Moderator: Community Team
69er wrote:Please put an end to this rediculous reward. If a player signs up to play a casual game, and can't take his/her turn within 24 hours they should not be rewarded deferred troops. This has now become a strategy for some players! It needs to stop!


Robinette wrote:Depends on what metric you use...Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
The coolest is squishyg
maybe this would do better in the suggestions forum...-the black jesus69er wrote:Please put an end to this rediculous reward. If a player signs up to play a casual game, and can't take his/her turn within 24 hours they should not be rewarded deferred troops. This has now become a strategy for some players! It needs to stop!

If players are using this as a "strategy", they are fools. It is a failed strategy which simply will lose far more often than it wins. You simply need to take advantage of their absence, so that it is even more of a disadvantage.69er wrote:Please put an end to this rediculous reward. If a player signs up to play a casual game, and can't take his/her turn within 24 hours they should not be rewarded deferred troops. This has now become a strategy for some players! It needs to stop!
Sorry to say, this has been suggested numerous times. It is not going to go away anytime soon.69er wrote:Please put an end to this rediculous reward. If a player signs up to play a casual game, and can't take his/her turn within 24 hours they should not be rewarded deferred troops. This has now become a strategy for some players! It needs to stop!
What if it is a quads game on a small map with no spoils? Every player gets 3 armies per turn. If landlocked behind your own teammates, you could miss your turns and wait to drop 9 armies on one of your teammates on the front lines after you missed two turns. Could be beneficial. I'm just saying.macbone wrote:Missing a turn is punitive enough. I love it when opponents miss turns, especially in team games. Missing a turn disadvantages them further. True, armies off the board can't be attacked, but they can't be used on the attack that turn, either, make a player lose a tempo.
Missing a turn in Escalating can be harmful, especially since it means losing a chance to take a card. If players are missing turns because they think doing so will help them win the game, then by all means, please keep the policy as it is. =)
Yeah, what happens with any map that uses Auto Deploy? Feudal War/Epic, Lunar, AoR1/2/3, The Cupcake on Conquerman, Das Schloss. I could go on. You are already put at a disadvantage because you don't get Auto deploy troops as deferred, they are gone.Queen_Herpes wrote:What if it is a quads game on a small map with no spoils? Every player gets 3 armies per turn. If landlocked behind your own teammates, you could miss your turns and wait to drop 9 armies on one of your teammates on the front lines after you missed two turns. Could be beneficial. I'm just saying.macbone wrote:Missing a turn is punitive enough. I love it when opponents miss turns, especially in team games. Missing a turn disadvantages them further. True, armies off the board can't be attacked, but they can't be used on the attack that turn, either, make a player lose a tempo.
Missing a turn in Escalating can be harmful, especially since it means losing a chance to take a card. If players are missing turns because they think doing so will help them win the game, then by all means, please keep the policy as it is. =)
...and your point is? The are certainly situations where missing turns is not beneficial, but those that exist do not counter the reality that there exist settings and maps where there is a benefit to missing the turns.TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, what happens with any map that uses Auto Deploy? Feudal War/Epic, Lunar, AoR1/2/3, The Cupcake on Conquerman, Das Schloss. I could go on. You are already put at a disadvantage because you don't get Auto deploy troops as deferred, they are gone.Queen_Herpes wrote:What if it is a quads game on a small map with no spoils? Every player gets 3 armies per turn. If landlocked behind your own teammates, you could miss your turns and wait to drop 9 armies on one of your teammates on the front lines after you missed two turns. Could be beneficial. I'm just saying.macbone wrote:Missing a turn is punitive enough. I love it when opponents miss turns, especially in team games. Missing a turn disadvantages them further. True, armies off the board can't be attacked, but they can't be used on the attack that turn, either, make a player lose a tempo.
Missing a turn in Escalating can be harmful, especially since it means losing a chance to take a card. If players are missing turns because they think doing so will help them win the game, then by all means, please keep the policy as it is. =)
Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.TFO wrote:Can also combat missing turns by just deploying and ending their turn. Nothing really different.
Since you are such a big proponent of this, could you provide 5 concrete situations where missing a turn gives an advantage.Queen_Herpes wrote: Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.
How so? You and your teammates all deploy on the frontline for 2 turns, he misses two then deploys the deferred on their front line.Queen_Herpes wrote:Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.TFO wrote:Can also combat missing turns by just deploying and ending their turn. Nothing really different.
I only need to supply one. I'll do my best to come up with more, but you, DB, and you, TFO, seem to be asking me to describe the blackness of the iron pot.Darwins_Bane wrote:Since you are such a big proponent of this, could you provide 5 concrete situations where missing a turn gives an advantage.Queen_Herpes wrote: Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.
Wait, wait, wait...you're decrying his use of "certain situations" when his response was directly to your own use of "certain situations"?Queen_Herpes wrote:...and your point is? The are certainly situations where missing turns is not beneficial, but those that exist do not counter the reality that there exist settings and maps where there is a benefit to missing the turns.TheForgivenOne wrote:Yeah, what happens with any map that uses Auto Deploy? Feudal War/Epic, Lunar, AoR1/2/3, The Cupcake on Conquerman, Das Schloss. I could go on. You are already put at a disadvantage because you don't get Auto deploy troops as deferred, they are gone.Queen_Herpes wrote:What if it is a quads game on a small map with no spoils? Every player gets 3 armies per turn. If landlocked behind your own teammates, you could miss your turns and wait to drop 9 armies on one of your teammates on the front lines after you missed two turns. Could be beneficial. I'm just saying.macbone wrote:Missing a turn is punitive enough. I love it when opponents miss turns, especially in team games. Missing a turn disadvantages them further. True, armies off the board can't be attacked, but they can't be used on the attack that turn, either, make a player lose a tempo.
Missing a turn in Escalating can be harmful, especially since it means losing a chance to take a card. If players are missing turns because they think doing so will help them win the game, then by all means, please keep the policy as it is. =)
There are some very few circumstances when it can possibly be a winning strategy. They are very few.Queen_Herpes wrote:Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.TFO wrote:Can also combat missing turns by just deploying and ending their turn. Nothing really different.

