Attendance score

they will try to take their turns more frequently and make up their attendance score. If they dont, we will wait less time for their turns. Setting attendance limits is also good idea. But biggest problem are people missing 2 turns in the end. I think admins should punish that people with 3 days bann from playing d12.

So, if they want to get the score up, and win a game here and there, have to think and execute their moves in 1/3 of the time? Nah, that's plain unfair. Better for them to create a new account.

I propose a modification to this idea, where they have reduced time to START their turn. That wouldn't affect the game, and would mean less wasted time overall, and an incentive to keep attendance high. Plus people with good attendance can potentially save their turns if there is a punctual disconnection or similar.

Well, from my point of view there is no simple way of doing this.
I see almost everyday how players which have already played a lot of games (+500, lets say) leave the site with the game open just to annoy the other player. There are also some of them who don't even bother in leave the site, even despite the fact that they can't play until they run out of time. When the player doing this is kind of new I actually dont get mad, I take it like an undesired effect of having no filter for playerswhen i create a game.

Also, I think if you punish too hard a newbie for doing this, they will just open another account, cause they haven't been using their current one for a long time. So I think the best way of addressing the issue would be to add a report option (someone said it before). An important thing, since this happens more often in 2P games, would be that this report wouldn't need to be seconded (I might be wrong here, just an idea). This way, when an admin has to review the game, if the player doing this is an experienced one, he can be punished. A suspension, maybe even getting their account terminated. Something serious. I think this would be the ideal way to do it, because in the system based on reputation score there is a hole: some players won't do that a lot, just from time to time, to pissed somebody off. They could be careful enough not to get their score below 80, but still be very annoying when they want.

This way would discourage, I think, the vast majority of players who do this knowingly, they wouldn't time out and miss turns instead of resigning if that will cost them the account.

If people think that the way to go is the attendance score's way, then all players should be able to choose a min. score when they create a game, but being unable to demand a maximum score higher that 95 or something, so honest players with bad connection wouldn't be unfairly punished. The other options would still be exclusive for premium players, but a minimum attendance score, I think, should be able for everyone, because it would be better all of us, premium included.

Reports can be seconded by an admin. And repeated offended lose their extra time abilities and can get banned for that (not really sure, but I think so).

You are correct.

Well, as I said, i didn't know exactly how reports work. Even better then, if there was an option for reporting people who leaves without resigning, deliberately miss turns, etc. and the "offenders" were punished, this whole problem might not be over, but for sure it would happen a lot less, since players who have been with their account for a while will not risk to lose it. That being said, if you think that is better to take another course of action (attendance score), giving all players the option of setting a minimum is the only idea, I think, that could work.

I didn't know where else to post this. Anyway I just had a thought that in very rare circumstances, there may actually be a tactical incentive to miss a turn if you are on 5 cards but don't wish to turn them in (maybe to get a higher turn-in value or because a larger army would be more helpful next turn).

I think to solve this, if you miss a turn when you are on 5 cards you should lose 3 cards as if you had turned them in, but miss out on the troop bonus.

Thoughts?

Sounds very harsh. You just can _NOT_ know whether someone misses their turn on purpose (tactics) or by accident.
I've encountered it myself that people have used it as a tactic - I frowned upon it... but that's it.... nothing I'll complain about really... - personally, I just wouldn't sacrifice the stats :p (but I fully understand some people care about the win much more than the (other) stats :p)

*furthermore.... losing 3c is actually a full on punishment, as it's likely someone would also get a new card -> losing 2 is more 'real' (if a punishment is meant, then it's fine - but i don't agree with the entire concept anyway, ghehe :p)

-Alex

I agree it might seem harsh, but honestly sticking to 5 cards for an extra turn can ruin games. It can present a very profitable kill (or indeed, kill chain) that shouldn't exist because the cards should be off the table. And when playing a real game of risk in person, it isn't possible when you have five cards to simply hold onto them and turn them in later at a (potentially much) higher value.

See also this thread: https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/2357/lose-cards-when-you-miss-your-turn?page=1

I don't think it is necessary to punish this because it really does not happen all that often and it's not a unfair advantage or anything (anyone can do it) and as you said Virtuosity98 it is tactically (strategically) missing a card and this is a strategy game so I don't think it's bad for the game. That said I don't really do this I tried it once because the player that went before me was doing it and it was causing me to get less for my trade so I choose to follow suit but we were both killed for cards so it ended up being a big mistake.

So you could argue that by skipping your turns and staying on 5 cards, the game was ruined - 6 extra cards on the table gave the win to whoever killed you. The reason I consider this unfair is because in actual risk there is no possible way to hold onto 5 cards during your turn, but here people use missing a turn to 'break' the rules.

edit: this is an entirely hypothetical argument for me, I don't think I've ever won or lost a game because of this. But I think it shouldn't be possible to hold onto 5 cards.

I have been accused of doing it before, took my turn with like 15 minutes left...was just busy.

I'm guessing that there is no automatic exchange of 3 cards from 5 cards without starting the turn, because of the possibility of unintentional breaks in Internet connection.

My two-peneth worth:
Even having 5 cards makes you a prime target once the value of the exchange is high enough and the chance of you even getting to start the turn to exchange them, is slim.
The program forces you to exchange 3 cards from 5 cards before you can begin your turn and if you want to remain in the game, you need to do this with enough time remaining. If you fail to place them, you essentially only raise the exchange value for the next player and you fail to remain as a contender in the game.

Exchanging 3 cards from 5 and not placing them creates far less unfairness to the outcome of the game than being killed for 5 cards. Therefore, V98's suggestion is actually fairer if Internet connection is lost.
It also eliminates the possibility of "teamers" helping their secret buddy by pretending to lose connection and not being forced to exchange a set from the 5 cards.

I have seen this many times and there were two players that were doing it all the time, but were never caught because they were simply exploiting this ability and making it look like connection problems.
First they would work together to get the game down to 3 players, then they would manipulate the win by ensuring that their buddy got their cards and not you.
When on 4 cards, they would attack an easy territory for a victory and also attack your frontline troops until they had just too many troops for you to kill and would have weakened themselves enough for their buddy to kill, then they would feign loss of Internet connection and stop taking their turns with 5 cards ready to be taken by the next player able to kill them.
Their buddy could then kill them on the next turn or over two turns, always keeping you blocked from the kill.
 
Just for the exploitation factor, I say, automate the exchange on 5 cards.

A player that misses a turn rightfully misses out on reinforcements and misses out on the opportunity to earn a card. How about if a player with 5 cards that misses a turn, or lets the timer run out without exchanging, loses a card? the last card they earned.