Conquer Club

Concise description:
In 1v1 games, if one person drops an advantage in "Troops Due," the other player automatically goes first.

Specifics/Details:
Anyone who has played 1v1 games has experienced what happens when one player drops a small bonus and gets to go first. Its not pretty, and unless a serious mistake is made that person almost always wins. This is both frustrating and an easy fix.

• When the game is initialized, the game engine looks at the "troops due" for both players. If it is greater for one player, then the other player goes first.
• If both players start with the same number of "troops due," then the current method of picking a player at random is used.
• This would only apply to 1v1 games, since dropping a bonus is less likely in multiplayer games and going first is not as big an advantage.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
1v1 games are very popular in CC because they provide fast gameplay and unique strategy. However, many people refuse to play them because sometimes bad luck cripples you before your first turn. Conversely, playing a game where you easily walk all over an opponent is not very fun either.

Luck is an important part of CC, and I am by no means suggesting we remove luck from the game. However, there is a reason players start with an equal number of territories and mapmakers go through such pains to make their maps fair. Equal starts make for good games.


Edit: A second option has emerged, where this suggestion is implemented for multiplayer games as well. Here are the details:

show: Details of multiplayer version of suggestion

This is a good idea.

No reason not to have it apply in multiplayer games too though...

carlpgoodrich wrote:Concise description:
In 1v1 games, if one person drops an advantage in "Troops Due," the other player automatically goes first.

Specifics/Details:
Anyone who has played 1v1 games has experienced what happens when one player drops a small bonus and gets to go first. Its not pretty, and unless a serious mistake is made that person almost always wins. This is both frustrating and an easy fix.

• When the game is initialized, the game engine looks at the "troops due" for both players. If it is greater for one player, then the other player goes first.
• If both players start with the same number of "troops due," then the current method of picking a player at random is used.
• This would only apply to 1v1 games, since dropping a bonus is less likely in multiplayer games and going first is not as big an advantage.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
1v1 games are very popular in CC because they provide fast gameplay and unique strategy. However, many people refuse to play them because sometimes bad luck cripples you before your first turn. Conversely, playing a game where you easily walk all over an opponent is not very fun either.

Luck is an important part of CC, and I am by no means suggesting we remove luck from the game. However, there is a reason players start with an equal number of territories and mapmakers go through such pains to make their maps fair. Equal starts make for good games.

So this is ONLY for the first turn, then? I like it.

Yes, it would only be for the first turn. I was a little hesitant about suggesting this be done for multiplayer games just because smaller changes are easier to get through. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't work for multiplayer games though.

I like it, creates a much fair playing field.

carlpgoodrich wrote:Yes, it would only be for the first turn. I was a little hesitant about suggesting this be done for multiplayer games just because smaller changes are easier to get through. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't work for multiplayer games though.

I can foresee one problem with doing this multiplayer. What if say...player2 drops a bonus and player5 drops a bonus, but nobody else does. That would mean the play could potentially proceed as:

player1
player3
player4
player6
player7
player8
player2
player5
player1
player2
player3
player4
player5
...etc

In this scenario, player2 gets two turns VERY close to one another. I think that could be a problem, particularly since it happened because they dropped a bonus. If they HELD that bonus somehow to their first turn, that would be a massive advantage.

Woodruff wrote:

carlpgoodrich wrote:Yes, it would only be for the first turn. I was a little hesitant about suggesting this be done for multiplayer games just because smaller changes are easier to get through. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't work for multiplayer games though.

I can foresee one problem with doing this multiplayer. What if say...player2 drops a bonus and player5 drops a bonus, but nobody else does. That would mean the play could potentially proceed as:

player1
player3
player4
player6
player7
player8
player2
player5
player1
player2
player3
player4
player5
...etc

In this scenario, player2 gets two turns VERY close to one another. I think that could be a problem, particularly since it happened because they dropped a bonus. If they HELD that bonus somehow to their first turn, that would be a massive advantage.

No, the first person to go would be the person directly below the person who had the higher bonus. If both had an equal bonus, you start with whichever one has more people before the other person with a bonus goes. You don't just skip over a player and then try to get it back in order later, that would just cause way too many problems.

it seems pointless

those bad starts are offset by the good starts

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

carlpgoodrich wrote:Yes, it would only be for the first turn. I was a little hesitant about suggesting this be done for multiplayer games just because smaller changes are easier to get through. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't work for multiplayer games though.

