[Rules] Random / Even Army Deployment On Missed Turn

[z19z4]

its a good idea

[Corporate_slave]

I'm not the kind of person who joins a thousand games at once, so that I can play all day everyday...

I'm currently involved in two games: 222991, and 224770. Both games were swamped by new players as soon as I started them. Now that three rounds have passed in both games (TWELVE DAYS LATER,) half the board is gray, and there's still some straglers who just aren't sure whether they want to continue playing or not... Two players (one in each game,) have waited (skipped) TWO turns, and then plopped down a bunch of ordinance in one spot, and made a big splash.

I can't even begin to tell you how frustrated I am right now. I don't want to join any more games, because eventually, the deadbeats will get filtered out of this game, and then I can play a *normal* game. In the meantime, I just check in futility to see if anything has changed in the last THREE DAYS.

If we (the other players and I) were all sitting at a table, this kind of activity would not be tolerated. We could say "Hell no you aren't skipping your turn! Get over here and play!" As for the players that just aren't playing... they never even would have placed any armies because they just aren't here...


PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO FIX THIS.

Thanks!

(a very frustrated) Corporate_slave

[LazarusLong]

I'm not the kind of person who joins a thousand games at once, so that I can play all day everyday...

I'm currently involved in two games: 222991, and 224770. Both games were swamped by new players as soon as I started them. Now that three rounds have passed in both games (TWELVE DAYS LATER,) half the board is gray, and there's still some straglers who just aren't sure whether they want to continue playing or not... Two players (one in each game,) have waited (skipped) TWO turns, and then plopped down a bunch of ordinance in one spot, and made a big splash.

I can't even begin to tell you how frustrated I am right now. I don't want to join any more games, because eventually, the deadbeats will get filtered out of this game, and then I can play a *normal* game. In the meantime, I just check in futility to see if anything has changed in the last THREE DAYS.

If we (the other players and I) were all sitting at a table, this kind of activity would not be tolerated. We could say "Hell no you aren't skipping your turn! Get over here and play!" As for the players that just aren't playing... they never even would have placed any armies because they just aren't here...


PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO FIX THIS.

Thanks!

(a very frustrated) Corporate_slave

There are sometimes very valid reasons to skip turns. Illness, vacation, life etc. That is why it is set up to allow two skipped turns before being kicked out of a game. In theory the good player who takes most of his turns can go away for a weekend without being kicked out. I'm all for that.

I think if we can take away the strategic advantage of skipping then we won't have to wonder if the person really had to miss or if they are just working the system. This can take away a lot of the stress of being in this situation and add some sympathy. There are obviously many players who skip routinely and it is annoying.

If you get in a game with many new players you are bound to run into some (perhaps many) who won't play or who will take a few turns and then give up. If you want to avoid this join a game as the last player then you can see who is already in. Don't give up on the site yet.

[Drainbamaged]

Sounds quite good, I think.

[alster]

Laz's suggestion makes it BETTER for the person who lost the turn, and IN ADDITION it doesn't harm the other players!

So what you're saying is this: In a three person game, when person A misses a turn, this hurts person A, B and C.

That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's really not that easy.

Usually, it is A who is harmed. But sometimes B and C. However, if B and C are harmed, it is because B and C didn't pay attention to the fact that A missed a turn. If they had done that, and taken the necessary precautions, B and C would not have been hurt (unless by a mean dice, but you cannot protect yourself against that).

I must admit that I don’t see the problem here. If you see someone missing a turn in a game, why does it become a surprise that the guy can place six armies next round? It’s like being surprised every time it starts to rain and your clothes gets soaked. If they sky is grey, get an umbrella or risk getting wet. It’s really as easy with the missed-turn “bonus.” You know it will come, place your own armies accordingly instead of wasting them and then be pissed off when the opponent is back in the game.

Jebus people…

[Corporate_slave]

Laz's suggestion makes it BETTER for the person who lost the turn, and IN ADDITION it doesn't harm the other players!

So what you're saying is this: In a three person game, when person A misses a turn, this hurts person A, B and C.

That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's really not that easy.

Usually, it is A who is harmed. But sometimes B and C. However, if B and C are harmed, it is because B and C didn't pay attention to the fact that A missed a turn. If they had done that, and taken the necessary precautions, B and C would not have been hurt (unless by a mean dice, but you cannot protect yourself against that).

