Conquer Club

Forgive me if this has been brought up but I mentioned it to my clan and got the impression that it was a new idea. If not, my apologies.

Deferred troops should only be allowed to be deployed on the color that missed the turn. I believe this is in keeping with the spirit of the current rule and avoids a "get around" that currently happens.

After all, the reason you are given those armies at the end of your turn is to make them passive, so that you can't use them to attack, otherwise you would be somewhat rewarded for missing a turn. But, as it stands, you can deploy them on the next color to play (this of course only happens in team and poly games), thereby getting around the spirit of the rule and using them in an attacking manner.

This would avoid that. The deferred troops would, in fact, be passive as every color on the opposing team would be able to react to the deployment before they could be used. In truth, we should limit every way that a person can use a missed turn to their advantage and this is just one, very logical, way. It's more than generous that you at least don't lose your deployment if you miss, but that should be it.

agree

I agree completely and seems like something fairly easy to fix.

I also agree, and I have seen cases in which I highly suspect a turn was intentionally missed with that loophole in mind.

I am in favor of getting rid of deferred troops all together. Let’s put it to vote, and see what everyone says about it.

Shoe555 wrote:I am in favor of getting rid of deferred troops all together. Let’s put it to vote, and see what everyone says about it.

that debate has been had hundreds of times and wont happen. this is a fair alternative.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Shoe555 wrote:I am in favor of getting rid of deferred troops all together. Let’s put it to vote, and see what everyone says about it.

that debate has been had hundreds of times and wont happen. this is a fair alternative.

It’s better than nothing.

detlef wrote:This would avoid that. The deferred troops would, in fact, be passive as every color on the opposing team would be able to react to the deployment before they could be used. In truth, we should limit every way that a person can use a missed turn to their advantage and this is just one, very logical, way. It's more than generous that you at least don't lose your deployment if you miss, but that should be it.

Please explain how that was an advantage to miss a turn rather than play in your example.

The deferred troops would, in fact, be passive as every color on the opposing team would be able to react to the deployment before they could be used.

1) you know one player miss a turn and will get deferred next time he plays.
You know that as soon as that player miss, so you've got plenty of time to anticipate the deferred troops.

2) After the player placed the deferred troops, you still have one player of your team playing to anticipate.

3) in 1vs1 game, you deploy you deferred and get to play them right after. That's not really much of a difference with a team game. It's actually already worse in a team game, because you are missing those troops for a longer time than in 1vs1 already.

What caused this suggestion :
You're losing or lost a game in which your opponent missed a turn.
Therefore you're wrongly assuming you are losing the game because your opponent missed a turn and was able to use deferred troops to get an advantage.
Reality is, you would have lose that game regardless of the miss turn. Had your opponent played instead of miss, you'd probably have lose the game faster.
I've seen this suggestion or similar happen many times. It's always after losing a game when a player missed a turn.
Missing a turn doesn't, except extremely rare case, give you an advantage.

Donelladan wrote:

detlef wrote:This would avoid that. The deferred troops would, in fact, be passive as every color on the opposing team would be able to react to the deployment before they could be used. In truth, we should limit every way that a person can use a missed turn to their advantage and this is just one, very logical, way. It's more than generous that you at least don't lose your deployment if you miss, but that should be it.

Please explain how that was an advantage to miss a turn rather than play in your example.

The deferred troops would, in fact, be passive as every color on the opposing team would be able to react to the deployment before they could be used.

1) you know one player miss a turn and will get deferred next time he plays.
You know that as soon as that player miss, so you've got plenty of time to anticipate the deferred troops.

2) After the player placed the deferred troops, you still have one player of your team playing to anticipate.

3) in 1vs1 game, you deploy you deferred and get to play them right after. That's not really much of a difference with a team game. It's actually already worse in a team game, because you are missing those troops for a longer time than in 1vs1 already.

What caused this suggestion :
You're losing or lost a game in which your opponent missed a turn.
Therefore you're wrongly assuming you are losing the game because your opponent missed a turn and was able to use deferred troops to get an advantage.
Reality is, you would have lose that game regardless of the miss turn. Had your opponent played instead of miss, you'd probably have lose the game faster.
I've seen this suggestion or similar happen many times. It's always after losing a game when a player missed a turn.
Missing a turn doesn't, except extremely rare case, give you an advantage.

