I don't think your words are harsh doc.  I'm one of doc's team mates in the game in question, and am both shocked and dismayed that the individual deadbeated from the start and for the reasons he did.  I would expect something like that from a kdlover type of player, but now I have to worry about that from players I respect too?  :(

I have recommended a dead beat once.  It was in a scenario that doc outlined, one of the players on another team deadbeated, and their partner became too strong to stop because of it.  (We did do the deadbeat, figuring we had nothing to lose since we couldn't win any more as it was, but it was irrelevant, he was too far ahead already).  He claimed that his partner just disappeared and they didn't plan the deadbeating... now I'm forced to consider that was a lie, since it just so happens to be the same person in our game now who thought this was an acceptable tactic to try and gain an advantage simply because he didn't like his team's starting positions.  

IDK what else to say.  I've probably said enough already to convey my feelings about the matter... I know the player will read this.  Really sorry to see you of all people choose this path.

lol, oh so it's clems and my fault you're using this tactic now?  We only tried it when all hope to win was lost, since with your combined income and forces you were able to take control of the game.  It was the only thing that gave us any chance at all, and nothing like that would have ever been considered if it hadn't been done to us first and turn the game in your favor.  And it absolutely altered the outcome of that game, backstreet was no match for clem and would have fallen next, if you didn't suddenly have triple the income to build with on that front.  And btw, we got the idea to try it FROM YOU AND BACKSTREET since it gave you such a huge unfair advantage to turn the tide in a game it looked like you were going to lose.  We realized it was the only chance we had to level the playing field again.  Unfortunately we realized it about 4 or 5 turns too late, after trying to win legitimately to no avail, so it didn't matter.

The thought of deadbeating from the start as a tactical strategy because you don't like the looks of the layout, to try and give a team mate double income and forces from turn 2 on, is a far cry from what clem and I did as a last ditch effort to salvage a game from a position we never should have been put into in the first place, by employing the same tactic already used against us (even if it was by chance and not planned). 

"If I knew it would piss doc off so much I wouldn't have done it"  That's nice that you respect doc that much.  I guess I don't count, but why should I anyway, I'm the genesis of the tactic for you right?  

wow. :(  

I just read your in game chat barka.  It is unbelievable to me that you would blame clem and I for your actions saying we introduced this disgusting tactic to you in that former game (like doc, I feel this is akin to cheating, it gives your team a big advantage that's unwarranted).

Backstreet deadbeated to YOU first in that game.   Honestly, we thought you did it on purpose.   Why?  A couple reasons:

-it was right around the time the effects of deadbeating had been discovered and actively discussed in the forums

-Backstreet was sure to be eliminated in the next 7-10 turns max, as he had fewer units than Clem and half of his income.  Clem just had to get through the buffer territories the rest of the way to his capital.  

After he deadbeated, you were able to turn the tide on clem by dumping all that extra income out at backstreets capital while I was engaged with the remaining player from team C.  You said it wasn't planned, and we took you at your word, an infrequent player who's going to inevidably lose deciding to just not show up for a couple days and quit the game isn't unheard of.  But we definitely thought at the time it happened that the timing was pretty convenient.

And we went on to try and win the game legitimately.  It was only after you had overpowered clem and taken control of the sea zones from me, that we decided we had no choice but to try and level the playing field and combine our remaining income.  If we did it immediately we may have won the game, the fact that we waited so long cost it for us.  But to be honest it didn't even cross our minds until all hope seemed lost, and we were grasping at straws.  And YOU DID IT FIRST.  Maybe this didn't have any impact on you mentally as it was an honest no-show by backstreet, but we felt cheated.  Our action in that game was solely a reaction to what was already done to us, and as a last ditch effort at that.  It was no different in my mind than if someone "accidently" violated a truce with me, and then I attacked them in response.

To say that what you did here was the same thing clem and I did in that former game is absolutely unbelievable.  

Just so it's clear, I share doc's feelings on the matter 110%:  "There's no reason to sink to actions that are unsportsmanlike at best and cheating at worst simply to maintain your rank on the leaderboard."  I have never used this tactic as an opening line to a game (although I did play one where it was probably my team's only chance due to a crappy lay out, but we did not entertain the idea).  I have never considered this tactic when losing a team game.  The only time I have ever used it was that once, and ONLY after 1) it was done to me first in the game and 2) it seemed the only way to have any chance at all of recovery.  The only time I will ever entertain the idea is when it is done to me/my team first, as a means to balance the power (because it DOES create an imbalance that shouldn't exist).  That I do feel is ok, just like when someone breaks a treaty and attacks me, I feel it's ok to go ahead and attack them from there on out.  

