Question about game play

[groovysmurf]

Been on the site awhile and never came across this one. Hoping someone knows the answer.

If it's a trench game and someone takes a killer neutral and leaves a ton of troops on it and then misses their next turn, does the neutral still revert back to neutral? It occurs to me now that if the game has a round limit of 20, and the player mistakenly leaves their troops behind, they can purposefully miss and still win the game if it doesn't revert back. If this is the case, it's definitely something that needs to be fixed, I think.

[TrafalgarLaw01]

Interesting. I think for the way it works it will not revert to Neutral. But I agree it should. Let me know what happen.

[groovysmurf]

I think you're right and that the player who did it will end up winning the game, which doesn't seem fair.
Game 23018214

I know there's fog, but I'm not revealing anything secret by saying that green left 183 troops on "Final Lap". He has been actively taking turns all day, with the last just 20 minutes ago, so I think this is going to be an intential deadbeat situation.

It's weird that I've never seen this before, but definitely an oversight if it does not revert back to neutral, especially based on the information found under "The Game" tab.

Killer Neutrals
Some maps have special neutral territories known as 'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it. Killer neutrals do not reset if they are already neutral.

Technically the beginning of the turn would be before the player actually takes the turn, correct? We'll see what happens, it just got me thinking.

[Keefie]

It should revert.

[groovysmurf]

It did not revert and he did miss the turn.

[shoop76]

Clearly not allowed to intentionally miss. Can't see what he has besides the 183 and one other territory, but I would think he is not going to win. To be safe Groovy, maybe you should hit the 183 to see what is behind there.

[Donelladan]

It will revert whenever he takes a turns.
If he doesn't take a turn indeed it doesn't revert.
And if he was kicked out for missing 3 turns, then there would be 183 troops neutrals stuck on that revert neutral - won't happen here because of the round limit cleary, but otherwise that'd be the case.
Don't think this need to be "fixed". Not like it's causing harm.
And is actually intentionally missing turns against the rule ? I thought it was allowed, like intentionally timing out to miss card used to be.

[detlef]

It will revert whenever he takes a turns.
If he doesn't take a turn indeed it doesn't revert.
And if he was kicked out for missing 3 turns, then there would be 183 troops neutrals stuck on that revert neutral - won't happen here because of the round limit cleary, but otherwise that'd be the case.
Don't think this need to be "fixed". Not like it's causing harm.
And is actually intentionally missing turns against the rule ? I thought it was allowed, like intentionally timing out to miss card used to be.

Just curious, but you tend to be consistently on the side of missing turns. Some time ago, I proposed that, in order to make them as passive as possible, deferred troops should only be allowed to be played on the color that missed the turn. That, in a team game, one could get around the intent to not allow you to use those troops to attack, by dropping them on the next player (who, in some cases, could be up immediately after).

It appeared most liked the idea, but not you. You even attempted to dismiss my suggestion by assuming (incorrectly) that I'd just lost a game where someone missed a turn. Thus, my intent was simply borne out of bitterness. It wasn't. I'd seen it happen in a game (that I wasn't in and wasn't even a tribe or clan game that I had a rooting interest in), and it dawned on me that it was a loophole that should be closed.

So, curious. Why are you so hell-bent on keeping as many loopholes for mitigating the penalties or, perhaps even incentivizing missing turns as you can?

CC has fewer users than anyone associated with it would prefer. So, anything that diminishes enjoyment should be highly scrutinized. And, well, games that drag on because people don't take their turn certainly diminishes enjoyment for some. Thus, the absolute last thing that should be allowed is situations where missing your turn is a good thing. Rather, you should be penalized. You have 24 hours to get your turn in and the vast majority of us have friends that can step in for us to make them. If you miss your turn, despite that, you should feel grateful that you even get the troops at the end of your turn. It shouldn't be part of your bag of tricks.

[Donelladan]

I was not saying intentionally missing turn should be allowed, just that I wasn't sure it was actually forbidden.
I personally would prefer that intentionally missing turn was forbidden.

Why are you so hell-bent on keeping as many loopholes for mitigating the penalties or, perhaps even incentivizing missing turns as you can?

Therefore, I am not. I didn't like your idea because I think it's going to penalize honest people, and that missing turn isn't anyway a strategy that people use.

I only had a quick look at the game from groovy, but I highly doubt putting his stack on the region that revert neutral is giving him a strong advantage to win the game. It was most probably a mistake from that player and maybe he's trying to mitigate it by missing turns.
But it's not like putting your stack on a region that revert to neutral then missing turn is a good way to win a game.

There are probably situation where missing a turn while holding a revert neutral could be useful, but is that something that really needs to be "fixed" as in it's an issue, I am not sure.

