*Community Discussion #2* - New Deadbeat Rule?

[Gweeedo]

I have seen many people asking to remove the deferred troops in case of missed turns.
I hope this is not even an option for the developer.

The deferred troops are never an advantage in comparison to having them on your own turn. Never.

Furthermore I very often miss my first turn in speed game because the fucking pop-up didn't work, and when you wait 30 mins for a 1min speed to start you may miss the 1st turn. Without the deferred troops I would simply lose half of my games directly.

Deferred troops are a small compensation for people that miss turns. And missing a turn happens to everyone, you never know when you'll have a real life issue that will prevent you from taking a turn.



Concering polymorph. I understood the fact that people are not kicked after missing 3 turn on polymorph was a bug, isn't it?? This should be fixed and treated independently of the pbs of people missing many turns in very long games.


Now on the real topic. I barely ever had the problem of people missing many turns but not being kicked because they play 1 turn over 3 or 1 turn over 2.
I think it affect very very few numbers of people and games. I think there is more important stuff to be improved on CC rather than taking care of what I think is a minor problem. Do we have statistics on that?
Nevertheless if the problem has to be adressed, the fix seems simple by making it a percentage of missed turns after 10 rounds as it has been suggested. We can have a more or less complex formula in order to cover most of the case. Several of them has been proposed in the past.
Let say maximum of total 10 missed rounds if the game is less than 100 rounds. I think it is fair.
If it goes to more than 100 rounds just keep it 10% miss round maximum ?

OR 3% maximum of missed rounds after 10 rounds. That is quite harsh but then it make people happy. It means 97% attendance minimum after 10 rounds. And before 10 rounds we simply keep the 3 consecutive miss = kicked out.

+1

Quote:
The deferred troops are never an advantage in comparison to having them on your own turn. Never.

One should not consider sensory observation alone before coming to a conclusion.
Never, is sooner than you think in war games.
Deferred troops can be overly helpful in certain situations.
it is possible to derive a strategy where deferred troops are belter utilized in comparison to having them on your own turn.

Other than that, I agree.

+2

[Serbia]

There are games which have gone on for years. If after three years someone is randomly kicked because they've missed one turn in this game each year, that would be some next level bullshit. I say keep it the way it is, while fixing the poly.

Also, get rid of deferred troops. That's just dumb.

Bollocks.

[Dukasaur]

Quote:
The deferred troops are never an advantage in comparison to having them on your own turn. Never.

One should not consider sensory observation alone before coming to a conclusion.
Never, is sooner than you think in war games.
Deferred troops can be overly helpful in certain situations.
it is possible to derive a strategy where deferred troops are belter utilized in comparison to having them on your own turn.

Other than that, I agree.

+2

It is true that is theoretically possible, but in almost four years on Conquer Club, I have only seen one (ONE!) game where it is pretty certain the the player made strategic use of his deferred troops to win a game. In the meantime, I have seen hundreds of games where a player missed a turn at a crucial time and lost as a result.

The preponderance of examples, at least from what I've seen, is that missing turns is not generally an easy path to victory.

[Foxglove]

I have seen many people asking to remove the deferred troops in case of missed turns.
I hope this is not even an option for the developer.

I also think this would be a poor idea.

The deferred troops are never an advantage in comparison to having them on your own turn. Never.

Agreed.

Deferred troops are a small compensation for people that miss turns. And missing a turn happens to everyone, you never know when you'll have a real life issue that will prevent you from taking a turn.

Yes! You lose board position, auto-deploys, and the ability to attack and deploy troops individually. That should be enough to deter people from intentionally missing turns.

Nevertheless if the problem has to be adressed, the fix seems simple by making it a percentage of missed turns after 10 rounds as it has been suggested.

In my mind, this is the only reasonable type of modification here.

[Silly Knig-it]

Liking where this is headed- keep in mind that three missed turns total is nothing in a multi-hundred round game, and there may be some issues with that.

So what. If you cant be bothered to take your turns despite given 3 chances then you shouldn't be in the game regardless of how many rounds

I completely agree with demonfork.

I am running a tournament now where I have set a limit of four misses for the team for the tournament. I rather like it. Yes it has knocked some teams out. I stated the rule up front and even put in a column on the scoreboard counting the number of misses per team. Hit the fourth and you lose. I had borrowed the idea from another TO who had used it. I think it makes a tourney run more smoothly and I will probably use it again.

