Card dodging using time out in escalating games fix

[Zorg_rsk]

Concise description:

• During an escalating game cards should be awarded to players (if they successfully attacked somewhere) if they time out.

Specifics:

• Currently if a player starts their turn but runs out of time to complete it, they will not receive any cards. In an escalating game it is often advantageous to not receive cards for a turn so you can cash in after everyone else. The balance to waiting before getting cards is that you can't attack anywhere and thus can't expand. However using the time out rule people can attack places and then wait for a time out when they will receive no cards. This is a loophole in the rules which is unbalanced and can cause slower game time. A quick fix to this problem is to award cards to players in escalating games whether they time out or not.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Fairness of Gameplay
• Quicker Game Times

[Kirzan]

This would also allow those players who wait till the end of the turn to play but lag or don't play fast enough to get a card and thus maintain advantages. forcing cards is a bad idea!

[Timminz]

I don't like this suggestion. I play a lot of escalating games, and I have never seen someone time-out on purpose. Whenever I've seen someone time-out, it's been because they took too long planning/carrying out their attacks. If you can't finish your turn within the required time, you are punished by not getting a card. I like it this way.

[AndyDufresne]

The idea of no card unless you end your turn is there to actually make sure that people click "end turn" ...as the large majority of players will want to receive their card. If it was possible to still receive a card and simply leave your turn in progress until time out, more players may just unnecessarily delay the game.


--Andy

[Zorg_rsk]

Yes, I realize the reason it is in place, however in escalating games it is often BAD to get a card. Therefore in certain situations a player is being rewarded for not finishing their turn.

[AndyDufresne]

Unfortunately at this moment it is a "one or the other" option (perhaps in the future we'll figure something out for game specific types).


--Andy

[BaldAdonis]

however in escalating games it is often BAD to get a card. Therefore in certain situations a player is being rewarded for not finishing their turn.

Although more often it's good, so which way do you think this idea will be used?

[Zorg_rsk]

Ideally I'd have it that under escalating games (only), you get cards at the end of your turn regardless of whether you press "end turn" or time out. This would prevent this loophole being exploited and gives no real strategical advantage because the player had to attack to get the cards anyway.

[Teylen]

Why attack at all, if you don't want a card?

What I've seen far more often in escalating speed games was, that players with 5 cards were waiting for each other to cash their cards, so that they all (the guys with 5 cards) made their move in the last 20 seconds of the round or time out while trying. Some even timing out on purpose then, to carry the 5 cards over to the next round with possibly a higher reward for them... (then I took this tactic one step further and declined to start my turn at all when the others insisted on playing the waiting-to-the-last-second-game).

Point is: Someone will always use or find a tactic which other will consider unfair.

Second point is: I've actually never seen someone attacking and then time out on purpose... oh wait... once ... but that was only from a nearly dead player trying to deny someone who sweeped the board (me.. lol) an additional card. Otherwise I imagine it might be a tactic only usefull once every 500 games... or is anyone continously using it (and actually winning a lot), that a rule-change is that much needed?

[Timminz]

Ideally I'd have it that under escalating games (only), you get cards at the end of your turn regardless of whether you press "end turn" or time out. This would prevent this loophole being exploited and gives no real strategical advantage because the player had to attack to get the cards anyway.

I think this suggestion is especially ridiculous for escalating games. 99% of the time (estimated), a card is more important than taking a territory. I wish we could do the opposite. Being able to take a card without having to attack anyone would be awesome.

Regardless of the game type, more often than not, losing out on a card is a punishment, not an advantage. If someone doesn't want a card, they can easily not attack.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes, I realize the reason it is in place, however in escalating games it is often BAD to get a card. Therefore in certain situations a player is being rewarded for not finishing their turn.

No it is not. Very VERY rarily. At most you will want to skip a single card - ever in a game. If you did want to get a card, it would be more beneficial to not attack at all and save your armies that turn. You should be happy if people are stupid enough to attack and not get a card, what a waste.