[GP] [Rules] Eliminate Deferred Troops

[guyleroiuk]

Should have a skip turn button rather than having guiys waiting 24hours cios they prefer not to move an dget 6 armies replenishment next time out - most annoying thing about the site

[Aerial Attack]

:D Should have a skip turn button rather than having guiys waiting 24hours cios they prefer not to move an dget 6 armies replenishment next time out - most annoying thing about the site

This would be nice, but those people who abuse the system are the ones who would NOT use said button. After all, it's part of their "strategy" to have you guessing if they are dead beating or not.

[bomberman760]

Yes, I'm a n00b, but in my first week of play I'm getting aggrivated with two people in two different games who seem to take 2 rounds off, then play their third. I considered that extenuating circumstances may prevent a good player from making it online, but preventing them from getting the added armies is very fair across the board, as opposed to booting someone for missing too many. Sure, some deserve the boot, but the problem is the sheer volume of players and fairness across the board.

That's why no extra armies for a missed turn is a good compromise, and very fair to dedicated players!

Bomberman

[hughey]

Missing turns is a way of strategy, but them getting their dice before the round begins shouldn't be part of the strategy! Honestly, I don't think that they shouldn't even get it multiplied. Only three dice if misses once and six if miss twice! In another words, their area that they hold are not included!

[Silver-]

When can this enhancement be implemented (can be a game option to keep it for users that like it).

I hate when player are using it as a strategy. This also slow the game a lot.

[Silver-]

I think they should not get any... if they missed a turn.

[deathscythe30]

This is not a vacation, this is fucking war. If Bush misses a turn in Iraq, he doesn't get his oil multiplied on his next turn, so why should someone who makes other people wait to play?

Also, to tell the truth, this is the major reason why I haven't bought a membership yet, because this "strategy" is truly lame.

[Molacole]

multiplied armies isn't so bad...

The problem is amplified when 3 players are left. If one player is on the verge of becoming a super power unless somebody steps up is when this becomes a real problem.

example

player 1 just took over N america = strongest player

player 2 holds S america and is low on troops from holding off player 1 = second strongest

player 3 skips turns and is willing to throw the game completely unless he can win...


the problem with skipping turns is that player 3 has the most options. He takes his turns and plays acordingly, he skips turns and attacks whoever is weakest in an attempt for cards, he just sits back and refuses to fight and let the strongest player win the game. Player 2 will have no choice, but to attack player 1 which will make him weak. If player 3 holds a set and gets 9 armies on top of that then he can easily eliminate and break up both of the players that have been actually playing. This has happened to me a few times and it ruins the game.

it is pretty sad when the person skipping turns has complete control over the outcome of the game. It leaves people with the option to force other people to burn their troops out or hand over the game!

In a situation like this he will leave player 2 with 2 options. Either fight to keep the game going or just give up and let player 1 win. The first time it happened to me I saw a player who looked like he had no chance of winning cash in a set, get 9 armies and almost cleared the board with the extra cash in he got from eliminating the other player.


The best solution for this is NO TROOPS enforcements!

The skipped turn should be just that and the game should not progress. It should stay on that players turn. If it happens twice in a row then they should be eliminated. If it happens 3 times in any one game then they should also be eliminated.

There is no reason why people should be missing more than two turns in any one game. You could even bump it up to four turns per game for elimination, but I doubt that would be needed.

RISK was not meant to be played with skipping turns so the game should "freeze" everytime somebody skips a turn. That will force people to play accordingly, instead of using cheap tactics.

I don't think lack has any interest in changing the way things are now so this is probably like beating a dead horse. It is nice to vent every now and then though...

[Silver-]

Very good comment "Molacole".
I think we should stop giving army for missing turn.

As of now, I am adding poeple to my ignore list that use this appraoch (missing turn on purpose). This is not the best solution, but at least I am not stick with the same player again....

[bomberman760]

I'm in one game now where a guy could not attack me with his 3 bonus, so a pal of his occupied my time while he sat out a round, then came after me. All the while h was active in all his other games.

Getting the bonus is definitely shitty and should go away. Players know how to use that as an advantage and it brings down the game for everyone. Heck - even the regular board game covers this somewhat - if you forget to place a bonus before you roll you lose it!

[leclerc]

What if the armies were halved for each turn past the first miss? If this rule had to be kept, then couldn't this alleviate the concerns?

Example:
You're supposed to get 8 armies from territories and 4 from holding a continent bonus. First round missed, you still get 12. Next round, assuming no change, you only get 6. Next round, either the player is kicked, or takes another halving of 3.

My reason being that, there are good reasons to miss a turn, but multiple and then storming back on the scene with 30 armies when you and another player have been battling it out for 3 turns, only to go on to control the largest number of territories and bonuses at the end of the round. Not cool. And if not this, what about something similar?


EDIT: I looked through a second time and noticed in fine print that someone suggested a reduced modifier. That could work similarly to this situation.

[deathscythe30]

I'm truly happy that this will be put into practice. You shouldn't be rewarded for being a dick.

[Risktaker17]

how many times must it be rejected for people to stop bringing it up.

[PLAYER57832]

I would like to see a reduced multiplier -- say you get only 2 armies or 1.5 percent, not the full amount. I know has been discussed before, but it seems there is enough disagreement that it remains a problem. Also, this is more of a problem on the NEW BOARDS and perhaps should be re-evaluated based on the new options .. if not right now, then before too long.

