Yes, thanks for the response.

I meant to type "Standard" games instead of "Freestyle". I appreciate your ability to see through my mistake and clearly answer my question.

Cheers!

I know Lack wrote:

When players are auto-kicked in a terminator game their armies remain on the map, and you can still get points (and cards) from them if you eliminate the deadbeat before the game is over

But are deadbeat cards and points still available in Freestyle games?

You are just ranting not offering a suggestion.

Sorry. I didn't realize that some people who visit the forum would not have the capacity for higher level thought processes. Let me connect the dots for you my paleozoic-minded colleague.

If a partner deadbeats in a no card game the deadbeat's ...

Back in July Lack implemented the improvement that if a player in a team game is a deadbeat, the deadbeat's territories revert to his/her teammate, but not the cards so as not to provide an unfair advantage to the surviving partner.

This is unquestionably a good thing, with one exception:
No Card ...

Great job, Lack.

Thanks.

I think this idea, although interesting, is far too susceptible to abuse.

Secret alliances that would be difficult if not impossible to prove would abound. Multis would skyrocket, and even if one is successfully identified, that person would be long-gone with the cash.

Honour tends to go out the ...

Obviously Robinette's actions are poor sportsmanship. I don't think anyone can argue that.

However, I don't see why it's such a big deal. Just stop playing. After 3 turns you would get "kicked out", and no reasonable person in the CC community would fault you for doing just that if you are in such ...

Hi Maritovw:

Great job on the map! It's very rare you see such a developed product on the first post. Your work is very impressive.

I just want to comment on three issues with the playability:

1. When using a group of islands as one territory (such as The Bahamas) it can be confusing which ...

The old rules will apply until the round is finished, at which point the teams will begin to move alternatively.

Thanks. When the new round starts I will repost if the Old Rules still apply.
I also found a quote from Lack supporting your post, so I will take that as the new truth...unless there ...

Lots of talk gets us nowhere, so here is what I will call the DEFINITIVE word on the new rules. This is constructive NOT destructive, so working within the framework that Lack has (re)created, here we go:

First, for clarification:

As some of you noticed correctly, the staggered order only comes ...

I know a lot of the complaining around the new rules has focused on games in progress being played by new rules, but I am in an active SEQUENTIAL DOUBLES GAME that began BEFORE the new rules were implemented and the old rules seem to still apply.

Namely: Myself and my partner were both able to move ...

HE WAS RIGHT TO DEADBEAT YOU ACCORDING TO THE BUSHWACKERS, BECAUSE HE GOT INTO THE GAME AND REALIZED YOU WERENT A FELLOW CLANSMAN. HE ONLY WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE DIDNT MAKE A FAKE OFFER TO PLAY IT OUT AND THEN RETRACT IT.

Wow! If not for the overwhelming evidence of his death, I could be convinced ...

I have played with Samurai Bob and found him to be a fair and admirable opponent.

Exactly the way Sylas described in this thread .

To Jota: I don't think Sylas has it right. I think my explanation may be better.

To Everyone else: Jota programmed it in a certain way so that it works with the xml language. The important point is that it doesn't matter HOW it's all calculated so ...

since i have been on the recieving end of zorba_ca mission in the games now mainly to kick my but and take my points.. i would rather not have a different mission then to get even

Not sure what that means due to the glaring lack of punctuation. :D

Insult? Compliment? I think we all know you ...

While I am a fan of new game types, I am NOT a fan of "Mission" risk.

From what I understand, every player has a different "mission" to accomplish and whoever accomplishes it first wins the game.

The trouble with this format is the absence of one central goal. Without knowing what the intent is of ...

LOL Zorba, I assume that one person is me :) I'm just throwing out ideas.
Twill

Actually, the one exception is stdb04. I didn't think any other player would have any problem with a 500 minimum since they are all above the minimum.

As for the whole concept of "inflation", I don't know if there is ...

So just keep it as a straight 500 minimum. Forget everything else.

If this were implemented since CC started the grand total of players this would affect is ONE.

And even then, only because that player is losing on purpose.

Make it happen, end of discussion and no one (with one obvious exception ...

i personally am not a fan of having to use a chart to figure out how many points i would get. I liked zorba's initial idea but since i seem to be in the minority ...

I don't think you're in the minority. The only recent post which seems to favour the "max point" scheme is AndyDufresne. Other than ...

RockSolid is right.

Just deadbeat. No one can hold it against you given the situation. What's the worst that happens?

Yeah, I think that could be ok. However, what would happen if a player reaches 0 or negative. With the current scorings this can't practically happen, but with the one you propose that can very easilly happen.

No it cannot. With the system I propose a player CANNOT reach 0 or negative. The ...

Fieryo is right.

My suggestion tried to address the question of "Where do the points come from?" by essentially creating "Discharged" points.

This means that a player, once reaching 500, would be Discharged, and then every time he lost he would keep accumulating Discharged points, meaning his ...

If a player with 500 points loses to a player with 1000, the player with 1000 would get 10 points (as it stands now). The player with 500 points would lose 10 points but his score would automatically get bumped to 500.

Perhaps, if someone reaches this Mendoza line of Conquer Club Incompetence we ...

I believe we may be overanalyzing the problem.

The current system is only a problem because one player may have 1/1000 of another player's total. To minimalize the exponential aspect of the current ranking system:

We should just make a minimum score of 500!

This is simple, minimally alters the ...

Perhaps the most equitable practice would be to base points on players ranks and not on a points-based formula.

Each rank is worth X points, and at the end of a game you simply add up the number of points for the ranks of all the losers.

For example: You beat a private, a sergeant and two captains ...