No, it didn't happen to me in a game. Please don't dismiss my suggestion based on an unfounded assumption. Some people in my clan were discussing a game and the thought came to me. And, before you make another convenient assumption, I don't even think it was a clan game. Just a game some clanmates were in. So it didn't affect me in the slightest. In fact, if you want to make a really deep dive. It benefits me when my clanmates lose non clan games because their rating goes down so my teammates rating is lower in games I play with them so I benefit. So it is through a selfless desire to make the world a better place at my own cost that I bring this up.

Yes, you are nearly always (if not always) better off taking your turn. But, again, the spirit of the rule, at least I assume it is, is to penalize the person who missed their turn by making the armies passive. After all, if you got them at the beginning of your next turn, it quite likely WOULD be an advantage to miss. You should be punished for missing a turn. Frankly, I agree with those who would just do away with deferred troops. But, at very least we should make them as passive as possible.

That said, while I agree that it is, again, either always better or nearly always better to just take your turn, I tend to believe it's actually NEARLY always better. You said it yourself above. As fishy said, she's seen times when she suspected this.

So, let me ask you something, especially given several people have spoken in favor of it. What's wrong with the idea? I won't dare to assume that you've benefitted from this rule before, because that would be rude.

Also, don't confuse "using a missed turn to their advantage" with "it's an advantage to miss a turn." Because they're not the same thing.

You said it yourself above. As fishy said, she's seen times when she suspected this.

I said extremely rare case, it require a very specific combination of settings and map.
I am 100% convinced it wasn't the case in the game of your clan-mate. And I am also convinced fishy was wrong about his suspicion.
Even if it can be useful in rare case, I've never seen such a case actually being brought forward in the forum.
But I've seen dozens of people complaining about deferred troops giving an advantage to their opponent while it wasn't the case at all.

So, let me ask you something, especially given several people have spoken in favor of it. What's wrong with the idea? I won't dare to assume that you've benefitted from this rule before, because that would be rude.

I happen to have been in the situation that one of my partner miss quite often ( way too often for my taste for sure ).
And no I've never ever get any advantage from this rule, it's always been annoying and often killing the game that my partner miss.
So knowing how hard it is to win a game while having a partner missing a turn, I don't want it to become even more difficult.

Btw, in clan game, when a miss turn is intentional, you can get a game being replayed, because intentionally missing a turn is forbidden in clan game.
It happened ( in one rare case where missing a turn can be intentional was brought forward -> but this had nothing to do with deferred troops).

So there is no need to make things worse as far as clan game as concerned.

And for regular games, if you'd find someone missing turn intentionally to get an advantage and using this tactic across many games, you'd have a case for a C&A report and get this forbidden Also happened before, even though it's a very very old case ( and also had nothing to do with deferred troops) . IMHO there hasn't been any new C&A case about this because it just doesn't happen. Because missing turn almost never ever give you an advantage, that's one no one does that regularly or use it as a tactic.

Here is a game that I think was suspicious. Red ended up with 7 spoils and took over green territories on the other side of the map. Game 21955512

Shoe555 wrote:Here is a game that I think was suspicious. Red ended up with 7 spoils and took over green territories on the other side of the map. Game 21955512

Ok so this is actually quite a different situation.

In the game you linked, no deferred troops were awarded, because the player missed 3 turns and was kicked out.
When a teammate is kicked out, there is no deferred troops. On the other hand first player of the team get all regions and cards of the player that has been kicked out.
We could go discuss whether getting cards & regions of kicked out player is appropriate, and could be an advantage or not, but I think it should be done in another topic, since this suggestion is about deferred troops, and forcing deferred troops to be deployed on the player who miss the turn in case of a team/poly game.

Donelladan wrote:

Shoe555 wrote:Here is a game that I think was suspicious. Red ended up with 7 spoils and took over green territories on the other side of the map. Game 21955512

Ok so this is actually quite a different situation.

In the game you linked, no deferred troops were awarded, because the player missed 3 turns and was kicked out.
When a teammate is kicked out, there is no deferred troops. On the other hand first player of the team get all regions and cards of the player that has been kicked out.
We could go discuss whether getting cards & regions of kicked out player is appropriate, and could be an advantage or not, but I think it should be done in another topic, since this suggestion is about deferred troops, and forcing deferred troops to be deployed on the player who miss the turn in case of a team/poly game.