I can foresee one problem with doing this multiplayer. What if say...player2 drops a bonus and player5 drops a bonus, but nobody else does. That would mean the play could potentially proceed as:

player1
player3
player4
player6
player7
player8
player2
player5
player1
player2
player3
player4
player5
...etc

In this scenario, player2 gets two turns VERY close to one another. I think that could be a problem, particularly since it happened because they dropped a bonus. If they HELD that bonus somehow to their first turn, that would be a massive advantage.

No, the first person to go would be the person directly below the person who had the higher bonus. If both had an equal bonus, you start with whichever one has more people before the other person with a bonus goes. You don't just skip over a player and then try to get it back in order later, that would just cause way too many problems.

this is not relevant to the suggestion, it is about 1 vs 1 games only please dont tell me i missed something

Not a bad idea at all.

ljex wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

carlpgoodrich wrote:Yes, it would only be for the first turn. I was a little hesitant about suggesting this be done for multiplayer games just because smaller changes are easier to get through. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't work for multiplayer games though.

I can foresee one problem with doing this multiplayer. What if say...player2 drops a bonus and player5 drops a bonus, but nobody else does. That would mean the play could potentially proceed as:

player1
player3
player4
player6
player7
player8
player2
player5
player1
player2
player3
player4
player5
...etc

In this scenario, player2 gets two turns VERY close to one another. I think that could be a problem, particularly since it happened because they dropped a bonus. If they HELD that bonus somehow to their first turn, that would be a massive advantage.

No, the first person to go would be the person directly below the person who had the higher bonus. If both had an equal bonus, you start with whichever one has more people before the other person with a bonus goes. You don't just skip over a player and then try to get it back in order later, that would just cause way too many problems.

this is not relevant to the suggestion, it is about 1 vs 1 games only please dont tell me i missed something

Yes, this is why I was cautious about suggesting it for multiplayer games. However, if this were to be considered for multiplayer games, then Night Strike is right: the suggestion only determines the player who goes first, NOT the order. Here are the details as they would appear in the first post:

Details for extension of suggestion to multiplayer games

Concise description:
The person who goes first in a game will be randomly chosen from those players with the lowest value of "troops due" at the start of the game. All further gameplay after the game is initialized will not be affected.

Specifics/Details:

• When the game is initialized, the game engine looks at the "troops due" for all players. It then makes a list of the players with the lowest value of troops due.
• Instead of randomly selecting any player to go first, it selects a player from this list to go first.
• The order of play is not affected, so if player 4 is chosen to go first, then player 5 will go second, regardless of player 5's drop, etc.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This is not an attempt to reduce the luck factor in CC, which is an essential aspect of the game. However, great pains are already taken to ensure that players start a game on equal footing. This is not always possible, though, because players sometimes drop a bonus and the player who goes first always has an advantage. So why not ensure that these two effects never combine to give one player a significant advantage?

Note: There are a number of different ways to implement this extension to multiplayer games. For example, the game engine could just make sure that the player(s) with the most "troops due" does not go first, instead of making sure that the player who goes first has the least "troops due." I leave this open to debate, as well as whether the extension to multiplayer games is a good idea.

Should I make a poll? With options "Good idea for 1v1 only," "good idea for all games," or "not a good idea." I'm relatively new to the suggestions forum, so I don't really know what the procedure is.

it is still pointless

you don't ever come here to complain about how unfair it is when you get a great drop and the other players don't so don't come here saying changes need to be made when the drop goes against you

greenoaks wrote:it seems pointless

those bad starts are offset by the good starts

greenoaks wrote:it is still pointless

you don't ever come here to complain about how unfair it is when you get a great drop and the other players don't so don't come here saying changes need to be made when the drop goes against you

If you had read my first post, you would have seen

carlpgoodrich wrote:Conversely, playing a game where you easily walk all over an opponent is not very fun either.

Of course the good and bad drops even out, that's not the point. The point is that when a game is all but decided based only on the drop, then the game is not fun for either player. I play CC to have fun, not to gain rankings... this suggestions is about making games more fun.

I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

+1

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

You said it yourself..."almost as unbalanced". In other words, there IS SOME improvement. Just because we cannot make it perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things. This suggestion does exactly that and DOES NOT, in my opinion, "hurt the nature of the game" at all.

great suggestion! i vote yea!