i play on another Risk-like gaming site and they also give you deferred troops so for me allowing deferred troops IS consistent with EVERY OTHER GAME site that i knowstahrgazer wrote:Eliminating deferred troops just makes it fair for the players who had to wait the additional portion of the round for a player who didn't play... and would be consistent with ANY OTHER GAME where, if you skip, you do NOT get the benefit of receiving any portion of what you would have received if you had not skipped.
Queen_Herpes wrote:
...and your point is? The are certainly situations where missing turns is not beneficial, but those that exist do not counter the reality that there exist settings and maps where there is a benefit to missing the turns.
I believe that anyone who gives out their password to another individual is a flaming idiot who is just an accident waiting to happen. Your stance would virtually REQUIRE me to give someone my password. Bad plan.stahrgazer wrote:CC says you should take your turns (no deadbeat rule.)
CC allows players to designate substitutes (and does not prevent anyone from having a regular sub who checks any games just in case.)
Eliminating deferred troops just makes it fair for the players who had to wait the additional portion of the round for a player who didn't play... and would be consistent with ANY OTHER GAME where, if you skip, you do NOT get the benefit of receiving any portion of what you would have received if you had not skipped.
Would it suck to have an emergency that caused you to miss your turn? Yes. But since CC allows ways around totally missing a turn, CC's rules should not be designed to benefit you for missing your turn despite those methods that can prevent it.
In other words: I support the OP's request to eliminate all deferred troops, whether the miss was intentional or not.
Once in a blue moon the red-red-red set is beneficial in a flat rate game, yet it is recognized as a benefit: BECAUSE IT IS.TheForgivenOne wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:
...and your point is? The are certainly situations where missing turns is not beneficial, but those that exist do not counter the reality that there exist settings and maps where there is a benefit to missing the turns.
So what? You're allowed to come up with a "once in a blue moon" situation, but I'm not? Just because 0.01% of the time when a player misses his turn, they may come out in the positive, does not mean that we should Overhaul the whole deferred troops to negate the 99.9% of the time it doesn't. And what incentive is it for a player to come back if they miss their turn and have no troops to make up for it? I would probably deadbeat out of the game if something like that were to happen, and once Newer players realized this, they probably wouldn't come back either.
Every escalating game ever created really doesn't equate to "once in a blue moon".Queen_Herpes wrote:Once in a blue moon the red-red-red set is beneficial in a flat rate game, yet it is recognized as a benefit: BECAUSE IT IS.TheForgivenOne wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:
...and your point is? The are certainly situations where missing turns is not beneficial, but those that exist do not counter the reality that there exist settings and maps where there is a benefit to missing the turns.
So what? You're allowed to come up with a "once in a blue moon" situation, but I'm not? Just because 0.01% of the time when a player misses his turn, they may come out in the positive, does not mean that we should Overhaul the whole deferred troops to negate the 99.9% of the time it doesn't. And what incentive is it for a player to come back if they miss their turn and have no troops to make up for it? I would probably deadbeat out of the game if something like that were to happen, and once Newer players realized this, they probably wouldn't come back either.