Okay

Donelladan wrote:And I am also convinced fishy was wrong about his her suspicion.

Actually in one case I'm certain of it, as they openly joked about it in game chat. We considered reporting it. However, as the game progressed they made several poor moves and ended up losing the game in spite of having used the deferred troop advantage. Does this happen often, I have no idea. Perhaps noe, but I know in that one case it did happen.

fishydance wrote:

Donelladan wrote:And I am also convinced fishy was wrong about his her suspicion.

Actually in one case I'm certain of it, as they openly joked about it in game chat. We considered reporting it. However, as the game progressed they made several poor moves and ended up losing the game in spite of having used the deferred troop advantage. Does this happen often, I have no idea. Perhaps note, but I know in that one case it did happen.

But Donelladan said it didn't happen, so it didn't happen. What do YOU know about games you've been in? Don't be silly.

detlef wrote: But Donelladan said it didn't happen, so it didn't happen. What do YOU know about games you've been in? Don't be silly.

What was I thinking?

Donelladan wrote:

You said it yourself above. As fishy said, she's seen times when she suspected this.

I said extremely rare case, it require a very specific combination of settings and map.
I am 100% convinced it wasn't the case in the game of your clan-mate. And I am also convinced fishy was wrong about his suspicion.
Even if it can be useful in rare case, I've never seen such a case actually being brought forward in the forum.
But I've seen dozens of people complaining about deferred troops giving an advantage to their opponent while it wasn't the case at all.

So, let me ask you something, especially given several people have spoken in favor of it. What's wrong with the idea? I won't dare to assume that you've benefitted from this rule before, because that would be rude.

I happen to have been in the situation that one of my partner miss quite often ( way too often for my taste for sure ).
And no I've never ever get any advantage from this rule, it's always been annoying and often killing the game that my partner miss.
So knowing how hard it is to win a game while having a partner missing a turn, I don't want it to become even more difficult.

Btw, in clan game, when a miss turn is intentional, you can get a game being replayed, because intentionally missing a turn is forbidden in clan game.
It happened ( in one rare case where missing a turn can be intentional was brought forward -> but this had nothing to do with deferred troops).

So there is no need to make things worse as far as clan game as concerned.

And for regular games, if you'd find someone missing turn intentionally to get an advantage and using this tactic across many games, you'd have a case for a C&A report and get this forbidden Also happened before, even though it's a very very old case ( and also had nothing to do with deferred troops) . IMHO there hasn't been any new C&A case about this because it just doesn't happen. Because missing turn almost never ever give you an advantage, that's one no one does that regularly or use it as a tactic.

Ok, gloves off…

For starters, before you make any more assumptions about me or my motives for writing this, this is not me being angry that my very logical suggestion is facing opposition, This is me grappling with the reality that I have to contend with people who are self-serving, self-important ckufwits who are willing to confuse opinion as fact when it suits their agenda.

So, basically, you’re the worst type of person to have to engage in an argument. You make a false argument, then, when called on it, you don’t have the decency to acknowledge that and, rather, just go back to the well for another. It is maddening. First it was about my motivation, then you were “100% certain” that a game you have zero knowledge of, well more than that if you count the game(s) that fishy is referring to, was not effected in a way that this proposed change could avoid, because it never (oh wait, very rarely, seriously, which is it?!) happens.

Hell, you just admitted that you don’t want the rule change for selfish reasons, because you have a partner who misses way too many turns. So, rather than finding a better partner, YOU don’t want YOUR games to be adversely affected by a rule. I have no such motives. I thought of something that could be improved and I suggested it. That is honestly it. I am pure, you are tainted.

Now you’re saying the best way to handle this is to accuse (and prove) that someone missed a turn on purpose?! Like that’s actually going to happen. Seriously, “I was waiting for my partners to help me decide on my move and fell asleep.” Case closed. How do you prove that didn’t happen? Regardless of how well it turned out for the offending team. So, that’s your solution? Because you have a shitty partner who misses too many turns? To litigate each and every instance where someone feels someone else took advantage of the current missed turn rules? That sounds bloody awful.

