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

[cenamom]

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.

[moz976]

That is why I stopped playing team games unless I previously knew my teammates. I would either get stuck with a deadbeat or someone who didn't know it was a team game and thought attacking only me would be a good idea.

[Marvaddin]

Because of it I am having a good partnership with Scud (better mention it before someone can accuse us ). Try find one permanent partner between those players you already know. And dont forget yourself: use deadbeats troops to protect yours

Ps: if you want, we can make a experience as partners (after I have a free slot)... my number of partners is growing, so soon I can found a clan.

[kingwaffles]

Ya I agree with Marvaddin, finding a partner you can play well with works well and makes games much more enjoyable than trying to get along in a game with someone you cant even talk to. At the moment I only have one real partner(Dagreatbroomhead) but I'm looking for more people to paly with.

[Machine]

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.

[Giff07]

I just took part in a team game where my partner was a deadbeat and of course i took a severe beating.

Its a bit harsh losing points because i was let down by a partner and think this should be changed somehow.

Also would it be possible for a partner of the deadbeat to take over the deadbeats army?

[wolfman]

i couln't agree more. I think that if your partner is a deadbeat then you should be given there sare of points

[areyouincahoots]

i couln't agree more. I think that if your partner is a deadbeat then you should be given there sare of points

I can imagine how frustrating this could be...I know this had been said before, but I would suggest only entering into team game with a partner who you already know and trust...

[AndyDufresne]

But for those without friends...what are they to do?

--Andy

[areyouincahoots]

join xigames and make friends!!! lol

[nhulbert]

*giggles giddishly*

[patakylaw]

If you are in team game and your "teammate" does not play for 3 turns and is booted, I think his countries should become yours and not additional countries you have to conquer, any thoughts?

[Riyanna]

Yeah, it's the least the game can do to compensate you for such a loss.

[Skriptal]

I think that in a game where you have a person Deadbeat who is part of a team, the teammates should get their territories. This would prevent times when a teammate deadbeats out and a team is left with a disadvantage because all his teammates territories are useless.

[gavin_sidhu]

sounds reasonable

[Skriptal]

something really needs to be done about team deadbeats.... its so annoying

[zip_disk]

Currently the best way to avoid this is not to play in games with rookies since they're the most likely to deadbeat. In your games though the rookies joined afterwards, if you really want to avoid that you should be the last person to enter a team rather than the first. That way you know you won't end up with a rookie unless someone quits first and changes the order.

Getting the teammate's units however sounds like a bad idea under the current rules. Currently a deadbeat gets none of the points if their team wins so I think all the points go to the other player.

This creates a situation ripe for abuse since a player can create multis (All the multi has to do is join a game with the main account. That's it.), get all the armies when the multi deadbeats, and then play like a single player with a huge territory. Then if the player wins the game, they get double the amount of points they'd normally get in a team game since they don't have to share with the deadbeat.

[Skriptal]

I understand that, but when you are alone and if you have invested massive amounts of units in a teammates territory they are basically useless. Leaving you at a massive disadvantage. and the chances of a normal player beating at least 2 other people or maybe 4 others, is very difficult if not impossible.

The multi's is another thing. Its the same as a person creating 5 multis and then playing a 5v1 and getting the points from that. its no different, but what can you do about that?

[zip_disk]

I understand that, but when you are alone and if you have invested massive amounts of units in a teammates territory they are basically useless. Leaving you at a massive disadvantage. and the chances of a normal player beating at least 2 other people or maybe 4 others, is very difficult if not impossible.

The multi's is another thing. Its the same as a person creating 5 multis and then playing a 5v1 and getting the points from that. its no different, but what can you do about that?

Generally speaking I don't invest troops into my teammates unless I feel that I can trust them to some degree. Most players with ranking you can trust to some degree so I don't hesitate but rookies I might wait a turn or 2 just to see if they play.

On your second point there is a bit of difference. With that rule change the deadbeat multi only has join a game. With many multis you need multiple computers and play at least 2 turns with all of them. Even more turns if you don't want to be blatantly obvious about it. Plus its rather obvious if it happens often. Deadbeat partners aren't that rare an event.

As many people say, the best protection against it is to play with people you know won't deadbeat.

[joeyjordison]

i think the suggestion makes a lot of sense. when a team mate gains a continent i will often give all my armies in order to defend it. if the player then deadbeats i hav lost. the whole point of a team game is cooperation.

[whitewarrior]

I agree, I think it would be a lot more fair in a game if the deadbeats teratory would go to his partners. If this was done it would get rid of a lot of unessasary losses.

[kwolff]

I would say that would be nice .........Or atleast the player that stayed should get his points back off the deadbeat player...

[zorba_ca]

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 Games

One can strategically have a partner deadbeat in a no card game, and in many circumstances it would be far more advantageous than playing with the partner. Especially if the game is a doubles match! The reason for this is because it would allow the surviving partner in many situations to control entire continents, which are the crux in "No Card" games.

Even in some Flat Rate games it could be viewed as an advantage, but I believe this is far more risky as the cards do have some value, unless you are on an insanely large map like World 2.0.

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I searched the forums and did not see it. Wow has the site grown!

[spiesr]

You are just ranting not offering a suggestion.

[zorba_ca]

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 territories should become neutral.

P.S. I thought my post was thoughtful, courteous and on point. If you ever want a rant, let me know.