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

You said it yourself..."almost as unbalanced". In other words, there IS SOME improvement. Just because we cannot make it perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things. This suggestion does exactly that and DOES NOT, in my opinion, "hurt the nature of the game" at all.

Not at all. There is no improvement. The drop might be made more balanced for both sides, but I don't think that improves the game. I think it makes it worse.

Do I like it when someone drops a bonus against me and goes first? Of course not - I want to win. But if I went first because of this implementation, and won because of it, I would never feel like I earned the win all by myself - I would feel like I was relying on a handicap to win. I'd rather lose the game that was set up by pure chance than get help and win it.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

You said it yourself..."almost as unbalanced". In other words, there IS SOME improvement. Just because we cannot make it perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things. This suggestion does exactly that and DOES NOT, in my opinion, "hurt the nature of the game" at all.

Not at all. There is no improvement. The drop might be made more balanced for both sides, but I don't think that improves the game. I think it makes it worse.

I have to be honest...I don't even have a clue as to how to respond to that, because your statement just doesn't make any sense at all to me. Perhaps you mis-stated something?

Metsfanmax wrote:Do I like it when someone drops a bonus against me and goes first? Of course not - I want to win. But if I went first because of this implementation, and won because of it, I would never feel like I earned the win all by myself - I would feel like I was relying on a handicap to win. I'd rather lose the game that was set up by pure chance than get help and win it.

There's a reason that competition is competition...and that's because both (or more) participants have an equal opportunity to win the game. With the way that drops are currently handled, participants do NOT have an equal opportunity to win the game. Would you prefer that the game of chess be started by randomly dropping pieces on the board, rather than from the set starting point that they are...which is done for the very purpose of fairness in starting?

I just honestly do not at all understand this perspective.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

You said it yourself..."almost as unbalanced". In other words, there IS SOME improvement. Just because we cannot make it perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things. This suggestion does exactly that and DOES NOT, in my opinion, "hurt the nature of the game" at all.

Not at all. There is no improvement. The drop might be made more balanced for both sides, but I don't think that improves the game. I think it makes it worse.

I have to be honest...I don't even have a clue as to how to respond to that, because your statement just doesn't make any sense at all to me. Perhaps you mis-stated something?

No. I meant what I said. I don't think the game is improved when you start hacking it to take away the advantage of dropping a bonus.

Metsfanmax wrote:Do I like it when someone drops a bonus against me and goes first? Of course not - I want to win. But if I went first because of this implementation, and won because of it, I would never feel like I earned the win all by myself - I would feel like I was relying on a handicap to win. I'd rather lose the game that was set up by pure chance than get help and win it.

There's a reason that competition is competition...and that's because both (or more) participants have an equal opportunity to win the game. With the way that drops are currently handled, participants do NOT have an equal opportunity to win the game. Would you prefer that the game of chess be started by randomly dropping pieces on the board, rather than from the set starting point that they are...which is done for the very purpose of fairness in starting?

The fault in this point of view is that Risk is a luck-based game by nature, whereas chess is not. Chess is the game you play if you want complete determinism, and you don't want chance to interfere with anything. Risk is a game you play if you want chance to be important in how the game plays out. If you don't want chance and luck to matter while you're playing, you're on the wrong site. (As it happens, I play both games, because I love both aspects)

No one ever has an equal opportunity to win the game when you're playing Risk, after a given drop occurs. That's the point. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. If your definition of competition involves everyone having fair chances at the start, then either redefine fair chances to acknowledge the fact that each player has an equal opportunity of getting a better drop, or admit that Risk is not a competition according to your definition.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I do not like this. The luck of the drop is part of the game; you're trying to take some of the consequences of that luck away, and thereby take away some of what the game is.

There is no such thing as an "equal" start. Would you call it equal if I drop 3/4 of Australia in a Classic 1v1 game, with a neutral in the remaining territory and a neutral in Bangkok, while your armies are scattered across the rest of the map? Of course not. But your suggestion does nothing to fix such starts, which are almost as unbalanced. My point is that you can do a lot of different things to break down the potential benefit of starting with a bonus and going first, but where to draw the line is totally arbitrary, and still hurts the nature of the game.

You said it yourself..."almost as unbalanced". In other words, there IS SOME improvement. Just because we cannot make it perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things. This suggestion does exactly that and DOES NOT, in my opinion, "hurt the nature of the game" at all.

