[GP] [Rules] Eliminate Deferred Troops

[Woodruff]

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

I cannot believe you actually believe what you're saying, because it's not remotely true. If you do believe that, you really need to think things through better. I don't believe I've seen anyone at all support either of those things.

[niMic]

This website is a social gaming site and they wont penalise people for having a life

And hence the people who do manage to take all their turns don't have a life.

Don't run for office.

[Queen_Herpes]

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

I cannot believe you actually believe what you're saying, because it's not remotely true. If you do believe that, you really need to think things through better. I don't believe I've seen anyone at all support either of those things.

What I've noticed is that the majority of detractors to this sug haven't posted at all in the sug about creating a maximum number of missed turns. I would think that if you don't support eliminating the deferred troops (or at least modifying the benefit) then you would at least support the concept that there should be a maximum number of missed turns in one game. Life may happen, and this site may be casual, but making opponents wait through a veritable eternity of missed turns (currently there is no upper limit) is somewhat rude. While their lack of posting in the other sug doesn't mean they do or don't support it, I'd like to see the same effort put towards a sug that spares opponents some wait time, if nothing else.

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

[Woodruff]

This website is a social gaming site and they wont penalise people for having a life

And hence the people who do manage to take all their turns don't have a life.
Don't run for office.

TMML. Sort of because it's true. <grin>

[Queen_Herpes]

Woodruff,

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

[Woodruff]

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

I cannot believe you actually believe what you're saying, because it's not remotely true. If you do believe that, you really need to think things through better. I don't believe I've seen anyone at all support either of those things.

What I've noticed is that the majority of detractors to this sug haven't posted at all in the sug about creating a maximum number of missed turns. I would think that if you don't support eliminating the deferred troops (or at least modifying the benefit) then you would at least support the concept that there should be a maximum number of missed turns in one game.

I disagree with both suggestions, actually...but I didn't see that one as important enough for me to really care about as I don't believe it's a fundamental change in the way the game is laid out, as long as it were implemented with some intelligence. However, I do believe that this suggestion IS a fundamental change in the way the game is laid out and I do believe it is unnecessary and even harmful.

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

You did not misquote me (I think it's safe to say I'd have cried foul if you had <smile>). I could support that, simply because I see speed games as being specifically NOT "casual gaming" as the site regards it.

Woodruff,

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

Geez, give me a chance to respond at least...was it really necessary to re-post this just four minutes after the first one?

[pie12345]

they should be able to get on once a day

have you tried reading a thread before posting?

The armies aren't coming into play to be acted upon by the dice. The crux of my position is that the opponent(s) cannot beat what is not there. If I have a short stack (say 4) on Dakar and my opponent holds SA with an army of 2 on Sao Paolo, and my opponent misses his/her turn, he/she doesn't risk losing those armies to my short stack. However, upon my turn I DO risk my armies in breaking. Perhaps I don't take SA, and when it is the opponents turn again, they retake SA and get to drop a bonus (from the deferred troops) as defense.

The point is simple, since the deferred armies aren't put into play it is unfair considering the armies of the players who take their turns do get put into play. Deferred armies are protected armies. Deferred armies cannot be lost, cannot be killed, cannot be harmed, cannot be broken. Let me know how that happens for players who take their turns, and you will have demonstrated for me that the deferred troops provides an equitable position for all players involved. If you cannot find an example of how the players-who-takes-their-turns can hold armies in a position where they are not in play and those same armies can then be distributed onto the map at the end of a subsequent turn, then you must recognize that deferred troops does not offer an equal position for all players in any game.

Ulimately, Woodruff, you recognized that JefJef was correct in describing the unfair position in team games. I tend to think that if it is unfair in one game on the site, then it is going to be unfair in other games as well.

The point is. If you break SA then he gets 3 armies. that means that even if he takes back SA, he will only defend with 3 armies plus whatever else he has in reserve. If someone misses a turn you can punish them by breaking them. if you choose not to then its ur own fault if you get beat cuz they don't deadbeat, IMO. If the deferred armies weren't there and I missed a turn, the likelyhood is that I just lost the game the same way someone starting their turn and timing out would do.
The fact that you can place deferred armies wherever is a different issue, but consider this. If you have 3 territs left in SA on world 2.1 and then take it back, and you were, say, restricted to only deploying your deferred troops on territs you had since before your missed turn, that wouldn't be fair either.

im not reading 5 pages to make one post

[jefjef]

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. There are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantageous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

Correct. There certainly are undeniable advantages in some instances of missing turns and receiving deferred deploy during certain game situations and some people recognize and abuse the intent of deferred to try to turn games to their favor.

Even if the missed turn can win 1% of the games it is used in then it is a strategy that should not be available to be utilized.

Many people who miss turns do not get to concerned about it either because they get the deferment. Doing away with it will eliminate any potential strategic use of it and I bet their would be noticeably fewer missed turns.