So my vote is 3 misses in a game, bye-bye. I would even go to three misses per team and certainly 3 misses total in a poly game.

[BigBallinStalin]

Liking where this is headed- keep in mind that three missed turns total is nothing in a multi-hundred round game, and there may be some issues with that.

So what. If you cant be bothered to take your turns despite given 3 chances then you shouldn't be in the game regardless of how many rounds

I completely agree with demonfork.

I am running a tournament now where I have set a limit of four misses for the team for the tournament. I rather like it. Yes it has knocked some teams out. I stated the rule up front and even put in a column on the scoreboard counting the number of misses per team. Hit the fourth and you lose. I had borrowed the idea from another TO who had used it. I think it makes a tourney run more smoothly and I will probably use it again.

So my vote is 3 misses in a game, bye-bye. I would even go to three misses per team and certainly 3 misses total in a poly game.

How does this make sense?

Sure, it allegedly works for your tournaments involving a small set of games with rules which participants agree to. But you jump to the conclusion that it'd be best to impose the rule over all games without requiring the participants' consent. Given the totally different circumstances, how does your conclusion follow?

[Donelladan]

So my vote is 3 misses in a game, bye-bye. I would even go to three misses per team and certainly 3 misses total in a poly game.

3 misses per team would completely kill any team game with random teammate. Recently joined double game with someone I didn't know, he missed the 3 turns since the beginning. It was 12 players so it didn't prevent me too much to have a chance of winnnig, with your rule I would have been kicked out directly and never join with random teammate again.

Btw, I was in your tournament, doing quite well, until one of my partner got some issues and deadbeat in all 3 games we had ongoing. We still managed to win 1 and I believe we had still good ranking on your tournament, but have been kicked out because of your rule. I didn't miss any turns but get kicked out because my partner did. It was your rule and I accepted it, therefore didn't complain about it, but didn't like it.

I dunno if you ever miss turns in your life. But as a CC addict that play spend many hours on the site each day, I can tell you I very rarely miss a turn. But there is still some times of the year and some event that made me miss turns. I don't think being too harsh on people that miss turn would help.
One of the description of the site is :
"If you wish to play casually, a few minutes per day is all that is required. " some people may only play few minutes in the morning, and the day they don't have time to do it they miss all their turns. Should this kind of behaviour be punished by CC ? I don't think so. Keep it in mind when you ask for tougher rule that the existing one.
I don't want CC to lose all their occasional players to keep only the hardcore one that can't accept a few miss turns from their opponent.

[Silly Knig-it]

So my vote is 3 misses in a game, bye-bye. I would even go to three misses per team and certainly 3 misses total in a poly game.

3 misses per team would completely kill any team game with random teammate. Recently joined double game with someone I didn't know, he missed the 3 turns since the beginning. It was 12 players so it didn't prevent me too much to have a chance of winnnig, with your rule I would have been kicked out directly and never join with random teammate again.

Btw, I was in your tournament, doing quite well, until one of my partner got some issues and deadbeat in all 3 games we had ongoing. We still managed to win 1 and I believe we had still good ranking on your tournament, but have been kicked out because of your rule. I didn't miss any turns but get kicked out because my partner did. It was your rule and I accepted it, therefore didn't complain about it, but didn't like it.

I dunno if you ever miss turns in your life. But as a CC addict that play spend many hours on the site each day, I can tell you I very rarely miss a turn. But there is still some times of the year and some event that made me miss turns. I don't think being too harsh on people that miss turn would help.
One of the description of the site is :
"If you wish to play casually, a few minutes per day is all that is required. " some people may only play few minutes in the morning, and the day they don't have time to do it they miss all their turns. Should this kind of behaviour be punished by CC ? I don't think so. Keep it in mind when you ask for tougher rule that the existing one.
I don't want CC to lose all their occasional players to keep only the hardcore one that can't accept a few miss turns from their opponent.

What you say makes a lot of sense and I had not thought of it from quite that angle.

