"Abandoned" mode

[degaston]

Concise description:
Instead of kicking deadbeats out of a game, put them into "abandoned" mode, where their turns are skipped immediately, but they have the option to return to the game as long as they still have troops on the board.

Specifics/Details:
After missing three consecutive turns, a player is automatically put into "abandoned" mode instead of being kicked out of the game. They will receive an email notification that they have abandoned the game, but will not receive any subsequent "your move" emails.

While in Abandoned mode:

• The player's turns are skipped immediately instead of waiting 24 hours.
• The player retains their troops and cards, but cannot accumulate more than the double set of deferred troops for missing two turns.
• The player's name will not be crossed out of the player list, but their move icon will be changed to a black 'X'.
• The player's "action" panel will indicate that they have abandoned the game, and will have a button to allow them to re-join it.

If the player chooses to re-join the game:

• All other players, including other abandoned players, will be notified that the player is rejoining.
• The players move icon will be changed to a blue diamond.
• The move order of the game will not change.
• The player will not get to move until after all other players have had at least one chance to move since the player chose to re-join.
• After everyone has had a chance to move, the returning player will get their move, and play will resume as usual.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This would solve the unfair situation that can occur in team games where one player deadbeats, and his partner gains a bonus or other advantage because the deadbeat's troops become his.
• If all players abandon a game, then the game should be ended with no points won or lost. This would allow a simple resolution to games that have become "stuck" with enormous stacks, though to avoid cheating, it would probably be better to have an option that allows players to end a game only if all players agree to it.
• If a button was added to allow players to enter abandoned mode immediately, it could allow people to "surrender" a game without wasting the winner's time, and without causing an unnecessary hit on the loser's "% of turns taken" stat. It would be better than a "Quit" button, because people could not use it to deny someone from defeating them and getting their cards.

[mrswdk]

ITT: euphemism for 'quit button'

[degaston]

Yes, I initially presented this idea in a 'quit button' thread, but it still has a purpose whether or not the quit button is ever reinstated.

For team games, it would remove the problem of deadbeating being a benefit to the deadbeat's team.
For multiplayer games, it would give people who had some unexpected problem that prevented them from moving for three turns a way to re-enter a game instead of being kicked out permanently.

And it removes one objection to the quit button by preventing it from being used to stop an opponent from gaining your cards after eliminating you.

[Dukasaur]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

[Metsfanmax]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

I'm fine with this idea, but I'd rather just have an actual vacation mode. This is intended to be a causal gaming site. If someone needs to take a break, they should be able to without having to rely on sitters.

[degaston]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

I'm fine with this idea, but I'd rather just have an actual vacation mode. This is intended to be a causal gaming site. If someone needs to take a break, they should be able to without having to rely on sitters.

What would an "actual vacation mode" do?

[Metsfanmax]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

I'm fine with this idea, but I'd rather just have an actual vacation mode. This is intended to be a causal gaming site. If someone needs to take a break, they should be able to without having to rely on sitters.

What would an "actual vacation mode" do?

It would pause the game until you got back.

[degaston]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

I'm fine with this idea, but I'd rather just have an actual vacation mode. This is intended to be a causal gaming site. If someone needs to take a break, they should be able to without having to rely on sitters.

What would an "actual vacation mode" do?

It would pause the game until you got back.

I don't think I would like it if a player could just force everyone to pause a game (for how long? Indefinitely?) These things take long enough as it is.

[Metsfanmax]

A good idea.

This could also be called "Long-term vacation mode."

I'm fine with this idea, but I'd rather just have an actual vacation mode. This is intended to be a causal gaming site. If someone needs to take a break, they should be able to without having to rely on sitters.

What would an "actual vacation mode" do?

It would pause the game until you got back.

I don't think I would like it if a player could just force everyone to pause a game (for how long? Indefinitely?) These things take long enough as it is.

All the more reason to become premium If you can play as many games as you want, it doesn't really matter if some of them are very slow, you can just add more to keep you occupied.

(There would be some limits on vacation time, of course. Don't necessarily want to derail this thread, there are other threads that have brought up the vacation idea before.)

[nietzsche]

sorry but i don't see enough benefits to make coding this worthwhile. we've seen that things quick and easy to code don't get implemented, so i really doubt that this suggestion, that would take some time coding and testing, is implemented.

and there will be a lot of people upset about having to wait 3 days for a deadbeat to stop delaying the game, only to come back again?

to be honest, if you were not cyan, Mets would be coming up with 100 ways this idea is bad.

sorry degaston. REJECTED


Lock it and Archive it.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

All the more reason to become premium If you can play as many games as you want, it doesn't really matter if some of them are very slow, you can just add more to keep you occupied.

So with this in mind, what is wrong with the current resign option in trench games? Just deadbeat and play other games.

[Metsfanmax]

All the more reason to become premium If you can play as many games as you want, it doesn't really matter if some of them are very slow, you can just add more to keep you occupied.

So with this in mind, what is wrong with the current resign option in trench games? Just deadbeat and play other games.

Well for one thing, it's considered against the rules to intentionally deadbeat. For another, it impacts your attendance ratio in your profile, which may adversely impact you if you want to join a clan (for example).

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

All the more reason to become premium If you can play as many games as you want, it doesn't really matter if some of them are very slow, you can just add more to keep you occupied.

So with this in mind, what is wrong with the current resign option in trench games? Just deadbeat and play other games.