Wow, I can now see why deadbeating is rising in the forum statistics.

For the avoidance of doubt, what you did Barka was so wrong that I'd give you a temporary ban if I could.  Then again, I'd have given a (much smaller) temp ban for Doc's non-reactive deadbeat (and that'd open up the possibility of mods pre-emptively banning each other :) ).  The only exception that I'd make is where it's a proportional response to a deadbeat on the other team (and that first deadbeater would get a temp ban).

If common sense doesn't lead you to the same conclusion, I refer you to the Terms:

"9. CONDUCT: Inappropriate conduct, including, without limitation, cheating"

However you dress it up, both the Barka pre-emptive deadbeat and the less significant Doc I'm-nearly-dead-so-why-not-try-it deadbeat are examples of one team deliberately exploiting a poorly functioning band-aid feature in order to gain advantage.  That, people, is cheating.

BTW, I'm not trying to demonise you Barka.  We've all made questionable decisions (and you may have read how closely I've skirted the line on NAPs/alliances :) ) and it's what happens after a new thing is first tried that matters.

out of most recent 3 out of 3 games that i played someone deadbeated. 2 out of 3 games, someone deadbeated from the start. it looks like my team is going to loose at least 1 game because the other team deadbeated. 

broomley, why don't we simply solve deadbeating by preventing this from occuring in the first place? here is a suggestion: if a player misses 2 turns his game goes on autoplay.  no need to ban anyone, no need to get angry at anyone (and I am really pissed off about those 2 games).

>why don't we simply solve deadbeating by preventing this from occuring in the first place? here is a suggestion: if a player misses 2 turns his
game goes on autoplay.

Unfortunately, my limited experience of autoplay leads me to think that it doesn't work very well/at all.

Ignoring that though, autoplay at it's best is going to be no better than the AI.  The AI is hopeless.  Even if it wasn't, a large part of a team's success is it's ability to communicate it's current moves (or, shock, even it's future moves :) ).

Currently, AFAIK, the vast majority of deadbeating is the standard inactive type, rather than deliberate.  So it'd be massively unfair to penalise the active teammember by switching on autoplay.  Especially as, by the time the Admins have coded that change, they could have coded the change that would fix it all (i.e. transfer the territories to the surviving player, but as a distinct entity).  Or, at least, fixed it as well as it can ever be and almost entirely removed the incentive to deliberately deadbeat.

Autoplay/AI is really bad.  I'm in a game with a guy who said "sorry guys I don't have time, going on auto play" (not a team game), I don't know what setting he used but it's ridiculous, his ships out in the middle of nowhere (Hex map) seem to alternate between sailing aimlessly and sitting still, and his ships by his capital execute exciting training maneuvers like load 2I, sail south 1 spot, sail back north to the original spot, unload 2I.  Apparently they're really not getting it, since they do that particular training maneuver over and over again lol.

The best solution I've heard, don't remember who first said it but it's been mentioned multiple times, is to have the team mate of the deadbeat take over for them BUT keep all units, territories, and monies seperate... the player would input their own turn, then once submitted, would then be prompted to start the deadbeating player's turn.  This is ideal, it's essentially the same as if one player gave recommendations for each turn that the other followed without alteration.  And it also has the advantage that in cases where the deadbeating was due to unforseen circumstances, and the player is able to return to the game several days later, they could be allowed to re-take control of their stuff simply by logging back into the game (if that was a desired option).

Maybe in a team game there should be a button that allows the opposition of a deadbeat to "turn over the reigns" to a teamate... and match the income inequity on the very same turn.

But I'd rather see some form of deterrent applied to deadbeats to stop the use of this tactic to gain advantage. 

An option that allows teams to deploy on each others territories would remove the income advantage of deadbeating. But this option would alter gameplay entirely... and I do like the "team" format that already exists where players have to coordinate their actions.

"Have a deadbeat page that lists games where a player has deadbeated. Players can then select that game to add it to their My Games and take
over the deadbeat. "

This sounds worth testing out. I don't think the rank thing is very important and isn't something I'd worry about much. I've found a game sitter to be much better than using the auto-play feature when you're gone for a day or so.