I still don't like the missing turns as a strategy idea. I am in favor of making that difficult. Perhaps the not getting missed troops is the way to go. Yes I am aware of RL stepping up and biting people. In every tournament I run, I ask people, please,please, tell me if there is a problem. I don't need details, just something like RL kicking my butt until Thursday. I don't even care if it comes through a 3rd party. Even something like "RL " would be a sufficient message.

That said I have also played with people who will abuse every person and rule they can. Yes, I only have to play with them once, and I do. They are on my foe list for that reason.

In a tournament, with teams, (that are organized by the players) I don't understand why teammates can't be prepared to pick up turns if someone is about to miss. To me it is like having built in sitters. But I may have to reevaluate the number of team misses. And maybe look again at some the abuse horror stories I was told before I wrote that rule into the tournament. I did like the way it worked in the other TO's tournament and that is why I borrowed it.

In a poly game, I don't see any reason for the missed turn. Or if one chooses to miss a turn, they should not benefit. (No deferred troops) Or another thought. If they are to receive deferred troops, then let the computer drop them in randomly.

[Donelladan]

I do not see missing turn as a viable strategy. It simply doesn't work.
I can see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win : freestyle, and round limit games to make believe your opponents that you are not a threat, and last turn you drop 3 times more troops and won by round limit.

In any other cases, I can't see why missing a turn can give you an advantage. The deferred troops are not an advantage. You can't attack with them.
Maybe you can try to explain me how deferred troops can be better than having them on your previous turn. I definitely can't see it, and that is why I am against having them placed randomly or having them supressed.

[betiko]

I'm in favour of a 3 turnes missed you are out rule. Same for polymorphic.
For team games, 3 turns missed the guy who misses is out and his troops become neutral, they don't go to one of his partners (I'm not sure of the rule, but I think in that case the partner also gets the spoils which is not cool)

[Silly Knig-it]

I think this fits into the topic. We talk about giving nothing to a person who misses a turn instead of the deferred troops they would have gotten. Several people have brought up RL stepping and causing you to miss a turn. Let's look at a similar situation.

This is far more likely to arise for me. And I just experienced it again this morning. I start a turn. RL steps in. Time runs out. So what do I receive. Nothing. No spoil, it's not deferred. In this case as happens at least once a month to me, no matter how well I try to manage RL, this can be potentially fatal. Yes I chose to play escalating, trench games. I like them and obviously a bunch of other people do as well.. Some people like speed games.

So if we are talking deferred troops if someone misses a turn, then I think that makes the case for deferred spoils if I am unable to complete a turn.

[Donelladan]

I'm in favour of a 3 turnes missed you are out rule. Same for polymorphic.
For team games, 3 turns missed the guy who misses is out and his troops become neutral, they don't go to one of his partners (I'm not sure of the rule, but I think in that case the partner also gets the spoils which is not cool)

I will disagree for that. I am wondering is there a problem to fix here? How many times did you see people missing three turns in purpose to give troops to their partner? I have seen case, recently, where a partner deadbeating made his team win the game, but I never see yet people making one of their partner deadbeat to win the game. And in the vast majority of cases, a partner deadbeating make you lose the game. I am not saying the situation is perfect now, but I think it's better than making the troops going neutral and making a team lose when they did nothing wrong.

@Silly Knig-it, totally agree with you. I hope this will be improved soon too and everyone get spoils even if they run out of time. Only small thing, this should be changet only for 24h-games, not for speed.

[Gweeedo]

I do not see missing turn as a viable strategy. It simply doesn't work.
I can see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win : freestyle, and round limit games to make believe your opponents that you are not a threat, and last turn you drop 3 times more troops and won by round limit.

In any other cases, I can't see why missing a turn can give you an advantage. The deferred troops are not an advantage. You can't attack with them.
Maybe you can try to explain me how deferred troops can be better than having them on your previous turn. I definitely can't see it, and that is why I am against having them placed randomly or having them supressed.

OK, we get that.
You see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win; how many games did you play before you came to this conclusion?
Is it possible that you might run into another situation where a win result can come from using a deadbeat strategy?
Some players have a real problem with this (not me).

Would it be at all possible to have the AI take over, when a player is about to miss a turn?
Fuzucked by the AI

[Dukasaur]

I do not see missing turn as a viable strategy. It simply doesn't work.
I can see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win : freestyle, and round limit games to make believe your opponents that you are not a threat, and last turn you drop 3 times more troops and won by round limit.

