[Rules] [GP] Neutralize Territories if team member is kicked

[socralynnek]

I don't think this is a problem, there are easier ways to let a partner control a continent especially moving armies out of the regions. It's a waste of the +3 armies each player gets each turn to just deadbeat to give a continent, so I don't think it needs a fix.

[insertnamehere]

do deadbeats territories have to go neutral , sometimes taht can freeze up good games , wouldnt it be better if in , like team games , the territory gets shared out between the other players , only territories when you cant share out the territory anymore , then they become neutral .

[everywhere116]

This already happens here.

[insertnamehere]

i mean not in team games .

[everywhere116]

Impractical

[insertnamehere]

why?

[yorkiepeter]

do deadbeats territories have to go neutral , sometimes taht can freeze up good games , wouldnt it be better if in , like team games , the territory gets shared out between the other players , only territories when you cant share out the territory anymore , then they become neutral .

for me this adds a new dimension to the game where you can use neutral territories as buffer zones. It has been suggested before that we have a 2 player option with a third neutral team. That I think would be excellent.

Peter

[insertnamehere]

game 56724 , a game where the neutral territory has buggered up all of australia .

[everywhere116]

It is impractical because who will get the territorries? If you think it is random, there will be different amount of armies on the territorries, and someone will get more armies than others. How would you like it if someone got 10 armies on a territory right next to your continent without earning them?

[insertnamehere]

random is the emphasis . i mean ive gained whole continetns without doing anything , because the random generator on this site gave me the whole continent . its all luck , like everytihng else in this game .

[everywhere116]

What about the armies?

And also, think for a moment. If someone left a game you were in, would the players divide the territorry? Of course not! The armies would be left on the bourd to stand their ground, just like they would here.

[insertnamehere]

i mean yes you would be pissed if someone got 10 armies next to your continents without doing anything , but youd be happy if you go a 10 army wall next to your continent without doing anything.

[everywhere116]

look at my edited post.

[insertnamehere]

ahhh . you win . i give up . it was a terrible idea . it was good while it lasted .

[Smurf75]

Im currently playing a triple and got a little curious about one thing. When third player deadbeated and was kicked out the first player in their team got all his troops and all his cards. Shouldnt it be divided amongst the two remaining players in their team?

[Forza AZ]

Im currently playing a triple and got a little curious about one thing. When third player deadbeated and was kicked out the first player in their team got all his troops and all his cards. Shouldnt it be divided amongst the two remaining players in their team?

No, it always goed to the first player. I think dividing it is more difficult to program(?)

[yeti_c]

Plus - how would you divide a continent - the current system is best - keeping bonuses intact!

C.

[Smurf75]

Im currently playing a triple and got a little curious about one thing. When third player deadbeated and was kicked out the first player in their team got all his troops and all his cards. Shouldnt it be divided amongst the two remaining players in their team?

No, it always goed to the first player. I think dividing it is more difficult to program(?)

You cant really use difficulties with programming as an excuse. But if thats the way the program should work(for whatever reason) then Im satisfied with the answer to my question.

Plus - how would you divide a continent - the current system is best - keeping bonuses intact!

I dont know what kind of games you are playing, but Ill never, NEVER let a deadbeat keep his bonuses.

BTW : If you get a deadbeat cards, doesnt that kinda make it possible for a player to start his round with 9 cards, or atleast 5+?

[yeti_c]

Im currently playing a triple and got a little curious about one thing. When third player deadbeated and was kicked out the first player in their team got all his troops and all his cards. Shouldnt it be divided amongst the two remaining players in their team?

No, it always goed to the first player. I think dividing it is more difficult to program(?)

You cant really use difficulties with programming as an excuse. But if thats the way the program should work(for whatever reason) then Im satisfied with the answer to my question.

Plus - how would you divide a continent - the current system is best - keeping bonuses intact!

I dont know what kind of games you are playing, but Ill never, NEVER let a deadbeat keep his bonuses.

BTW : If you get a deadbeat cards, doesnt that kinda make it possible for a player to start his round with 9 cards, or atleast 5+?

Depends on how the game is playing isn't it? If it's a long game and they have huge armies on their borders and you aren't willing to cripple yourself to break them then you might leave it and hope they go neutral!!