Well for one thing, it's considered against the rules to intentionally deadbeat. For another, it impacts your attendance ratio in your profile, which may adversely impact you if you want to join a clan (for example).

It is impossible to join a clan these days. The cliques are formed and cannot be broken.

Deadbeating trench games is not punished.

[riskllama]

[quote="WingCmdr Ginkapo]

It is impossible to join a clan these days. The cliques are formed and cannot be broken.[/quote]
...no. ime, people get passed over for 1) sucking the goat sack @ team games 2) being a complete ass & 3) not being premium. that's pretty much the only reasons, right there.

[Dukasaur]

All the more reason to become premium If you can play as many games as you want, it doesn't really matter if some of them are very slow, you can just add more to keep you occupied.

So with this in mind, what is wrong with the current resign option in trench games? Just deadbeat and play other games.

Well for one thing, it's considered against the rules to intentionally deadbeat. For another, it impacts your attendance ratio in your profile, which may adversely impact you if you want to join a clan (for example).

It is impossible to join a clan these days. The cliques are formed and cannot be broken.

Getting a little off-topic, but that's absolute bullshit.

I see all kinds of clans actively recruiting. My clan has had a turnover of probably 30% in the last 6 months.

[Donelladan]

[*]This would solve the unfair situation that can occur in team games where one player deadbeats, and his partner gains a bonus or other advantage because the deadbeat's troops become his.

Well, it didn't occur to me it was an unfair situation !
If you are able to win the game having a deadbeat in your team it means either that
1) you had a very good position before your partner deadbeat, and you deserve to win anyway
2) your opponents are very bad, and you deserve to win anyway
3) your dice have been extremely good while your partner was deadbeating, you may not deserve to win anyway, but you would have won the game anyway

I am obviously mainly considering 2 teams games, not multiplayers games. I can see it being an advantage in an escalating multiplayers games, if you suddenly have 9 cards or so, then yes it can give you the game, but that's more or less the only reason.

Because let's face it, in a 2 teams games ( 2vs2 / 3vs3 / 4vs4), one player deadbeating, one a normal map, it means that for 3 turns your opponent deploy 3 more than you.
It's worse if there is cards because it means you also missed 3 cards, so the extra cash you get if your partner had card before deadbeating, you should had it earlier in the game anyway.

3 turns playing 2vs1, 3vs2, or 4vs3, is a huge advantage for the other teams.
Having the troops and cards of the deadbeating player given back to their partner isn't even fair for the team with the deadbeat in it.

Therefore I really dislike your idea for team games.

If all players abandon a game, then the game should be ended with no points won or lost. This would allow a simple resolution to games that have become "stuck" with enormous stacks, though to avoid cheating, it would probably be better to have an option that allows players to end a game only if all players agree to it.

How would you have all players abandoning a game?
Let's say we are 3 players, the 2 first abandon, the last player automatically win isn't it ?
Considering last sentence, then yes, all agree, and only afterwards the game is over. But this is actually kind of a different idea.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I think it's a really good idea, isn't this sort of implemented already for something? I could have sworn I remembered playing or watching a game where someone deadbeat, and they stayed yellow and people can get their cards... Unless I am thinking of people rushing for the kill because someone is about to miss their 3 turns... I don't remember fully, but it's probably not what I'm thinking. Forget it, move on xD

Anywayyyy

Ya I like this idea, it seems like it would do wonders for standard games. You can still go after the cards and stuff on the player that deadbeat. Now here is the thing though, and I guess it would need to be resolved by the players in the game. What happens when you get that stacking game between 3-4-5-6 people, the stacks start rising to the hundreds, and one player deadbeats out. Who is going to attack a couple hundred neutrals?? Well when the remaining players begin to attack each other at whatever point, the deadbeat can rejoin. But then I guess it will be hard for them to know when players are attacking each other, and they get the 1 turn buffer... Ok never mind ignore that, worked it out in my head
Up there was for standard games, how about team?? When you put yourself in a team game, and your team mate deadbeats, it would suck not getting their cards and territories anymore. SO INSTEAD now we have this mode call poly, so why don't we allow a player from the team (whoever goes next on the same team of the deadbeat, lets say) take over that player, but in the way a poly game works, not that the deadbeat changes colors and gives cards. Not sure if it is possible to code at all because I know zilch on that, but thats my 2 cents

[Donelladan]

I think it's a really good idea, isn't this sort of implemented already for something? I could have sworn I remembered playing or watching a game where someone deadbeat, and they stayed yellow and people can get their cards... Unless I am thinking of people rushing for the kill because someone is about to miss their 3 turns... I don't remember fully, but it's probably not what I'm thinking. Forget it, move on xD

You are describing what happens in terminator mode.
Unlike in this idea, when you deadbeat a terminator game, you cannot come back later. But, just like in this idea, when you deadbeat a terminator game, your troops do not revert to neutral, and you keep your cards, so that another player can kill you and get your points, since it's terminator.

Up there was for standard games, how about team?? When you put yourself in a team game, and your team mate deadbeats, it would suck not getting their cards and territories anymore. SO INSTEAD now we have this mode call poly, so why don't we allow a player from the team (whoever goes next on the same team of the deadbeat, lets say) take over that player, but in the way a poly game works, not that the deadbeat changes colors and gives cards. Not sure if it is possible to code at all because I know zilch on that, but thats my 2 cents

This is a different idea that deserve its own suggestion imo.
But I find it is an awesome idea and you should definitely make a suggestion for it !!
If you don't wish to, and allow me, I'll suggest it myself later.