In any other cases, I can't see why missing a turn can give you an advantage. The deferred troops are not an advantage. You can't attack with them.
Maybe you can try to explain me how deferred troops can be better than having them on your previous turn. I definitely can't see it, and that is why I am against having them placed randomly or having them supressed.

OK, we get that.
You see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win; how many games did you play before you came to this conclusion?
Is it possible that you might run into another situation where a win result can come from using a deadbeat strategy?
Some players have a real problem with this (not me).

Would it be at all possible to have the AI take over, when a player is about to miss a turn?
Fuzucked by the AI

It's up to the people who keep making allegations about missing turns being a winning strategy to provide examples. So far, in the four years that I've been on Conquer Club, I've heard this allegation made dozens of times, but in all that time only ONE actual example where it happened.

If among the 14 million games that have been played on Conquer Club, there is one where this odd situation happened, I would say that it's not worth punishing thousands of users because one user managed to exploit a loophole. Even if there were hundreds of examples, I still would say it's not worth punishing several thousand users because a couple hundred exploited a loophole. Only if the numbers were in the same ballpark, if thousands of people were unfairly winning games by missing turns, would I say there might be a case.

One, or even a couple hundred, examples would not change the obvious fact that in most cases missing a turn is not an advantage. Missing a turn costs you a chance to card, it costs you all your autodeploys, it costs you a chance to defend any bonus you might have, it costs you a chance to break your opponent's bonus, in a team game it costs you the chance to fort to your team-mate, in a multiplayer game it costs you a chance to possibly score a kill. Those are tons of costs which make missing disadvantageous. The chance to make some oddball strategic gambit where you turn those disadvantages into advantages is certainly theoretically possible, as I've said before, but it has got to be on a struck-by-lightning level of frequency.

I honestly can't imagine why anyone would care if their opponent handicaps himself by missing a turn. I always see that as a gift to me. That's one card i have more than him, that's a chance to break his bonus when he isn't defending, etc., etc. I see people in games humbly apologising for missing a turn, and I always wonder "why?" Be my guest. Miss a turn. Miss all of them if you want; I'll take the cheap win!

This drive to persecute people who miss a turn seems outlandish. I don't understand the motive behind it. You think because the guy had to work unscheduled overtime and came home after 14 hours at work to find he missed a turn, that you should kick him when he's down? Have you been harmed in any way? You got a hot date somewhere that you can't go on until after this game ends, or what? Maybe you don't have a job, and you don't understand the idea of a guy working unscheduled overtime. Or maybe you're one of those pampered pussies that works in an office with no work ethic and can play games at work, and you don't realize that in the real world most workers don't have that luxury.

[Metsfanmax]

I do not see missing turn as a viable strategy. It simply doesn't work.
I can see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win : freestyle, and round limit games to make believe your opponents that you are not a threat, and last turn you drop 3 times more troops and won by round limit.

In any other cases, I can't see why missing a turn can give you an advantage. The deferred troops are not an advantage. You can't attack with them.
Maybe you can try to explain me how deferred troops can be better than having them on your previous turn. I definitely can't see it, and that is why I am against having them placed randomly or having them supressed.

OK, we get that.
You see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win; how many games did you play before you came to this conclusion?
Is it possible that you might run into another situation where a win result can come from using a deadbeat strategy?
Some players have a real problem with this (not me).

This line of reasoning doesn't help. There will always be some situation in this vein. Even if we completely eliminated deferred troops, one could imagine a situation where people stopped attacking someone because they missed a turn, and then they come back and cash a set and have an advantage that way.

The only real solution is just to kick people out after one missed turn. Let's get it done.

[JamesKer1]

I do not see missing turn as a viable strategy. It simply doesn't work.
I can see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win : freestyle, and round limit games to make believe your opponents that you are not a threat, and last turn you drop 3 times more troops and won by round limit.

In any other cases, I can't see why missing a turn can give you an advantage. The deferred troops are not an advantage. You can't attack with them.
Maybe you can try to explain me how deferred troops can be better than having them on your previous turn. I definitely can't see it, and that is why I am against having them placed randomly or having them supressed.