I was warned. Warned that the suggestion forum is where suggestions go to die. Then Caff chimed in, and groovy chimed in, and fishy chimed in. And I was naive enough to think that this might actually happen. Then… “Silly man, we are merely here to smell our own farts and further our agendas based on bullshit “logic”, boldly inaccurate assumptions, and over-inflated egos. Please move along. There is nothing to see here.”

what i dont understand don, is why you dont like this suggestion?

i feel like it's far more aligned with how deferred troops were intended to work in the first place.

what is the issue with the idea?

@Caff, my main issue with the idea, is that I disagree with the primary argument behind it : that missing a turn in order to get deferred troops can be a strategy.
And also, as I said, I don't want missing a turn to be even more painful, I think it is already bad enough when someone miss.

Furthermore, i am not so sure it's really more aligned with how deferred troops were intended to work.
Deferred troops are deployed at the end of your turn, so that you cannot attack with them. I think current situation is therefore exactly what was intended. ( maybe I'll find back a thread about it).
And as I've said before

in 1vs1 game, you deploy you deferred and get to play them right after. That's not really much of a difference with a team game. It's actually already worse in a team game, because you are missing those troops for a longer time than in 1vs1 already

.
Don't think team game needs to be more strongly disadvantaged than 1vs1 game.

There are tons of situations in a team game where you just deploy 100% of your troops on another player. Forcing someone to deploy on himself can just kill the game even more.
I'd say besides escalating game, it's actually very rare all players of one team deploy on themselves.
Why force someone to do a deployment that makes no sense ?

@detleft

You make a false argument, then, when called on it, you don’t have the decency to acknowledge

I don't think I made a false argument, that's why I am not going to acknowledge it.
If you're referring to the fact that I assumed you made the suggestion because you lost a game in which your opponent missed a turn. Right, that wasn't you, that was your clanmate. Imho that's kinda the same.
The suggestion originate from a game where a player from team A missed a turn, and team B lost the game, and then team B made the conclusion deferred troops are part of the reason they lost the game.
And I disagree with that conclusion.

[...] who are willing to confuse opinion as fact when it suits their agenda.

Pardon me, but I've only seen opinion/statements here given by people on your side, no facts.
It's not because fishydance said "it happened" that it did happen. I'd like to see a case where someone missed a turn in purpose to get deferred troops. ( and that it was actually a good strategical choice to do so. Because people can do it thinking it's smart, but it's actually stupid).
But, even if you can find me one, I will reply to you, that the situation is so unique that it's not, in my opinion, a sufficient cause to implement a suggestion that would harm lot of people that miss turn for real life reasons. -> That is under the assumption that only in a very rare case it can actually be useful and used intentionally, feel free to try to prove the contrary.

Now you’re saying the best way to handle this is to accuse (and prove) that someone missed a turn on purpose?! Like that’s actually going to happen. Seriously, “I was waiting for my partners to help me decide on my move and fell asleep.” Case closed. How do you prove that didn’t happen? Regardless of how well it turned out for the offending team. So, that’s your solution? Because you have a shitty partner who misses too many turns? To litigate each and every instance where someone feels someone else took advantage of the current missed turn rules? That sounds bloody awful.

It only sounds bloody awful if it's something that actually happen.
But afaik, it doesn't. I've been in many many clan games, and I've never seen anyone miss a turn in order to get deferred troops.
Let me here emphasize that, missing a turn for strategical purpose is possible, and does happen sometimes ( still rare but not unheard of).
But missing a turn to get an advantage through the deferred troops, that is what I don't think people do ever. Since your suggestion is about the deferred troops, that's why I don't think it's an improvement.

So, no it's not bloody awful. Some people in clans take the game very seriously, and accusation of cheating do happen for various reason. If someone think their opponent missed a turn in purpose to win a game, it's more than probable that they will report it.
It barely ever happen because mostly people don't do it.

In non-clan game, I'll give it to you it's very unlikely someone would bother opening a report. Though, i think it'd only be worth a report if someone does that frequently, and in which case I think this person might be caught eventually.