A suggestion from the New Features Forum: "the deadbeater should be the only one losing points in the game." This sounds like an excellent deterrent for deadbeats and might be exclusively implimented in team games. I still believe deatbeats in tourney 2v2 games should result in forfeiting the win.

oVo:  When I set up the 2v2 Indian Ocean tournament, I explicitly stated that if a player deadbeats, their team automatically loses that game.  We've already had a few games decided by deadbeats.

I have deadbeated twice. One time was because I went on a week-long vacation to Zion's National Park (a game I was in with bromley in mid June). In that particular game (A+A I was UK) we had all ready cut germany to five countries and it was coming to a close (In our favor). I would have preferred to give control to bromley or the other guy (don't remember who it was) but bromley and myself figured the effects were minimal due to the circumstances and that I truly believed I'd be able to finish one more game before this vacation.

The other time was in a more recent game where the deadbeating of a team mate gave one team all control of Asia and a decent amount of africa. My team mate only owned the bottom half of africa and arabia. I only owned 5 countries in the chinese area and japan. After four turns of futuility I was reduced to my capital and japan. I figured it better to deadbeat and give Japan to my team mate than to invest in one Infantry per turn into my dying capital. This backfired however since by the second turn when my territories would have gone to my team mate, instead they were grayed out as I was eliminated (ironically I've seen it happen the other way for an opposing team).

Here is what I would do because I am strongly of a few oppinions:

1) the auto-play sucks and is unfair to the team who has a valid reason for one person leaving (as mentioned in the first game).

2)  It is unfair to teams who have a game stagnated by team mates missing turn.

3) The resource distribution of deadbeating is unacceptable, especially for a ranked game.

4) People are here to play real meaningful games, not spend time dealing with deadbeats or technicalities.

From a ranked standpoint:

There are too many variables involved in the consequences of deadbeating to come up with a fair system of ranking distribution. If the resource distribution isn't resolved then no losses in rank should be incurred by the losing team. Instead ALL losses get shuffled to the deadbeat and the losing members remain at a safety net of zero loss in rank.

From a programmer's standpoint:

As a programmer I can imagine a very easy fix for not only dead beating but missing a turn at all. If a game gets down to three hours remaining then in the "My Games" page of both team mates show the game as "Your turn" (the same game) and allow them to move for their team mate). If the team mate has to have that happen for two turns then he is removed all together. Now when any team mate (in case of 3v3 or Allies) logs into the game they see two seperate purchasing panels. One for themselves and one for the deadbeat player. They can move both sets of troops but only place troops with their respective factories.

In the event a team mate doesn't want to move for their team mate (say if they want a more skilled ally to take it over) then they click a check box at the top of that purchasing panel for the dead beat player that undos any turns they may have made for their team mate and grays out the units. Once a team mate has moved for the dead beat than this box is removed from any other team mate's view since the move has all ready been made. If a move is not made for the deadbeat by the end of the turn then it's their loss and they have only themselves to blame. The units remain motionless and any income from that turn is lost to them.

Furthermore give users the option (instead of auto-play) to give control of their moves to a certain player (only in a team game). If this is accomplished then a different ranking system needs to be adopted.

Ranking:

Dead beat gains nothing if his team wins but loses rank if his team loses just like he otherwise would.

Remaining players only gain rank as they would otherwise. The points that would go to the dead beat vanish into thin air.

I have introduced four friends in my community to this game. All of them have quit because of this resource distribution problem. If it is not resolved quickly I fear it may be the end of this site.

ok dogboy fair enough if it wasnt intentional.lookd mighty suspicious though.

Deadbeat/deadbeating is missing all your turns...  in team games the deadbeat is kicked from the game and the teamate is awarded all their territories and income. This alters the dynamics of play substantually and is sometimes used as a strategic tactic.

Man I wish I could help with the code XD. I'd do it right now :P (if it's a language I'm not familiar with I'd get familiar with it XD).

@ bromley yes there are the two types of deadbeats but I do wish to stress that both cause problems. One might be unintentionally harming the game, but it is still harmed. This is what has caused my friends to quit as mentioned. It wasn't an intentional deadbeat issue by the time they quit.

And in the meantime?

>And in the meantime?

Only joining team games advertised in the Player Gathering forum seems to fix the problem of newbie deadbeats.