[Rules] Replacement Player for Deadbeats

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:07 am

would it be possible to add a catagory of games that need a replacement player to get them started again?
You know, like a subcatagory of games you can join. If it's like a hopeless position you might have a rule where you don't lose points...

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:55 am

just shamelessly bumping this up, in case anyone missed it, but really wants to read it actually

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:27 am

So if a deadbeat gets kicked, the game won't end?

I like that idea. I second the motion to add the ability to get replacement players into empty spots in games.

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:38 am

I don't get it really. If it's before a person misses three rounds, you can't be sure they'll deadbeat so you can't kick them out (unless that's what you're proposing... then this is the same thing as reducing the deadbeat limit?) And if it's after three rounds the game is moving again anyway, so why add a player?

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:39 am

I'd rather the deadbeat's armies and cards go to me. Always. Even if I'm not in the game.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:40 am

ZawBanjito wrote:I don't get it really. If it's before a person misses three rounds, you can't be sure they'll deadbeat so you can't kick them out (unless that's what you're proposing... then this is the same thing as reducing the deadbeat limit?) And if it's after three rounds the game is moving again anyway, so why add a player?

Because adding a player into the open spot is a lot easier than fairly distributing the remaining armies to the remaining players.

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:42 am

it would mean that if you had a reason for dropping out (like going away, or whatever) you could call on a replacement instead of upsetting everyone...
Also it's not that balanced to have a load of neutral territories suddenly appear
hey, bumping works!

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:43 am

vtmarik wrote:Because adding a player into the open spot is a lot easier than fairly distributing the remaining armies to the remaining players.

When did that start happening? Did I miss something? Don't deadbeats still go to neutral?

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:44 am

vtmarik wrote:
Because adding a player into the open spot is a lot easier than fairly distributing the remaining armies to the remaining players.

When did that start happening? Did I miss something? Don't deadbeats still go to neutral?

that's what I thought...

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:46 am

fluffybunnykins wrote:it would mean that if you had a reason for dropping out (like going away, or whatever) you could call on a replacement instead of upsetting everyone...

Aah, well that makes more sense... I know a couple players who have gotten other players to move for them when they're too busy. Might work. I support the idea. I'm not sure how much demand there would be though.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:01 am

hey Zaw, you seem busy, just PM me your password and I'll take your turns for you ... then maybe you could win a game or two.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:03 am

If I read right, you are suggesting a player can take a deadbeat place?

Well, I never would take the place of a guy without cards, continents and with reduced armies. Would you do it?

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:19 am

where's your community spirit marv?
maybe you'd be immune from losing points in that game as a reward for rescuing it???

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:17 am

how about they go to nuetral but cards remain so if you take out the deadneat that has cards you at least get the cards

UTGreen · Post by **UTGreen** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:08 pm

Does anyone realize how well this would not work? I mean, it sounds nice and all, but it raises so many more problems and only solves one problem... continuity and turn speeds.

In this game there's a lot of waiting. That's why the forum is so active. If you don't like waiting to play, become a premium member. Hell, become a premium member anyway... this site is so worth $20/year.

Anyway, problems bringing in a sub raises:
Who gets/gives the points?
How are subs assigned? Would you be on a waiting list? Would there be another 24 hours of waiting after someone deadbeats to see if anyone's going to take over?
Who wants to take over for someone 3 turns behind? Chances are if they were doing well they'll keep playing, and otherwise they've deadbeated for a reason.

So what your asking for is for Lack to put in quite a few hours tweaking together rules & then coding for an idea that would probably rarely get used and confuse way more people than it would help.

If it ain't broke...

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:41 pm

no fair bringing logic to the table

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Fri May 19, 2006 4:24 am

it's ok, this is what the internet is for: thinking out loud; putting ideas out that are only half thought through!
I play Diplomacy online too, and you can often help peoples games by standing-in as a replacement. Just wondered if it would work for risk, I mean, er, conquer club... maybe it wouldn't!