OK, we get that.
You see only 2 cases where missing turn make you win; how many games did you play before you came to this conclusion?
Is it possible that you might run into another situation where a win result can come from using a deadbeat strategy?
Some players have a real problem with this (not me).

This line of reasoning doesn't help. There will always be some situation in this vein. Even if we completely eliminated deferred troops, one could imagine a situation where people stopped attacking someone because they missed a turn, and then they come back and cash a set and have an advantage that way.

The only real solution is just to kick people out after one missed turn. Let's get it done.

As one who frequently misses turns due to going join-game happy in autotournaments along with some occasional real life constraints, this happens to me constantly. Also, deferred troops can be used to hold vantage points early on, or bonuses- such as a capital in Europe 1914- that wouldn't have been able to be held using just one round of troops. I don't do it intentionally, but these strategies are out there and usable- I'll be happy to provide the game numbers if needed.

[Edric Wolfswift]

Get rid of the deferred troops for a missed turn. If you miss, tough shit.

I also think it should be limited to three total per game, regardless of whether they are consecutive or not.

[Donelladan]

As one who frequently misses turns due to going join-game happy in autotournaments along with some occasional real life constraints, this happens to me constantly. Also, deferred troops can be used to hold vantage points early on, or bonuses- such as a capital in Europe 1914- that wouldn't have been able to be held using just one round of troops. I don't do it intentionally, but these strategies are out there and usable- I'll be happy to provide the game numbers if needed.

No.
Imagine 1vs1 on europe 1914. So first of all, it's 15 regions per player round 1. Your miss your first turn, your opponent take 1 region, you drop 4 instead of 5. Therefore
your opponent may drop 5 and 5 while you drop 4 and 4. Not an advantage.
Your opponent chose to take a capital, you miss, he had a capital that held one turn withouth needing any deferred troops.

Now - you don't miss. your adversary play then you take a capital then your opponent break it then you take it back.
You miss. You adversary play, you miss, your adversary play, you take a capital and drop 4 extra deferred troop on it to hold a capital, your adversary play.

Your opponent playing twice in a row can do a lot of thing, that make it that if taking a capital and holding one turn thanks to the deferred troop means either your opponent is extremely bad and did nothing useful during 2 turns or he get super bad dice. Both case, extremely bad opponent, or extremely bad dice, you would win with a miss turn or not.
Playing against normal opponent with correct dice missing a turn would be a disadvantage in term of deploy in all cases on Europe 1914 1vs1. No other way around in a map where you start with 15 regions each. Play me, miss a turn, and see that you can't win on Europe 1914


I checked some of your game on Europe 1914, seems to me you play a lot of multiplayer and a lot of escalating and flat rate. Especially in flat rate missing a turn = missing an important card. In escalating missing one is sometimes not important, but sometimes simply killed all your chance of winning too.
I'll add again.
You miss, you drop 3, you try to take the capital 6vs3, then drop 3 deferred. You may miss the 6vs3 and not have the capital.
You don't miss, you stack 3 next to the capital, next turn you drop 3 more, you have 9vs3 to take the capital, way easier, and at the end would have same number of troops you would have on the capital.

Not even speaking of the fort you missed

Deferred troops can be used in a smart way. I'll agree on that with you. But deferred troops are less useful that playing your own turn. Always. And consider good player know that you will have deferred troops, so in most of the case you may not be able to use them to hold a bonus because troops would be ready to prevent that, or worse your opponent will have a bonus on his own.

--------------------------


Now, show me people that miss turns in purpose and win games thanks to that ? You told me it happens sometimes to you due to real life issue I believe you. But if it was an advantage, people would be doing it. They don't. Because it isn't. Simple as that. All kind of cheating are being done, all kind of loophole are being used. People don't miss turn to get an advantage. They do not because deferred troops aren't an advantage.

I have seen it being done in round limit game and it worked. I have seen it being done in freestyle games and it can be a quite good advantage. But that's the end of it. And I think people that do that, if it can be proved, should be punished.

But as Duka said, in 99.9999% of the case, people that miss turns, miss because of real life issue.
If it happens often to you JamesKer1, imagine how it would be for you if there was NO deferred troops or if they were placed randomly, don't you think it would weaken you a lot ? And for what, to prevent a imaginary case that someone could use those deferred troops as a slight advantage in some game?