Perhaps 1/2 deferred deploy would be more equitable. It would be a deterrent to missing turns and would eliminate most possible benefits of it.(with the exception od delayed esc spoils cash)

[Incandenza]

I don't agree that missing turns gives people an advantage, in the vast majority of cases it does not. Skimmed through the arguement to date. Incandenza insightful as always, your wasting your time though bro, no one has bothered to even attempt to refute your well ordered logical arguements, instead they have kept on beating the same tired beat on the drum.

Thanks mate. Every so often I feel like beating my head against a wall...

QH, I must congratulate you on one thing: you've almost single-handedly made the suggestions forum an unpleasant place to read and post. Well done!

[TheForgivenOne]

Alright, since this has become quite debated, i will be stickying this, to possibly get more insight from more people.

[MichelSableheart]

@JefJef: Sorry, but I don't think I agree with you. It is my belief that the number of times a turn is missed due to genuine real life trouble is much greater then the number of times it is missed out of strategic concerns. The changes needed to make sure there is absolutely no strategic advantage to be gained would punish those genuine turn missers much harsher then is reasonable, IMO.

[Queen_Herpes]

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

You did not misquote me (I think it's safe to say I'd have cried foul if you had <smile>). I could support that, simply because I see speed games as being specifically NOT "casual gaming" as the site regards it.

Glad to read those words. How would it be implemented in speed, then? Completely remove the deferred troops? Reduce the deferred troops to 1/2 as jefjef suggested? or randomly drop the troops at the end of the missed turn?

Woodruff,

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

Geez, give me a chance to respond at least...was it really necessary to re-post this just four minutes after the first one?

Sorry, too much Mountain Dew this morning.

[jefjef]

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

Making other players wait? Is that your argument now? I thought this was all about how missing a turn is a better strategic option than taking the turn, which is simply not true, save in extremely isolated circumstances. If it's just about time, then that's a pretty weak argument.

This sugg is not about how missing a turn is a better strategic option. Some of us are merely pointing out that there are circumstances that lead to the abuse and successful use of deferments. A strategy is used with the missed turn deferments.

Yes. Giving more incentive to NOT miss the turns and rewarding them is valid and desirable.

People miss turns. Connection problems, real life issues, whatever, it happens. The current system is punitive enough. Are there rare times where someone might conceivably take advantage? Sure. But not nearly often enough to jettison the system.

Correct. People have rl issues and whatever. Unfortunately more than rarely people abuse this. There are circumstances that they profit from it and we all know it.

QH, I must congratulate you on one thing: you've almost single-handedly made the suggestions forum an unpleasant place to read and post. Well done!

More trolling and baiting from you. As expected. You have this attitude towards all who do not share your "illusions".

Now sod off if you have nothing real to contribute.

[Woodruff]

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. There are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantageous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

Correct. There certainly are undeniable advantages in some instances of missing turns and receiving deferred deploy during certain game situations and some people recognize and abuse the intent of deferred to try to turn games to their favor.
Even if the missed turn can win 1% of the games it is used in then it is a strategy that should not be available to be utilized.

I would suggest that suiciding changes as many games as missing turns does. Would you then advocate that the ability to suicide should be removed from the gameplay? Keep in mind the consequences of that thoughtline...

[Woodruff]

Am I correct that you did support amending the deferred troops in speed games? Or did I misquote you?

You did not misquote me (I think it's safe to say I'd have cried foul if you had <smile>). I could support that, simply because I see speed games as being specifically NOT "casual gaming" as the site regards it.

Glad to read those words. How would it be implemented in speed, then? Completely remove the deferred troops? Reduce the deferred troops to 1/2 as jefjef suggested? or randomly drop the troops at the end of the missed turn?

My PERSONAL belief (which is worth very little) is that in SPEED GAMES EXCLUSIVELY, completely removing the deferred troops is reasonable, due to the fact that speed games are not "casual gaming". Then again, I am also of the opinion that in SPEED GAMES EXCLUSIVELY, individuals should be booted from the game after their first missed turn.

[jefjef]

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. There are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantageous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

Correct. There certainly are undeniable advantages in some instances of missing turns and receiving deferred deploy during certain game situations and some people recognize and abuse the intent of deferred to try to turn games to their favor.
Even if the missed turn can win 1% of the games it is used in then it is a strategy that should not be available to be utilized.

I would suggest that suiciding changes as many games as missing turns does. Would you then advocate that the ability to suicide should be removed from the gameplay? Keep in mind the consequences of that thoughtline...

INTENTIONAL SUICIDING is already against the rules woody...

[Queen_Herpes]

Game 7348128
'nuff said

[Woodruff]

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. There are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantageous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

Correct. There certainly are undeniable advantages in some instances of missing turns and receiving deferred deploy during certain game situations and some people recognize and abuse the intent of deferred to try to turn games to their favor.
Even if the missed turn can win 1% of the games it is used in then it is a strategy that should not be available to be utilized.

I would suggest that suiciding changes as many games as missing turns does. Would you then advocate that the ability to suicide should be removed from the gameplay? Keep in mind the consequences of that thoughtline...

INTENTIONAL SUICIDING is already against the rules woody...

It is pretty much impossible to determine if someone is suiciding or simply making a desperate move to change their position. I use the term "suicide" to mean the latter in this case, since that garners a lot of whining about "suiciding" as well.