[IcePack]

I think it’s working as intended based on the description of killer neutrals. Now whether or not there should be an adjustment for missed turns would be separate discussion / suggestion.

Missing turns are ok, dead beating is not. So this wouldn’t fall under that. Maybe gross abuse? But the conditions are so rare I’m skeptical it would rise to that level of being used frequently. Haven’t looked at it in depth but at first blush if it was a C&A report my guess is it would be noted

[groovysmurf]

Clearly not allowed to intentionally miss. Can't see what he has besides the 183 and one other territory, but I would think he is not going to win. To be safe Groovy, maybe you should hit the 183 to see what is behind there.

You wish! I'm still hoping to somehow win this game.

I do hope that you or I can beat him legitimately even with that stack there. You have last cash before the game ends so thinking it is yours here, but this situation just really made me think about how this kind of thing could be used as a tactical advantage, especially in a multi-player game. Not a lot of games where it would be beneficial to do this, but it's still a loophole that needs to be closed in my opinion.

The player in question did reply in the game, but didn't take his turn. I walled him, so hopefully he will. I think with that 183 being counted in his final tally, it will come close.

[jfm10]

if he took his turn would it be point dumping?

EDIT looking at his last games , something messed up on him this game and he is playing it the only way he can to win

[groovysmurf]

if he took his turn would it be point dumping?

EDIT looking at his last games , something messed up on him this game and he is playing it the only way he can to win

I don't think it would be point dumping. What you said here is what I find so interesting about this situation. By mistakenly leaving his stack there, his only real shot at winning is by purposefully missing his last two turns and hoping his troop count is higher than mine or shoop's. That's where you have to wonder if what he's doing should be considered against the rules, I think. Isn't the point of every game to try your best to win? I mean he's not missing in order to sabotage anyone else's game, he's doing it because it's the smart play.

I usually don't bring stuff like this up in the forum, but like I said, I found this situation very unique and thought it would be interesting to debate and see how others feel.

[ConfederateSS]

------Yes detlef, Donny must be a Democrat(Holland's version)...That is how they always see things...
-------Grooysmurf , we were just talking about this(ish)...Code_RED.... Febernario 2016 A.D....
-------- Then you have people like Donny, who say , blah,blah,blah...
-------- Green ,gave a little joke at the end...Green is a Great Player, you had nothing to worry about...The Computer screwed him...
-------- Like someone letting time run down...To purposely screw players, then have people defend that tactic...There is a game play problem...I think I am the only person on the site to ever refuse a medal in protest...I guess that's the only option for people....You don't do that, because Green wasn't trying to do something, just a computer glitch...You take the Challenge to the Finish Line... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[detlef]

I was not saying intentionally missing turn should be allowed, just that I wasn't sure it was actually forbidden.
I personally would prefer that intentionally missing turn was forbidden.

Why are you so hell-bent on keeping as many loopholes for mitigating the penalties or, perhaps even incentivizing missing turns as you can?

Therefore, I am not. I didn't like your idea because I think it's going to penalize honest people, and that missing turn isn't anyway a strategy that people use.

I only had a quick look at the game from groovy, but I highly doubt putting his stack on the region that revert neutral is giving him a strong advantage to win the game. It was most probably a mistake from that player and maybe he's trying to mitigate it by missing turns.
But it's not like putting your stack on a region that revert to neutral then missing turn is a good way to win a game.

There are probably situation where missing a turn while holding a revert neutral could be useful, but is that something that really needs to be "fixed" as in it's an issue, I am not sure.

As there is no real way to prove intent when it comes to missing turns, the only practical measures would be to close as many loopholes as possible so nobody would ever want to. They should be penalized for doing so there's absolutely no allure to miss a turn on purpose. And, even if they don't do it on purpose, there should never be a situation where it works out well for them. Take my suggestion. Say yellow misses a turn in a team game for innocent reasons. The game takes some new shape in the cycle of moves that happen after their miss and now it becomes beneficial for them to drop their deferred armies on another player. They shouldn't be afforded that luxury. They shouldn't be thankful that they missed a turn because now they have something better to do with those armies than they would have had they taken their turn on time.

If we truly want people to miss turns less often, we need to make it worse for them if they do. Again, we can't simply say it's against the rules to miss on purpose because that is pointless and unenforceable.

[Donelladan]

I am not sure it's the place to re-discuss your suggestion.
But, why I am against it is :
in team game currently, 99,99999% of the time a missed turns is already costing you a lot - more often than not even costing the game.
Your suggestion means making it worse for team where one of the player missed a turn, in order to discourage people missing turn intentionally, which imho doesn't even happen.