[Gweeedo]

You are getting off topic...not helping.
It is no longer a question of validity, it is a question of game support.

Some players consider this to be a real problem, let us find a solution, if possible...is that OK?
I agree with you, deadbeating will not help your game play.
You are missing the point; let us try and stop players from using this strategy, without hurting 'your' game.
Newbs might be susceptible to various interpretations, providing a valid deadbeating strategy against/for them.
You are of high rank, deadbeating does not pose a problem for you.

You want examples; There are plenty of examples in the strategy forum.

How would you feel about the AI doing your move (missed turn) for you?

[dgz345]

just comming with wierd ideas.

make deadbeat punishment harsher. add a "pool" of x hours every y day that will be used if you go over the time. then it takes the time from your "pool" of bonus time.
the pool is to minimize the accedently missed turns. when you need 25h instead of 24.

[SilverWill]

just coming with weird ideas.

make deadbeat punishment harsher. add a "pool" of x hours every y day that will be used if you go over the time. then it takes the time from your "pool" of bonus time.
the pool is to minimize the accidently missed turns. when you need 25h instead of 24.

(fixed a few spelling errors in the above Quote for my post since it bothered me)

Personally I'm not sure how this would work unless you had a limit of 1 extra hour per game per day if that is what you are saying? I think this might cause a few other problems.

As for the deadbeating issue, I think that we should keep the 3 consecutive misses and they were kicked but add a maximum amount of turns that they are allowed to miss before they are auto kicked.

Then we come to the deferred troops, I have seen 2 vs 2 team matches where the partner missed a turn then on his next turn put the deferred troops in a location where they wouldn't be attacked that turn (or if they are attacked they are enough to defend the region) but would be saved for their partner to use to have a nice run at the other team which may or may not turn the game in their favor. In the end I have mixed feelings about the deferred troops but I don't see me using them anytime in the future.

[Gweeedo]

How many times have you encountered players telling you that they will deadbeat this game (speed), all the while lurking in the corner, waiting for you to exit so they can creep in and take the victory form you.

Deadbeating is a distraction, an unwanted distraction.
Players have to temporarily re-strategize every time a player deadbeats...giving an unfair advantage to others players.

I know that deadbeating is unavoidable and it is part of the game...that's OK, why should I fall subject to a player deadbeating in a game that I am currently engaged in, while he continues to make his move in other games?
Too many players holing games hostage, attempting to gain a victory through deadbeating.
I love it when players play a game and are fast, taking two or three turns every day, until it becomes clear to them that the game is a total loss, then you will be lucky if you see them once a day...lag.

Its bad enough they put the game on hold for 24Hrs...CC could fix this easy enough.

[MagnusGreeol]

- Quick question formed from a recent experience.

- In a Quad team war no spoils, The game starts and my team mate was in first position, he ended up missing his turn, In doing so ( not on purpose), It made his first turn position last turn position, so on his turn he has +6 to deploy on one spot and end because its N/S. So basically all that happened is he turned first position to last and gets +6 to drop, where as everyone else gets +3, This can be a defected strategy for NS first turn positions? I'm a believer in three total misses and gone, also, I also believe deferred troops if any should be cut in half, with a minimum of +2.

[Donelladan]

MagnusGreeol. Do you think that your partner missing first turn was an advantage for your team ?

To be more precise. Do you think that your partner deploying 3 troops and 3 deferred last was a bigger advantage that your team playing first ?

Indeed, missing first turn is usually one of the less disadvantaging miss, but I would personally always prefer that my partner play first.

NB : Note that you also lost a fort option with the missed turn.

[MagnusGreeol]

MagnusGreeol. Do you think that your partner missing first turn was an advantage for your team ?

To be more precise. Do you think that your partner deploying 3 troops and 3 deferred last was a bigger advantage that your team playing first ?

Indeed, missing first turn is usually one of the less disadvantaging miss, but I would personally always prefer that my partner play first.

NB : Note that you also lost a fort option with the missed turn.

- It wasn't on purpose, and though we missed a fort/rein, it was at the beginning where no attacks were made, just deploys and reins, The rein wasn't as important as to his +6 he could drop then rein too giving him a absolute quick +11 troops, plus what others on Our team could rein him b4 he dropped +6.