Conquer Club

I have been on for about 8 or 9 years. AND, for all those years have had a false understanding of the missing turns that can just destroy a game. I was under the impression until today that if you miss 3 turns you were ejected (for lack of a better word). I found out in a game where someone has missed 6 turns that you are only removed from the game if they have 3 misses in a row. Are you kidding me!!! This just promotes someone that is losing to try and make the game unbearable for the others. Is this a fluke? Have they figured out a way to hack it? OR, are we just stuck with it? Any help would be appreciated!! Thank you

This has always been the case. With some extreme games running into the 1000's of turns, and going for multiple years, being booted on the third miss would be far too brutal. The ejection on third miss has always been intended to identify inactive players, not players who can't make it once in a while.

If someone is intentionally missing turns out of spite to make the game unbearable for others (think systematically missing 2 turns in a row, when taking turns in other games), that would probably be considered "gross abuse of the game" which isn't allowed according to the rules. If such behaviour is reported in the cheating and abuse forum, action is likely to be taken.

Life happens, just foe and move on.

I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

Geger wrote:I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

Idk that I would agree w this at all

Geger wrote:I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

I don't agree.

I don't miss very many turns, but deferred troops are a way to stay in the game in case something came up in real life. It's rarely advantageous to get those troops. At the end of the day, you've missed a turn and lost ground. You might be able to win some back, but coming back from a missed turn with deferred troops is difficult, especially against a good player, or team. They're going to plan for those incoming extra troops.

Oh, and I've certainly come across a couple of people who, I felt, deliberately missed a turn. I've never seen a good player do it though, just bad players with sneaky tactics who think they can win that way. Never works.

Shannon Apple wrote:

Geger wrote:I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

I don't agree.

I don't miss very many turns, but deferred troops are a way to stay in the game in case something came up in real life. It's rarely advantageous to get those troops. At the end of the day, you've missed a turn and lost ground. You might be able to win some back, but coming back from a missed turn with deferred troops is difficult, especially against a good player, or team. They're going to plan for those incoming extra troops.

Oh, and I've certainly come across a couple of people who, I felt, deliberately missed a turn. I've never seen a good player do it though, just bad players with sneaky tactics who think they can win that way. Never works.

I did have a good player suggest it to me as an idea in a team game once! But we decided against it because we felt it was against the spirit of the game and rules, even though it would tangibly have been better for us.

That was a very very unique situation though. And honestly I think that there are very few players who could accurately recognise such a situation anyway. 95% of people who gave it a go would end up harming themselves.

Geger wrote:I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

The deferred was a solution to an older problem when players did miss turns intent and were able to deploy them the following turn en masse. I can't see how much of advantage you get for missing a turn or two, and deploy your troops afterwards, but I mostly just play classic/esc so can't really say.

If you have to nuke or zombie a teammates bonus and your deploy is low, missing is potentially an advantage. There are other situations where it might be, but that is the easiest one to think of.

rockfist wrote:If you have to nuke or zombie a teammates bonus and your deploy is low, missing is potentially an advantage. There are other situations where it might be, but that is the easiest one to think of.

Philadelphia too

.SCuD. wrote:

Shannon Apple wrote:

Geger wrote:I think we can agree the game is ruined by the deferred troops. There was a suggestion long time ago to remove these deferred troops but was rejected. I think cutting the deferred troops to half is a fair solution

I don't agree.

I don't miss very many turns, but deferred troops are a way to stay in the game in case something came up in real life. It's rarely advantageous to get those troops. At the end of the day, you've missed a turn and lost ground. You might be able to win some back, but coming back from a missed turn with deferred troops is difficult, especially against a good player, or team. They're going to plan for those incoming extra troops.

Oh, and I've certainly come across a couple of people who, I felt, deliberately missed a turn. I've never seen a good player do it though, just bad players with sneaky tactics who think they can win that way. Never works.

I did have a good player suggest it to me as an idea in a team game once! But we decided against it because we felt it was against the spirit of the game and rules, even though it would tangibly have been better for us.

That was a very very unique situation though. And honestly I think that there are very few players who could accurately recognise such a situation anyway. 95% of people who gave it a go would end up harming themselves.

Oh yes, I can absolutely see how missing could be advantageous in spoils games. Like, not wanting to take a spoil so they can keep a bonus (in nuke or zombie) or to defer being the first to cash (escalating).

Geger suggested that deferred troops have ruined the game, but I've yet to see someone pull off a big deferred troops comeback, especially in a no spoils game. They could get lucky, but 99% of the time, they'll have made themselves more screwed.

Deferred have a massive opportunity cost. At best you're getting what you would get anyway, but one turn later. In the meantime the other team can improve their position. I suppose there's some advantage to being able to load someone up and not having the opponents know where it is until a turn later, but I can't think of any instances where that would have been strictly better than just playing the turn.

niMic wrote:Deferred have a massive opportunity cost. At best you're getting what you would get anyway, but one turn later. In the meantime the other team can improve their position. I suppose there's some advantage to being able to load someone up and not having the opponents know where it is until a turn later, but I can't think of any instances where that would have been strictly better than just playing the turn.

Examples like Philadelphia have already been given, but there's also options with nuclear/zombie/escalating where you are forced to cash a set while you'd really prefer to cash in 1 turn later.

There are also massive arguments in freestyle. Sometimes it's better not to take a turn in order to keep the end of the round at the same time, than to take a turn early and risk losing control over when the round ends.

Freestyle is for psycopaths, so I'm not counting that. I see the arguments about nuclear and zombie, though I've never encountered a time when missing would be better. I can't remember a case for escalating either, to be honest.