Yes it is... but it's dealt with in the same way as if you have 5 - i.e. you have to cash until you're under 5.

C.

[Smurf75]

Depends on how the game is playing isn't it? If it's a long game and they have huge armies on their borders and you aren't willing to cripple yourself to break them then you might leave it and hope they go neutral!!

And what is the criteria for them going neutral? Didnt even know that could occur. Because if they cant go neutral, theres a 100% percent chance that I will attack to break his bonus until I have 3 or less dices to throw.

[Ishiro]

You can have way more than 5 cards... you could play a triples game, and two players deadbeat with 5 cards. Player 1 deadbeats and his cards go to player 2, then player 2 deadbeats and his cards go to player 3 who ended his previous turn with 5 cards. Player three comes back and has 15 cards. Possible, yes... likely, not really.

You could even have more cards if people were to defeat other players, then wait for turn expiration instead of cashing in... I think the theoretical maximum would be 23 cards. Triples game, Player 1 had 4 cards, defeats Player 4 and gets 5 cards, times out instead of cashing in... then Player 2 who also had 4 cards defeats player 5 and gets 5 cards, times out. Then players 1 and 2 deadbeat, if player 3 ended his previous turn with 5 cards, he would get player 1's 9 cards and player 2's 9 cards... 9+9+5 = 23.

That, of course, would never happen unless people forced it to happen.

[chessmaniac777]

Im currently playing a triple and got a little curious about one thing. When third player deadbeated and was kicked out the first player in their team got all his troops and all his cards. Shouldnt it be divided amongst the two remaining players in their team?

No, it always goed to the first player. I think dividing it is more difficult to program(?)

dividing isn't very hard to program...even a high schooler can program that

yeah, sometimes it does piss ppl off when only the highest person gets everything, but hey, what are you going to do about it?

[doliver]

MOD EDIT: There have been at least a few suggestions on how to deal with the perceived problem of users who get kicked out of team games and what to do with their spoils, troops and territories. While none of the following three suggestions are entirely clear on the mechanics of what the solution to this problem should be, they all derive from the same source and arrive at similar conclusions.

The following three suggestions have been MERGED and REJECTED.

12/28/2006: zorba_ca suggests we should modify the rule to neutralize terrirtories only in No Spoils games

12/8/2009: Fridayknight says that we should "have a look" at the the deadbeat problem.

5/30/11 gumby7524 says that when a teammate deadbeats the rest of the team "should suffer as much as the other teams have suffered"

11/4/12: chewie1 says that in the case of a deadbeat or rules violation that it "become like in terminator games where cards and territs are still up for grabs ... or just become straight neutrals"

The current system that is in place attempts to not punish innocent victims of the deadbeating or rules violations whether they be teammates or opponents of the deadbeat or violator. If someone is taking advantage of these rules, then you are free to fill out a Cheating and Abuse Report to address the problem. But for now, the rarity of the perceived problem and the amount of effort that would go in to "fixing" it means that it's not likely that this system will change.

As yeti_c points out:

If you can't kill of a team that is only playing half of the time in 3 goes - then you shouldn't bother playing... or you were going to lose anyway.

C.

But perhaps there is a solution to be found here:

1/15/10: karelpietertje says that in the case of a rules violation, the teammates should simply take over and "play for the busted player"

Unlike the first three mentioned suggestions, Karel's suggestion has been Submitted and is probably the only avenue that is likely to be taken by CC.

If you see any other suggestions that should be merged here, please post in the thread or inform a moderator. Thanks, as always, for reading --agentcom

Per new policy, suggestions involving splitting deadbeat territories between remaining teammates as well as those suggesting current policy (giving deadbeat territories to the player furthest behind in troops) have been merged into this thread.This policy has been changed multiple times over the years, and the threads often discuss the pros and cons of both sides.

[bchvball]

Can a moderator answer this for me? Why in a doubles game when a player is kicked out for missing turn does his armies become that of his partner and not neutral? The team should not be rewarded for deadbeating. In close games where all teams are equal, this action can give one team a huge advantage.

[Night Strike]

It was put in place to help protect the player who has a random person join on his team but then deadbeat.

The true question (and what could probably be fairly debated) would be if it's still necessary since new recruits aren't allowed to play team games.