I must admit that I don’t see the problem here. If you see someone missing a turn in a game, why does it become a surprise that the guy can place six armies next round? It’s like being surprised every time it starts to rain and your clothes gets soaked. If they sky is grey, get an umbrella or risk getting wet. It’s really as easy with the missed-turn “bonus.” You know it will come, place your own armies accordingly instead of wasting them and then be pissed off when the opponent is back in the game.

Jebus people…

No... A better analogy, is that you take cover while it's raining; and your opponent fills a bucket with rain water, goes into your house, and dumps the water on your head.

You know, maybe I'm not in a position to break up the continent of someone who has skipped two turns, and none of the other players understand that this cheater is going get 15 - 20 armies to place wherever they like...

In an adjacent no cards game - it can be absolutely devastating...


So, a question for the mods:

Would you guys ban players that habitually skip two turns in a row? If it can be proven that they are using it as a tactical advantage...

[alster]

So, a question for the mods:

Would you guys ban players that habitually skip two turns in a row? If it can be proven that they are using it as a tactical advantage...

Have you read through the two rules of CC lately?

All I say is: Holla to my brothers who successfully uses the game engine mechanism to their advantage!

[Corporate_slave]

Here's the solution:


Make the time limit for taking your turn ONE WEEK. Then, if you miss a turn, you're kicked out of the game... I mean really, if you can't take a turn within ONE WEEK...

Or perhaps a month would be long enough for you?


I could care less how long you get to take your turn, as long as you actually...

TAKE YOUR F___ING TURN.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

...The reinforcements would have to be "smart."...

...If I hold Australia I should receive 3 armies (2 bonus + 1 for territories) on Indonesia...

...I can see maybe deploying them based on where you currently have the most armies. If you have three countries with 10 each and everything else has ones then split the deployment between those three...

_S_O_L_U_T_I_O_N_

Check to see how many territories have more than one army on them, and arrange these territories in order of occupational forces' sizes.

(i.e., Classic Map: you have 3 in Siam and 2 in China; these two form "the big list" -- AND you have 1 army each on Indonesia, New Guinea, West & East Australia, making up "the little list")

Following the above order, place one army at a time on each territory with more than 1 army on "the big list". Once all territories on "the big list" have received their new army, a random territory on "the little list" receives another army (and is moved from "the little list" to "the big list").

The lists are possibly reordered, and run through again, placing another army on each territory on the list from top to bottom (and choosing another random territory as above).

(i.e., you have 5 armies to place, you would get one on Siam, then another on China, then a random territory from "the little list": in this case, Eastern Australia {aw, darn!}, then another on Siam, and your final new army on China. Your territory & army count would then be: Siam: 5 -- China: 4 -- Eastern Australia: 2 -- Western Australia: 1 -- New Guinea: 1 -- Indonesia: 1.)

[AndyDufresne]

We are currently going through many possibilities and ideas for such things. Hopefully with in time, we'll be able to comment a little more thoroughly. We'll keep reading what this thread (and a number of others) have to say.


--Andy

[LazarusLong]

...The reinforcements would have to be "smart."...

...If I hold Australia I should receive 3 armies (2 bonus + 1 for territories) on Indonesia...

...I can see maybe deploying them based on where you currently have the most armies. If you have three countries with 10 each and everything else has ones then split the deployment between those three...

_S_O_L_U_T_I_O_N_

Check to see how many territories have more than one army on them, and arrange these territories in order of occupational forces' sizes.

(i.e., Classic Map: you have 3 in Siam and 2 in China; these two form "the big list" -- AND you have 1 army each on Indonesia, New Guinea, West & East Australia, making up "the little list")

Following the above order, place one army at a time on each territory with more than 1 army on "the big list". Once all territories on "the big list" have received their new army, a random territory on "the little list" receives another army (and is moved from "the little list" to "the big list").

The lists are possibly reordered, and run through again, placing another army on each territory on the list from top to bottom (and choosing another random territory as above).

(i.e., you have 5 armies to place, you would get one on Siam, then another on China, then a random territory from "the little list": in this case, Eastern Australia {aw, darn!}, then another on Siam, and your final new army on China. Your territory & army count would then be: Siam: 5 -- China: 4 -- Eastern Australia: 2 -- Western Australia: 1 -- New Guinea: 1 -- Indonesia: 1.)

I like your solution it is elegant. I think there are many "smart" solutions like this that we could quibble over. I think that using the 80/20 rule works best here and just deploy them randomly. It's inconvenient but then so is a missed turn. It would be like giving them the card of their choice for missing a turn.

It helps in singles games and doubles games. If you tend to miss a lot of turns then always play unlimited fortification and you wlll be in good shape.

