Deadbeating on purpose

AndrewB · Post by **AndrewB** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:04 pm

Guys/gals,

I hate when people deadbeat on purpose especially same person in several games. I know that this question was brought up before to the site administration to prohibit it.

Another suggestion which i can put is to limit number of armies accumulated over mised turns. Ie. after 1 round give 3 armies, 2 rounds 5 (not 6) armies and after round 3 give 6 armies, or something along those lines.

horizon · Post by **horizon** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:15 pm

This has been brought up many times before.

You can read lackattack's reasoning for multiplying armies for missed turns here:
What is this SO and SO gets his Armies doubled for 2 rounds

How can you teach a progrem to tell if someone is deadbeating on purpose vs. just busy with real life?

Now, if you can read people's minds ...

(PS - BTW, I really hate this too)

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:23 pm

Also check out ... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1876

--Andy

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:33 pm

I think that if you miss your turn you should miss your armies, if you miss your turn and come back, you should only get the armies you are entitled to for that round, if you have less than 12 territories and no bonuses, you should only get 3 armies, not double or anything, that will discourage people from missing turns.

KoolBak · Post by **KoolBak** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:44 pm

As has been hashed and rehashed in the past....I disagree. When I have to miss a turn I want my damn armies..I have NEVER done it on pupose so why should I be penalized because my car broke down out o town or I went on a short vaca or had to help someone or or or???

If you find someone that uses this digraceful tactic, take him out and dont play him any more (IGNORE LIST). Just like any other negative playing style.....

Theres my thots....

Blazer87 · Post by **Blazer87** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:27 pm

I porpose a solution to the problem. I think we should have a army penalty. If a person missed one turn, then the armies will be cut by 1/2 (after the territories and bonuses). Also if a person missed 2 turns the armies will be cut by 2/3 in the same matter. This way, we can have a strong message against deadbeating. This can discourage deadbeating because deadbeating kills games.

eye84free · Post by **eye84free** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:05 pm

the only case would be if there is a good reason for so.......i cant think f any but,,,it will come to me.....lol

cramill · Post by **cramill** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:36 pm

Blazer87 wrote:I porpose a solution to the problem. I think we should have a army penalty. If a person missed one turn, then the armies will be cut by 1/2 (after the territories and bonuses). Also if a person missed 2 turns the armies will be cut by 2/3 in the same matter. This way, we can have a strong message against deadbeating. This can discourage deadbeating because deadbeating kills games.

I disagree, this discourages people who have real lives to play here. If someone misses a turn for a legitamate reason (not on purpose, but some conflict with stuff that really matters) they shouldn't have to loose armies.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:16 am

original...a penalty has to be in place, skipping on purpose should not be a viable strategic weapon. Totally against the spirit of the game. The person who misses a turn should be penalized, not the players who play...edit...now have read the reasoning and it seems we suffer the players who take advantage to allow more to play...which I think we can accept graciously...its just painful to see someone start off with a force, after skipping turns...if its a no cards board...they can win............yes it happened to me....and im bitter...

Haydena · Post by **Haydena** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:07 am

Sometimes you can see that people are online. I have noticed before in some of my games that people are not playing yet I can see them online on the forums. They then deadbeat and it pisses me off.

But honestly, who really cares about negative feedback anyway? I've played many people with negative feedback, it's usually just people whining that they got beat. And surely you can say in your response that you "were out of town" or such. That for me is enough to negate that negative feedback. I usually don't care anyway

.

Robinette · Post by **Robinette** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:42 pm

I think there are 2 different issues here...

Neg feedback is not uncommon when someone misses 3 turns and gets kicked out of a game. That is likely what the results of your poll reflects.

But this is very different than missing a single turn. I was in Tuscon earlier this week and had a very difficult time accessing a computer, resulting in several missed turns. Believe me when I tell you, it bothered ME more than my opponents. And there should not be neg feedback for this.

But missing a turn on purpose.... well that would be pretty lame. I have to assume that this is quite rare. There is only one thing worse than a player that thinks thier position is improved by missing turns, and that would be the player that is not prepared for it. If someone misses a turn I will always expect them to show up, so they gain nothing. I would still not expect neg feedback, because how would you know for sure that they did it on purpose?

From a strategy viewpoint, I can only think of 2 possible reasons for skipping a turn on purpose....
1) in a no-cards game, hoping your opponents won't notice and therefore catching them unawares (requires opponents to have thier blinders on, and those are people you should be able to beat legitimitely)
2) delaying turning in a set in an escalating game in order to receive more armies (with 6 players, the 1st 4 army set could be up-to 15 armies the next turn, but then you have 1 less card for later... and if you were okay with that, why not just stop attacking after you have 4 cards?)