EVERY game that I have played so far with someone missing more than 1 turn has turned toward that player based on that one turn. From the outset, it is EXTREMLY rare for anyone to lose no armies in a turn. This means you are not starting the turn-misser out on an equal footing, but giving them an advantage. In a standard, fixed- rate card game this somewhat balances out (but only somewhat, particularly if you get all reds).

FURTHER, there are two BIG problems, emerging with newer boards. They fall into 2 categories.

One, in very small boards with no cards such as the "Doodle" Board, nine armies at one time is plenty to alter the game completely. I know Lack argues that you can "prevent/predict", but the other person has a big advantage by seeing in advance where you have deployed armies, especially when it comes to taking or losing continents/point groups. In one game, for example, I grabbed AFrica immediately, thinking it was a standard game. As soon as my oponent missed, I started just reinforcing and not attacking, but he was still able to swoop in, break my continent and then take Asia. One bad roll and the game was over. This is particularly galling in speed games where one person has to sit and basically "twiddle thumbs" (or risk missing their own turn, especially when the other person finally decides to play and start your clock).

A second advantage comes in Escalating card games, especially bigger boards. By sitting out three turns when one has 4 cards with a match, it is quite possible to just sit back, let the other teams get 5 and have to turn in their cards, then "pounce" when the value is high. In many-player games, this can make a HUGE difference. Someone with a poor position, but enough armies to survive can come in and win the game, again just based on this one move. Again , this is less likely in small boards where someone will just be ousted.

Even knowing that the other person will miss a turn, the turn-misser still has the advantage, much like those who wait until the last minute to deploy in free-style speed games. The latter may be considered a legitimate strategy (though I myself don't like it ). If you really don't like that strategy, you can always avoid freestyle games (I do), but to use a misssed turn as a strategy just isn't right.

Sure, you can argue that the ultimate option is to sit out oneself, but I think that just grates on a lot of people, especially in multiple-player games.

Finally, I think the majority of folks recognize that there are a lot of reasons for missing a few turns and most people like the idea that players can come back and still have a fighting chance. However, missing turns should not be an ADVANTAGE. Maybe initially, with the plain "risk" board and similarly constructed boards it made little difference. However, that has changed. This issue needs to be reevaluated. If not immediately, then soon.

As a minimum, Lack, what about opening up a poll yourself addressing the specific new boards. I know this is not a democracy, but .... at a minimum, you would keep folks like me "quiet" and more fully give the issue a rest if you can show that you have really and truly considered ALL of the NEW ramifications!

[Baas K]

How about a random placement of the armies at a missed turn?
This way the player that misses a turn still has his armies (though maybe not where he wants them). And there is almost no risk of a big come back after 2 missed turns.

[Aerial Attack]

The way I see it we have the following options (if lack/a mod wanted to set up a poll):

1) As Is - multiplied armies received for territories and continents before deployment

2) Turn Multiplier Change - switch from 2 and 3 to something more like 1.8 and 2.5 [or numbers as yet to be determined]

3) Random Deployment - assign 1 turn armies for normal deployment, randomly deploy the remainder

4) Partial Bonuses - assign 1 turn armies for normal deployment, allow multiplier for missed turns [just no bonuses for continents/specials]. Of course, this would benefit someone who was holding a negative bonus

5) Armies at Fortification - assign 1 turn armies for normal deployment, the remainder are allowed to be placed during fortification [using a "missed turn" territory - so as to follow the Fortification option selected for the game]

6) No Turn Multiplier - assign 1 turn armies for normal deployment, remaining armies that would have been earned are lost.

7) Map Specific Multipliers - each map would have it's own determinant of what the multiplier should be [or if there should be one at all]. This is MUCH tougher to code - unless you could override the multiplier through the maps.xml file ...


I'm sure that there are some I missed.

PS. The subject of this post really should be changed. This is not a new suggestion (any more).

[deathscythe30]

how many times must it be rejected for people to stop bringing it up.

It's going to change to no more armies multiplied for missing turns. So apparently we don't have to bring it up anymore. lol

Also, once I found that out, I promptly bought a membership.

[peacekeeper]

a deadbeat will always be that way, they will not be motivated by the extra bonus armies, plus its kindda unfair for the others to have to do all the math for a player who missed a turn

[DaGip]

My opinion is that you keep it as is. You might consider adding the option for not banking armies, but people can't always be online. Things come up that they have to attend to instead of a game. So I am okay with the way things are right now. And as far as a tactic, rarely have I ever seen it work to the benefit of the troop banker...am I wrong here? The advantage is to the people that show up for their turns, and constitute their actions, plus getting cards (if that is an option). In my experience playing, I have never seen anyone win a game by banking armies by missing turns. The cons definitely outweigh any pros to this tactic. Kind of like wearing or not wearing a seat belt. The chances are if you wear the seat belt, you will avoid getting hurt or killed in a car crash...but not always. If you don't wear your seat belt, your chances of getting hurt or killed is much higher, but in some instances not wearing your seatbelt might actually save your life. We should also mention that missing turns on purpose to gain armies is considered cheating I believe, and is stated as such in the CC rules. (Unwritten rules..whatever that means)

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks, Lack, for listening to us ... : ) I know you cannot please everyone, but I await the new change!

[killthejoe]

I used to think this was ridiculous, but then realized it actually adds a strategic element to the game. I quite like it now.

I have yet to use it though...

And it does kinda suck that someone takes up 24 hours in sequential games.

[wicked]

Thanks AA for summarizing the options as of now.

New pole added! Go vote!

[Mr_Adams]

I like options 2&3, good thinking whoever started this forum

[wicked]

I like options 1 or 2 myself.

[wicked]

Have you voted?