[Woodruff]

Game 7348128
'nuff said

Seems like a "Foe, rate, and move on" scenario to me. Which is what is apparently happening with it.

[Queen_Herpes]

Game 7348128
'nuff said

Seems like a "Foe, rate, and move on" scenario to me. Which is what is apparently happening with it.

Yes, it is a FAMO, but the point is that the player who missed two consecutive turns won the game.

[Woodruff]

Game 7348128
'nuff said

Seems like a "Foe, rate, and move on" scenario to me. Which is what is apparently happening with it.

Yes, it is a FAMO, but the point is that the player who missed two consecutive turns won the game.

Ok. If I always attack my stacks all the way down to 1 army, I will also occasionally win a game.

[Incandenza]

Game 7348128
'nuff said

So the other game didn't hold water, and now you're pushing an extreme outlier? Still not helping your cause. If you'd like to argue that 3p speed games on maps with 24 or fewer terits should be exempt from deferred troops, then I can see why you'd cite this game. Otherwise I'm skint. You can't make broad policy based on outliers, otherwise you're the same as those people who shoot down otherwise fun/reasonable/intelligent suggestions with the knee-jerk "OMG someone could abuse this*!"
*if that person were willing to dedicate their every waking moment to conquer club, and if they were willing to be the most blatant cheater of all time

Yes. Giving more incentive to NOT miss the turns and rewarding them is valid and desirable.

My argument is that they're already punished enough, by not getting to take their turn. Anyone who tried to miss a turn strategically is counting on luck instead of skill, which is a bad way to try and get ahead on CC. You'll note that no serial turn-misser has ever ascended to the top of the scoreboard. If this was in any way a consistently viable strategy, don't you think someone would've figured out how to systematically exploit it?

More trolling and baiting from you. As expected. You have this attitude towards all who do not share your "illusions".

Now sod off if you have nothing real to contribute.

It's cute how you leap to QH's defense. However, I apologize if I've acted negatively in the past toward people not willing to debate in good faith. It's a personal failing of mine.

And the false equivalence is unbecoming. If you truly hate me so much, I would hope that you'd have some better rhetorical arrows in the ole' quiver, since you're clearly no dummy.

[Crazy Frog]

In Round three of Game number 7344897 The following happened:

I started to play my round and just as I started to deploy the troops the Internet Service Providers power went off for a few hours.

Next morning when the internet was back on I went to see my game... all was in descent shape.. I did loose a spot and was with minor damage from enemy fire... but with my "Owed 9 deffered troops" I should have been fine when I got to move again... But on my next move I was not able to recieve my 9 troops.. Not even at the end of the round for reinforcement... they were counted as "Awarded" to me in Round 3 but vanished when they were not deployed...

I looked it up in the rules and it is there... But I would respectfully ask that this situation be handled as a "Missed Turn" rather than the way the Rules are currently handling it... "No deployment or partial deployment = Troops bumped to the end of next round" would be fine...
This ruined that game for me...

Hope someone in here that works in the rules can take another look at this situation... see how it may be better handled...
Thanks Crazy Frog

[Metsfanmax]

In Round three of Game number 7344897 The following happened:

I started to play my round and just as I started to deploy the troops the Internet Service Providers power went off for a few hours.

Next morning when the internet was back on I went to see my game... all was in descent shape.. I did loose a spot and was with minor damage from enemy fire... but with my "Owed 9 deffered troops" I should have been fine when I got to move again... But on my next move I was not able to recieve my 9 troops.. Not even at the end of the round for reinforcement... they were counted as "Awarded" to me in Round 3 but vanished when they were not deployed...

I looked it up in the rules and it is there... But I would respectfully ask that this situation be handled as a "Missed Turn" rather than the way the Rules are currently handling it... "No deployment or partial deployment = Troops bumped to the end of next round" would be fine...
This ruined that game for me...

Hope someone in here that works in the rules can take another look at this situation... see how it may be better handled...
Thanks Crazy Frog

I'm inclined to agree with you there. The current system of removing any undeployed troops always did seem a little odd to me.

[TheForgivenOne]

In Round three of Game number 7344897 The following happened:

I started to play my round and just as I started to deploy the troops the Internet Service Providers power went off for a few hours.

Next morning when the internet was back on I went to see my game... all was in descent shape.. I did loose a spot and was with minor damage from enemy fire... but with my "Owed 9 deffered troops" I should have been fine when I got to move again... But on my next move I was not able to recieve my 9 troops.. Not even at the end of the round for reinforcement... they were counted as "Awarded" to me in Round 3 but vanished when they were not deployed...

I looked it up in the rules and it is there... But I would respectfully ask that this situation be handled as a "Missed Turn" rather than the way the Rules are currently handling it... "No deployment or partial deployment = Troops bumped to the end of next round" would be fine...
This ruined that game for me...

Hope someone in here that works in the rules can take another look at this situation... see how it may be better handled...
Thanks Crazy Frog

I suggest you make a new thread for this Suggestion.