[LazarusLong]

We are currently going through many possibilities and ideas for such things. Hopefully with in time, we'll be able to comment a little more thoroughly. We'll keep reading what this thread (and a number of others) have to say.


--Andy

Thanks Andy. It's nice to know that someone is listening. It's also helpful to hear comments from moderators or from Lack to see why an idea is deemed bad or rejected. If we know what your goals are then we can help craft a solution that works well for the most people.

For example, knowing that Lack wants to allow three turns before being kicked helps come up with other suggestions. If there are similar problems holding back this suggestion then other feedback can help move us in the right direction.

[demigod]

i think random deployment wouldn't solve the problem very well. for instance most of the games i play that are no cards, the weak player ends up with only 1 or 2 territories! so having random territory dispersion of cards is useless in these cases. i am currently in a no card game where one player has 2 territories, one with 1 army and the other with 25. he keeps missing 2 turns and then deploying 9 on the 3rd. it makes game play terrible!! and for non-premium members it clogs up one of their game spaces for too long which is not fair on them.

i would like to see:

- miss 3 consecutive turns and you get booted (current rule)
AND ANOTHER rule such as
- miss 10 turns in total and you get booted OR
- miss 4 turns in last 5 round you get booted (that would stop miss 2 play 1 miss 2) OR
- miss 5 turns in last 10 rounds (ensures player plays at least 50% of the time) OR SIMILAR

[JoshJ]

i would like to see:

- miss 3 consecutive turns and you get booted (current rule)
AND ANOTHER rule such as
- miss 10 turns in total and you get booted OR
- miss 4 turns in last 5 round you get booted (that would stop miss 2 play 1 miss 2) OR
- miss 5 turns in last 10 rounds (ensures player plays at least 50% of the time) OR SIMILAR

The last one on the list is the best one, but it really doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is to ban those who skip turns consistently. Something like an average of over 1 (1.5? 2?) skipped turns per game after 20 games would result in a banning.

[demigod]

i would like to see:

- miss 3 consecutive turns and you get booted (current rule)
AND ANOTHER rule such as
- miss 10 turns in total and you get booted OR
- miss 4 turns in last 5 round you get booted (that would stop miss 2 play 1 miss 2) OR
- miss 5 turns in last 10 rounds (ensures player plays at least 50% of the time) OR SIMILAR

The last one on the list is the best one, but it really doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is to ban those who skip turns consistently. Something like an average of over 1 (1.5? 2?) skipped turns per game after 20 games would result in a banning.

I'm not sure the average would work because it wont stop the people who do it as a tactic when they are losing - which is mostly when it comes out. if they are on top in a game it is unlikely that they will consistently miss turns. also - they may be good (in the sense that they actually play all at once) real time players. both of these would bring their average skipped turns per game down.

i think the solution needs to be on a game-by-game basis. if you can stop people habitually doing it in games then no need to ban them.

[LazarusLong]

i think random deployment wouldn't solve the problem very well. for instance most of the games i play that are no cards, the weak player ends up with only 1 or 2 territories! so having random territory dispersion of cards is useless in these cases. i am currently in a no card game where one player has 2 territories, one with 1 army and the other with 25. he keeps missing 2 turns and then deploying 9 on the 3rd. it makes game play terrible!! and for non-premium members it clogs up one of their game spaces for too long which is not fair on them.

i would like to see:

- miss 3 consecutive turns and you get booted (current rule)
AND ANOTHER rule such as
- miss 10 turns in total and you get booted OR
- miss 4 turns in last 5 round you get booted (that would stop miss 2 play 1 miss 2) OR
- miss 5 turns in last 10 rounds (ensures player plays at least 50% of the time) OR SIMILAR

I agree that there is a big issue with what you describe but I'm talking more about people who use it for a tactical advantage.

I agree that if a person only has one or two territories then my suggestion would not help because it doesn't really help them or hurt them.

It seems like something could be done with people that make a habit of this. Perhaps a scarlet letter on their name or something.

[teilenvk]

I've read this whole thread and had a number of players skip turns in my games, but I can't see any advantage to skipping turns.

If the players that don't miss turns can't capitalize on their own advantage of consecutive turns and opportunities to break continents then they shouldn't be helped by tougher turn skipping rules. Anyone that misses a turn in my game is going to regret it.

The one exception is a team game where a player inherits all the other (deadbeating) player's territories and then doubles (or triples) a bunch of new continent bonuses. This really just seems like a bug that should be fixed by itself.

