That's the way it is and that's too muchgreenoaks wrote:how about we kick them after they miss 3 that way we have given them a couple of chances
Moderator: Community Team
That's the way it is and that's too muchgreenoaks wrote:how about we kick them after they miss 3 that way we have given them a couple of chances


i too chose to buy premium because 4 wasn't enough, i had no idea what a deadbeat wasJBlombier wrote:It's not about money at all. I played my first 400 games as a freemium player and never complained. Sure, there were deadbeats now and then, but there are ways to avoid games with New Recruits, because they are most likely to deadbeat in comparison to other players. Play team games, 6+ player games or games on complex maps and your problem will be solved 99% of the time.
I chose to buy premium, because I wanted to play more. The deadbeats had nothing to do with it.

Oh right, it's again all about money. If it benefits freemium members, you MUST NOT implement it. You can lock this thread.jeraado wrote:You were the one who turned it into a premium/freemium debate. Your suggestion only really benefits freemiums, so its perfectly acceptable to suggest that if this is a problem for you, you should consider premium.
I think this suggestion is unnecessary and would put off new members, with very little benefit. As above, most members simply add another game if a deadbeat joins an existing game
JohnnyPlsk wrote:I don't have to write conclusions or anything else because this suggestion is simple and clear. This game would be more enjoyable without new players that stop playing after joining a game.

Come on, you join a game for the first time, and then you are somehow unable to take your first turn in 24 hours. After that, you get kicked and you say "I will never visit this site again!". Right?jeraado wrote:Stop having a tantrum.
It's not about whether it benefits premium or freemium, its a tradeoff between the cost and benefit. My assertion is that the cost of losing new members is greater than the benefit to a limited group of users. This is a casual gaming site, and therefore it is expected that users will sometimes miss turns due to real life. If new members are kicked from their games because they were unable to take their first turn, then they will be less likely to stick with the site. For more serious users, premium is an option which allows speed games and the ability to make unlimited numbers of simultaneous games.
Why are you so keen to shut down debate on your own idea? That's the second time you've asked for your own thread to be locked, even though no guidelines have been broken. Perhaps if you actually looked at both sides of the debate you could provide a rational and reasoned response instead of this:
JohnnyPlsk wrote:I don't have to write conclusions or anything else because this suggestion is simple and clear. This game would be more enjoyable without new players that stop playing after joining a game.
You seem to be acting like it. Someone opposes your idea, then "okay, shut it down". Every single option that has been implemented had opposition. And how do you know it can't be a coincidence? I've lost internet at my house for 72+ hours while being on this site a few times.JohnnyPlsk wrote:Come on, you join a game for the first time, and then you are somehow unable to take your first turn in 24 hours. After that, you get kicked and you say "I will never visit this site again!". Right?jeraado wrote:Stop having a tantrum.
It's not about whether it benefits premium or freemium, its a tradeoff between the cost and benefit. My assertion is that the cost of losing new members is greater than the benefit to a limited group of users. This is a casual gaming site, and therefore it is expected that users will sometimes miss turns due to real life. If new members are kicked from their games because they were unable to take their first turn, then they will be less likely to stick with the site. For more serious users, premium is an option which allows speed games and the ability to make unlimited numbers of simultaneous games.
Why are you so keen to shut down debate on your own idea? That's the second time you've asked for your own thread to be locked, even though no guidelines have been broken. Perhaps if you actually looked at both sides of the debate you could provide a rational and reasoned response instead of this:
JohnnyPlsk wrote:I don't have to write conclusions or anything else because this suggestion is simple and clear. This game would be more enjoyable without new players that stop playing after joining a game.
Nobody is having a tantrum - I'm not writing with many exclamation marks or CAPS LOCK turned on (which is considered as yelling). Also, I recommended to kick them after second turn if this is too fast, because missing second turn right after joining a site cannot be coincidence.
Be honest and tell me, did you ever see new player that missed first turn, and then played second?TheForgivenOne wrote:You are basically saying "screw new players, they don't get the same chance as we do".
Yes I have. I've seen it a lot of times.JohnnyPlsk wrote:Be honest and tell me, did you ever see new player that missed first turn, and then played second?TheForgivenOne wrote:You are basically saying "screw new players, they don't get the same chance as we do".
Oh wait, you're premium so you can't know that.
I know I'm premium so I have a biased opinion that will result in another demand to lock this thread but have you read any of tge suggestions or thought about other ways?JohnnyPlsk wrote:Be honest and tell me, did you ever see new player that missed first turn, and then played second?TheForgivenOne wrote:You are basically saying "screw new players, they don't get the same chance as we do".
Oh wait, you're premium so you can't know that.
Dude...seriously? Why do you keep responding like this?JohnnyPlsk wrote:Oh right, it's again all about money. If it benefits freemium members, you MUST NOT implement it. You can lock this thread.jeraado wrote:You were the one who turned it into a premium/freemium debate. Your suggestion only really benefits freemiums, so its perfectly acceptable to suggest that if this is a problem for you, you should consider premium.
I think this suggestion is unnecessary and would put off new members, with very little benefit. As above, most members simply add another game if a deadbeat joins an existing game
GreatWhiteNorth wrote:I, as a chepo freemium player think that they should be tossed for missing the first turn too. It's not like they are joining games as the 2nd player of 4. It's always the last guy to join so oyu can't avoid it. You see that blue question mark and you know it's going to take 3 days to kick them out and the game is skewed to the one player that got a better drop. It feels like there is someone that is trying to screw the site over or it's the administrators trying to get you to go premium so that you'll have so many games going you won't notice. I never considered the second option until I read this discussion.
Rule Proposal: If a player is the last to join AND misses the first turn - the entire game gets mucked and is reposted without the player that missed the turn.
Excellent suggestion, and polite too.shocked439 wrote: New recruits are also limited to playing 5 player non team games. So stop creating games that are 5 or fewer players.
Instead of creating games search for a game with the setting you like and play against non new recruits. They tend to deadbeat less often.

Ooh, facebook is free, google is free, MSN is free...I guess Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are poor.Lubawski wrote:Excellent suggestion, and polite too.shocked439 wrote: New recruits are also limited to playing 5 player non team games. So stop creating games that are 5 or fewer players.
Instead of creating games search for a game with the setting you like and play against non new recruits. They tend to deadbeat less often.
You are complaining that someone who is not paying to play on a site, is ruining your experience on a site that you do not pay for either, and you want someone to put in a large amount of their time to appease people who are not paying for the service in the first place. Did I get that right?
I know, I know. It's all about the money. Tell you what, tell me what you do for a living, then I'll ask you to provide me with that service for 20 hours or so and I won't give you anything back. Sound good?
I'm not saying they should make it absolutely free for everyone, or even lower restrictions for free users, however the problem is that if it benefits free users only, it won't be implented.Mr_Adams wrote:Facebook, Msn and google have multiple millions of users, and plenty of advertisments and pay to play games connected to them that make Gates and Zuckerberg rich. Lack has this website that he makes money off of. that's it. Now, maybe you would like to make another suggestion thread that he sell an advertisement banner spot on the website and then lower the price of membership, but I don't think it's really worth it. it's a free game, you have no right to complain.