The game takes some new shape in the cycle of moves that happen after their miss and now it becomes beneficial for them to drop their deferred armies on another player. They shouldn't be afforded that luxury.

You're not even referring to people that miss a turn intentionally there, you're only talking about someone that missed a turn, then see that it's better after his missed turn to drop the deferred on another player.

. I'd seen it happen in a game (that I wasn't in and wasn't even a tribe or clan game that I had a rooting interest in),

Same here, in that game, what you've seen was a player miss a turn un-intentionally, then use the deferred troops on another player.
Then you've ( or whoever) made the conclusion that having the deferred troops deployed on a different player gave the team an unfair advantage that helped them win the game. I am saying that's wrong, not missing the turn would have been better for the team, and they'd have won faster.
They didn't gained any advantage from the missed turns, they were winning the game, and won it despite the player missing a turn, not tanks to it.

CC has fewer users than anyone associated with it would prefer. So, anything that diminishes enjoyment should be highly scrutinized

I completely agree with that statement above, and that's why I am against your suggestion.
Because I've lost many games due of a teammate missing a turn, and while I've been able to win some game despite a teammate missing a turn, your suggestion would make it more difficult and therefore diminishes enjoyment ( for me, and for all the other people whose teammate miss turn unintentionally).
And I don't believe anyone is currently missing turns intentionally in team game, definitely not in the area that interest me the most, which is the clan scene.
Therefore to fix what I believe to be a non-existing problem, you'd be harming honest player that just happen to be busy ( and their teammates who have to suffer the consequences).

If people were actually missing turns to gain advantage successfully thanks to deploying deferred troops on a different player, I'd reconsider my position.
But I've played a fair amount of games, and I've never seen it happen for that.
I did see player miss a turn for some purpose, but never to be able to deploy the troops on a different player one turn later. Not saying it's 100% impossible someone ever did that or ever will, but that'd be so incredibly rare imo that we don't need to "fix" that.

[detlef]

Same here, in that game, what you've seen was a player miss a turn un-intentionally, then use the deferred troops on another player.

HOW THE CKUF DO YOU KNOW?!

You're always doing this, making an assumption, acting like it's fact, and then building your argument on that.

You did it in the other thread, multiple times (and not just with me), and you're doing it again here. And that looks a lot like someone who is more interested in "winning" the discussion than coming to a useful resolution. Now, I'm not going to assume that's your motivation, rather, that your actions look a lot like that's the case.

[Donelladan]

And you looks like a guy that doesn't want to discuss if that's the only sentence you want to reply to my post.
I have to admit I was a bit afraid you'd react on that line when I wrote it.
But feel free to discard that line and reply to the rest if you want.

Although I really fail to see what is upsetting you in my "assumption".

Your words were :

I'd seen it happen in a game (that I wasn't in and wasn't even a tribe or clan game that I had a rooting interest in), and it dawned on me that it was a loophole that should be closed.

Ok, you didn't write exactly what is the "it" in the sentence "I'd seen it happen in a game".

But you must be speaking about deploying deferred troops on another player - and you're saying it's a loophole : ergo it must have been giving advantage to the team missing the turn, otherwise why in god's name would you think it's a loophole ?

I mean : if you seen "it" happened in a game and it had not effect whatsoever in the outcome of the game, why would you make a suggestion to prevent "it" ?

[detlef]

And you looks like a guy that doesn't want to discuss if that's the only sentence you want to reply to my post.
I have to admit I was a bit afraid you'd react on that line when I wrote it.
But feel free to discard that line and reply to the rest if you want.

Although I really fail to see what is upsetting you in my "assumption".

Your words were :

I'd seen it happen in a game (that I wasn't in and wasn't even a tribe or clan game that I had a rooting interest in), and it dawned on me that it was a loophole that should be closed.

Ok, you didn't write exactly what is the "it" in the sentence "I'd seen it happen in a game".

But you must be speaking about deploying deferred troops on another player - and you're saying it's a loophole : ergo it must have been giving advantage to the team missing the turn, otherwise why in god's name would you think it's a loophole ?

I mean : if you seen "it" happened in a game and it had not effect whatsoever in the outcome of the game, why would you make a suggestion to prevent "it" ?

For the record, I was merely saying that EVEN IF the missed turn was an innocent mistake, they shouldn't be given a chance to benefit from it. I was not saying that the situation that caused me to make my suggestion was an innocent example. Of course, we can never know one way or the other.

As for why I just quoted that and not the rest of your post... In general, I stop reading once I get to BS. And, given that you led off with it in the very first response you ever made in this greater discussion (going back to my suggestion thread). Failed to acknowledge your missteps when they were pointed out. Rather, just kept going back to the well... I should have disengaged long ago.

But I am now. Have a good one.