I was warned. Warned that the suggestion forum is where suggestions go to die. Then Caff chimed in, and groovy chimed in, and fishy chimed in. And I was naive enough to think that this might actually happen. Then… “Silly man, we are merely here to smell our own farts and further our agendas based on bullshit “logic”, boldly inaccurate assumptions, and over-inflated egos. Please move along. There is nothing to see here.”

Me liking or disliking your suggestion will probably have close to 0 impact on whether this solution gets implemented or not. Just fyi. So don't you worry about it, could still unfortunately happen. But, indeed, very very few suggestions ever get implemented.
I only bother to reply because it's a point I've discussed before ( people missing a turn because deferred troops can give them an edge to win the game), and I just don't believe it's the case.

Donelladan wrote:@Caff, my main issue with the idea, is that I disagree with the primary argument behind it : that missing a turn in order to get deferred troops can be a strategy.
And also, as I said, I don't want missing a turn to be even more painful, I think it is already bad enough when someone miss.

i think the reason i like the idea is because, as detlef described, you are given a # of deferred troops with 2 key points:

• you cannot use them that turn except deploying
• you only get what you were due that turn, not the turn you missed

but when we get into quads for example. you can use those deferred troops for more than just a deployment. put them onto the next colour and they could cause some damage.

i think this goes against what the entire idea of deferred troops is meant to achieve.

hopefully this makes sense.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Donelladan wrote:@Caff, my main issue with the idea, is that I disagree with the primary argument behind it : that missing a turn in order to get deferred troops can be a strategy.
And also, as I said, I don't want missing a turn to be even more painful, I think it is already bad enough when someone miss.

i think the reason i like the idea is because, as detlef described, you are given a # of deferred troops with 2 key points:

• you cannot use them that turn except deploying
• you only get what you were due that turn, not the turn you missed

but when we get into quads for example. you can use those deferred troops for more than just a deployment. put them onto the next colour and they could cause some damage.

i think this goes against what the entire idea of deferred troops is meant to achieve.

hopefully this makes sense.

The problem with that reasoning, is that if they deployed those troops on that same clanmate in the turn they missed, those troops would have caused the same damage.

Deferred troops, as I see them, are intended to make the game as close as possible to how it would have been without the player missing a turn, while discouraging players to strategically miss turns to their advantage. Limiting the deploy to only the player who missed, means they can't deploy on their teammate, when they could have if they hadn't missed, taking the game further away from how it would have been without a miss.

In order for that to be worth it, you have to show that the current rule doesn't do enough to discourage players to strategically miss turns to their advantage. Which means not only showing that the deferred troops can give an advantage, but also showing that they give an advantage that would be impossible to get without missing the turn.

but when we get into quads for example. you can use those deferred troops for more than just a deployment. put them onto the next colour and they could cause some damage.

In a quad game, you can't use those troops to attack during your turn. So it's still the correct behaviour imo
You're saying "that turn", like the entire round. I'm saying the player's turn.
I think both understanding of the deferred troops make sense.

But thinking of a team game, forcing the player to deploy on a region that he own, it is making an extra punishment for the miss turn, and that's a rule that doesn't exist in the first place : never are you forced to deploy on a specific color.
And, it could make your troops completely useless in many cases, extra punishment again.

Had this suggestion been the rule in place since I start playing maybe I'll be thinking the other way around.
But, as it is now, I am satisfied with the current situation, and I'd still avoid any miss turn in any clan game if I can.
I believe it's the same for 99.99% for the players, if not 100%, therefore I don't think we need this.

Donelladan wrote:I think both understanding of the deferred troops make sense.

no i'm not

Donelladan wrote:But thinking of a team game, forcing the player to deploy on a region that he own, it is making an extra punishment for the miss turn, and that's a rule that doesn't exist in the first place : never are you forced to deploy on a specific color.

good point

Donelladan wrote:Had this suggestion been the rule in place since I start playing maybe I'll be thinking the other way around..

that's why i think it's a good suggestion. because i think it serves the intended purpose better.

i understand where you're coming from tho.

Not adding fuel to any fire here, but just posting this long but forgotten thread where intentionally missing turns to win games/missing turns to gain a tactical advantage is against the rules.

Citation.

I would agree with Don that this is an extremely rare occurrence, but also with the counter of "who really should get deferred troops" as valid, since in the above citation there was a rule change based on this case (from highest troop individual in the game to a team troop versos other teams).