The reason it was rejected is because:

A) Higher Ranked Players could have 1 game scored and Infinite Unranked to get their risk fix
B) The scoring is passive, so if you're good enough you should be able to point points on the line
C) If you care about points enough to want to play Unranked games ...

Concise description:

⋅ The game automatically throws the maximum number of dice permitted. In certain cases, it can be advantageous to throw only one die, and this should be an option.

Specifics:

⋅ Basically, in addition to the "Attack" and "Auto Attack" options, there ...

Exactly! Under the old system, there was a clear difference between someone with a rating of 6-6 and one of 58-6. Now they could theoretically have much the same rating.

I'm sorry, but even this is no magical solution. Not only does it inconvenience the slighted player (who has to put more effort into negating the unfair feedback than the abuser did), but sometimes you just don't know why the person slammed you. Was it because they didn't like your tactics? Because ...

I agree; with the relative ambiguity of the stars, it is easier for a player to take out petty grievances and imagined slights on opponents. No longer can players take calculated risks; failing to eliminate an opponent, only weakening him, seems to be grounds for receiving negative ratings.

Why couldn't draws be an option? That way players who don't believe in draws don't have to play with people who might be willing to draw.

really? I have never heard of anyone who didn't like at least some of the Beatles' stuff. i can't understand anyone not liking Led Zep either, but that's a little more subjective.

I do like the Lennon/Harrison tracks on Revolver, PPM, and Rubber Soul to a degree. I also like their solo careers ...

A lot of people won't like this idea, but it'd be great if it was an option in "My Settings."

The Beatles
Pink Floyd
Queen
Genesis
Led Zep
REM
Nirvana, Pearl Jam (mainstream grunge in general)

What do you like?

Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Chuck Berry, XTC, Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks (mainly with Howard Devotot), the Band, early Springsteen (up to Nebraska, plus Joad), some Doors ...

xtreme2252 wrote:Anal C*nt

But they have such great song titles!


(But yeah, grindcore is crap)...

THE BEATLES!?!!?

But they are so diverse and inclusive. I can imagine not liking them if the only kind of music you like is death metal and gangster rap. Otherwise...

Sins of the Beatles;

-Convinced a generation of rockers that twee teen pop was acceptable "rock"

-Pioneered prog rock ...

pink floyd have couple of good song and putting zeppelin on the list is a blasphemy... but you're not supposed to like something if u don't just the majority likes these bands what only proves their quality (well with nirvana and other grunge bands this is debatable even though you can't deny Smell ...

really? I have never heard of anyone who didn't like at least some of the Beatles' stuff. i can't understand anyone not liking Led Zep either, but that's a little more subjective.

I do like the Lennon/Harrison tracks on Revolver, PPM, and Rubber Soul to a degree. I also like their solo careers ...

The Beatles
Pink Floyd
Queen
Genesis
Led Zep
REM
Nirvana, Pearl Jam (mainstream grunge in general)

Say you're playing a map such as San Francisco and you only have one territory left. That territory is Alcatraz. All you can do when it's your turn is to deploy your three armies on Alcatraz, click End Attacks, click End Fortification, and that's it.

Maybe the Surrender button could be only ...

Say you're playing a map such as San Francisco and you only have one territory left. That territory is Alcatraz. All you can do when it's your turn is to deploy your three armies on Alcatraz, click End Attacks, click End Fortification, and that's it.

Maybe the Surrender button could be only ...

Glen Matlock-era Sex Pistols. Never been bettered.

Any band that was formed after 1980, with the exception of the Smiths (maybe).

A scarlet letter shouldn't be permanent, though. Maybe after six months or so it should be removed.

...not if it's only for the sake of trying out a map or gameplay type.

It makes sense to reject this as an ongoing option (too easy to maintain one's rank on the scoreboard), but why not allocate one or two "free" games per map? People might be more willing to try out new, more complex maps if there was nothing to lose. There should certainly be a limit (as I was ...

Coleman wrote:I highly doubt that a battle royale, as rare as they are, would violate the site mandate "Conquer Club is a turn-based strategy game" by being turned into a lottery.

They're close enough to a lottery as it is...might as well go all the way.

Battle Royale's are all luck (at least initally), but no one whines about them...it's sort of the same principle. Risk a few points for a jackpot. BR's are worse for the points system than jokey gambles, imo.

Count me in.

I like this idea; the map's nice and simple.