But to be fair though, so are a lot of the rules set up by CC. Multipliers for missed turns, timing out a turn and not getting a card, and timing out the end of your turn in freestyle and still starting the next round all come to mind (especially the first).

Of course we agree mate!

My only problem with your solution is that we are trying to show a determined front of disdain towards this unnecessary change.
I fear that your 'compromise' will not be enough to stop abuse and cracks our determined facade of vexation ..

maybe... just maybe the Turtle will turn with enough curfuffle.

[Wild_Tiger]

Its always worth a try! so.. get all your friends here and vote, vote against deadbeat profits!

[jiminski]

humpity bumpity

[RiskTycoon]

something else i don't like about this is the fact that it will make higher ranked players slip into the shadowy depths even more...think about it...once they get sick of the rule....less and less public games will be made and more and more private ones will start popping up even more.....IMO that is...

[jiminski]

something else i don't like about this is the fact that it will make higher ranked players slip into the shadowy depths even more...think about it...once they get sick of the rule....less and less public games will be made and more and more private ones will start popping up even more.....IMO that is...

True RT!

It will take the tactic to be pulled once (perfect new tool for a cheating multi by the way) on some higher rankers and they won't play people other than those they already know.

At the moment it's rare to get rankers playing with new fellas in any other than team games ... if the advantage of knowledge and superior team-work is evened-out, they won't even play in those due to the points handicap.

It will only further polarise the community: public games for newer fellas and exclusive, carefully vetted, Clan challenges or private games for the rest. (and of course Wac still playing everyone)

I know it sounds over-dramatic but I stopped ever playing Freestyle after 1 guy (a multi too) ran the clock down and double played in Freestyle. I was practically driven to insanity by that episode! .... bloody fuming i was!

the anguish bubbles to the surface once in a while.. i'm ok now though!

[xxtig12683xx]

dont let this topic die till we get it overturned.

rule is horse shit, keep voting

[Wild_Tiger]

yes he is right! fight to turn the tide!

[Wild_Tiger]

keep voting people!!!

[khazalid]

dont let this topic die till we get it overturned.

rule is horse shit, keep voting

that is a rather sensitive insult

[fireheart]

I do not like this new rule either.

[eye84free]

and this is why i play no card games....

[Wild_Tiger]

bumpity

[yeti_c]

I still don't understand how you people think that Deadbeating and giving your cards away gives an advantage...

Surely the minimum of 9 armies lost take away any advantage?

C.

[jiminski]

Humpty Bumpty!