Most importantly I think this discussion cannot be had seperately from the discussion of turn time limits. If games could be started as 1 week (instead of 24 hour) turns or if players could all agreed in game to postpone for X days, then stiffer penalties might be in order. Until then the current rules are a fair price to pay for having a career and/or social life. (Which have still yet to prevent me from missing more than 1 turn ever)

[trackersdream]

the problem is there are people that use this tactic to play the game and it is obnoxious to everyone and worse yet deadbeaters who just drop from the game after playing a few rounds throw off placement and power, I think it comes down to the fact all that join a game make a commimnet to play if you cannot keep that commitment you should not join and when you break it or abuse it there should be consequences and it should be something that follows you for whatever reason...

[Soloman]

bumping

[banana_hammocks]

I love this idea, however I feel it can not be implemented untill another fix is made regarding the much loved freestyle rules.

The problem is in freestyle games. If player A ended the last turn, they cannot play again untill player B has started their turn. However if player B waits untill there are 2 minutes left before starting their turn, player A will probably miss their turn, this allows player B to take a second turn in a row with an extra card (thus abusing the rule that was there to stop this abuse)

If the random/smart deployment is introduced then player A will have a new disadvatage of not being able to deploy their troops where they want (through no fault of their own).

A suggestion is to allow Player A to play 12-16 hours after he ended the turn, regardless of whether Player B played or not.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18114


NOTE this is not supposed to slow down your idea but help a related idea.

[LazarusLong]

I love this idea, however I feel it can not be implemented untill another fix is made regarding the much loved freestyle rules.

The problem is in freestyle games. If player A ended the last turn, they cannot play again untill player B has started their turn. However if player B waits untill there are 2 minutes left before starting their turn, player A will probably miss their turn, this allows player B to take a second turn in a row with an extra card (thus abusing the rule that was there to stop this abuse)

If the random/smart deployment is introduced then player A will have a new disadvatage of not being able to deploy their troops where they want (through no fault of their own).

A suggestion is to allow Player A to play 12-16 hours after he ended the turn, regardless of whether Player B played or not.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18114


NOTE this is not supposed to slow down your idea but help a related idea.

I agree, some of these issues are very interrelated. The challenge is to provide solutions that keep with the original goals of the site but help relieve some of the abuse that goes on when people "work" the system either intentionally or otherwise.

[Soloman]

I love this idea, however I feel it can not be implemented untill another fix is made regarding the much loved freestyle rules.

The problem is in freestyle games. If player A ended the last turn, they cannot play again untill player B has started their turn. However if player B waits untill there are 2 minutes left before starting their turn, player A will probably miss their turn, this allows player B to take a second turn in a row with an extra card (thus abusing the rule that was there to stop this abuse)

If the random/smart deployment is introduced then player A will have a new disadvatage of not being able to deploy their troops where they want (through no fault of their own).

A suggestion is to allow Player A to play 12-16 hours after he ended the turn, regardless of whether Player B played or not.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18114


NOTE this is not supposed to slow down your idea but help a related idea.

I agree, some of these issues are very interrelated. The challenge is to provide solutions that keep with the original goals of the site but help relieve some of the abuse that goes on when people "work" the system either intentionally or otherwise.

It is going to need to be part of an interwoven solution this and afew things should be implemented at once the sweeping change would make CC an even more enjoyable place then it currently is

[lackattack]

I'm not big on the random deployment of missed armies, and definitely not the "smart" deployment (because of programming complexity).

Something has to be done about strategic deadbeating, but I am leaning towards getting rid of the missed turn multiplier combined with a well-thought-out skip-turn/vacation feature that would allow weekday players to compete. There are plenty of suggestion topics about such a feature so we won't discuss it here

[Soloman]

it sad that this was rejected since it was one of the best suggestions for those that strategcally wait to build a troops and thus delay the game in doing so it also seemed to be fair if it was random soas not to penalize those that were not doing it to strategize but due to life events but such is life unless someone can argue it back to life

[LazarusLong]

I'm not big on the random deployment of missed armies, and definitely not the "smart" deployment (because of programming complexity).

Something has to be done about strategic deadbeating, but I am leaning towards getting rid of the missed turn multiplier combined with a well-thought-out skip-turn/vacation feature that would allow weekday players to compete. There are plenty of suggestion topics about such a feature so we won't discuss it here

Thanks for the response Lack. I'm fine with getting rid of the multiplier altogether. My suggestion was based on the assumption that this choice was off the table. In my opinion getting rid of the multiplier is a much, much better option.