And yes, in either case, neg feedback is deserved if it really was on purpose (intentional delay of game + lame strategy)... but again, how do you really know that they did it on purpose?

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:46 pm

OKay. It is a strategy however foul, that I don't use.

I have been on, and playing my turn I think it's done, and I go to the forums, or someplace else. If I was penaltised for this I would not stop bugging the manegment, until I was banned.

I think that if you don't ever miss a turn, thats weird. If I could express my dissagreement more I would.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:37 pm

Robinette wrote:And yes, in either case, neg feedback is deserved if it really was on purpose (intentional delay of game + lame strategy)... but again, how do you really know that they did it on purpose?

Referring to the feedback, keep in mind that you have the option of responding to negative feedback. So if you have only one or two negative comments about missing turns, you should be able to write it off in your reply and still maintain your credibility. Now if you have a good number of people complaining about your game-delaying tendencies... it becomes safer to assume that there's something fishy.

What's more, to avoid such negative feedback in instances when you MUST be away from the computer, it would probably do well to warn your fellow players in the chat box, just to communicate the issue to them. In the 21st century, it's pretty much guaranteed that in a 48 hour period you're going to have an oppurtunity to get on the internet and quickly let your fellow players know you'll be missing a few turns because of circumstances beyond your control. Not only will they probably be grateful for knowing why you're apparently not around, but you'll probably dodge any negative feedback as well.

Of course, the above method can still be used by "strategists" trying to use loopholes, but again, hopefully buildup of comments in their feedback section about their behavior will create a pattern which will be easily detectable by the rest of us...

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:00 am

how about prohibiting people who miss turns from turning in sets, and taking away a card? When i want to hold a set and wait for others to turn in their sets, i stop attacking after 4 cards, which is a legitimate stategy, but missing a turn so you don't have to turn in cards is wrong, because that is not allowed in the original board game.

Another thing, if you are going out of town within the next 2 days, dont' start a new game, i'm tired of joining games and then 1 or 2 days into the game, someone says, "I won't be here the next day or 2, will miss turns"
(I play from my PSP when I am away from home)

And for those who say the missed turn is for people who have a life, I have a life, a wife, and several obligations, but somehow have managed to never miss a turn.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:18 am

AndrewB wrote:Guys/gals,

I hate when people deadbeat on purpose especially same person in several games. I know that this question was brought up before to the site administration to prohibit it.

Another suggestion which i can put is to limit number of armies accumulated over mised turns. Ie. after 1 round give 3 armies, 2 rounds 5 (not 6) armies and after round 3 give 6 armies, or something along those lines.
I'm stongley opposed to change these rule, added options for shorter games would be more prefereable

Well i think you should never walk out on pupose out a realtime (the games that are played in one continues flows off turns untill the end), and i reccoment not use such skipping tacktics on non premiums.
The one with premium's souldnt complain.

The rules off the game are simple.
When the game is played within the legal regulations , than its a honnest game!
Each and every one can make that choice.
A premium can just set up other games or go realtime :!:

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:21 pm

I think the feedback would depend on the circumstances of the deadbeat.

If the guy had a reasonable explanation as to why he dedbeated (vacation, crazy schedule, etc.) then i dont think bad feedback is needed.

IF the guy is deadbeating for some other reason (preserve points, not let someone win their cards, going to lose anyway and wants a new game, etc) then bad feedback should be given.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:26 pm

I dont get it. Why would anyone deadbead on purpose?

Fireside Poet · Post by **Fireside Poet** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:19 am

Try game #34066 on for size ... :shock:

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:31 am

Fireside Poet wrote:Try game #34066 on for size ...

Way to dig up the past there FP, I remember that game well, even though I wasnt in it.

Isn't that how you got your one negative feedback also? :wink:

Fireside Poet · Post by **Fireside Poet** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:34 am

AK_iceman wrote:
Fireside Poet wrote:Try game #34066 on for size ...

Way to dig up the past there FP, I remember that game well, even though I wasnt in it.

Isn't that how you got your one negative feedback also?

Yeah, but I gotta admit, it looks good countering the other 90-someodd I have in the positive column.

Deadbeating on purpose

Is deadbeating on purpose is a reason for a negative feedback?

Deadbeating on purpose

neccessary evil??

Re: Deadbeating on purpose