Not at all. There is no improvement. The drop might be made more balanced for both sides, but I don't think that improves the game. I think it makes it worse.

I have to be honest...I don't even have a clue as to how to respond to that, because your statement just doesn't make any sense at all to me. Perhaps you mis-stated something?

No. I meant what I said. I don't think the game is improved when you start hacking it to take away the advantage of dropping a bonus.

Metsfanmax wrote:Do I like it when someone drops a bonus against me and goes first? Of course not - I want to win. But if I went first because of this implementation, and won because of it, I would never feel like I earned the win all by myself - I would feel like I was relying on a handicap to win. I'd rather lose the game that was set up by pure chance than get help and win it.

There's a reason that competition is competition...and that's because both (or more) participants have an equal opportunity to win the game. With the way that drops are currently handled, participants do NOT have an equal opportunity to win the game. Would you prefer that the game of chess be started by randomly dropping pieces on the board, rather than from the set starting point that they are...which is done for the very purpose of fairness in starting?

The fault in this point of view is that Risk is a luck-based game by nature, whereas chess is not. Chess is the game you play if you want complete determinism, and you don't want chance to interfere with anything. Risk is a game you play if you want chance to be important in how the game plays out. If you don't want chance and luck to matter while you're playing, you're on the wrong site. (As it happens, I play both games, because I love both aspects)

No one ever has an equal opportunity to win the game when you're playing Risk, after a given drop occurs. That's the point. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. If your definition of competition involves everyone having fair chances at the start, then either redefine fair chances to acknowledge the fact that each player has an equal opportunity of getting a better drop, or admit that Risk is not a competition according to your definition.

You play Risk if you want chance to play a part in the game IN THE GAME, not in the setup of the game. That's why "pick your territories" is always the most popular way to start the board game...because it's the most fair. I believe I've played "deal the cards for your territories" a total of once on the board game, and realized that was a terrible way to start the game from exactly the standpoint that it simply isn't fair and thus takes the enjoyment completely out of the game. Since we don't have the capability to pull of the "pick your territories" method (without it taking ages simply to set the game up), we must use other methods to create the fairness that is inherent in that method. This suggestion would go a long way toward doing exactly that.

Woodruff wrote:You play Risk if you want chance to play a part in the game IN THE GAME, not in the setup of the game. That's why "pick your territories" is always the most popular way to start the board game...because it's the most fair.

The rules of Risk indicate that territories are selected randomly (or at least as random as a shuffle of the deck is). Therefore, you do play Risk if you want chance to play a part in the setup of the game. If you pick your territories, you're no longer playing real Risk - you're playing some variant of it.

I believe I've played "deal the cards for your territories" a total of once on the board game, and realized that was a terrible way to start the game from exactly the standpoint that it simply isn't fair and thus takes the enjoyment completely out of the game. Since we don't have the capability to pull of the "pick your territories" method (without it taking ages simply to set the game up), we must use other methods to create the fairness that is inherent in that method. This suggestion would go a long way toward doing exactly that.

No, we do not have to do anything to create that "fairness." Given the number of people who play games here, it is evident that most people are fine with the standard way of playing the game. If you want to be able to pick your territories at the start, go make a suggestion for it. Otherwise, leave the game I love alone >:x

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You play Risk if you want chance to play a part in the game IN THE GAME, not in the setup of the game. That's why "pick your territories" is always the most popular way to start the board game...because it's the most fair.

The rules of Risk indicate that territories are selected randomly (or at least as random as a shuffle of the deck is). Therefore, you do play Risk if you want chance to play a part in the setup of the game. If you pick your territories, you're no longer playing real Risk - you're playing some variant of it.

ConquerClub is a website that is ENTIRELY BASED ON variants of a game very similar to Risk.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I believe I've played "deal the cards for your territories" a total of once on the board game, and realized that was a terrible way to start the game from exactly the standpoint that it simply isn't fair and thus takes the enjoyment completely out of the game. Since we don't have the capability to pull of the "pick your territories" method (without it taking ages simply to set the game up), we must use other methods to create the fairness that is inherent in that method. This suggestion would go a long way toward doing exactly that.

No, we do not have to do anything to create that "fairness." Given the number of people who play games here, it is evident that most people are fine with the standard way of playing the game. If you want to be able to pick your territories at the start, go make a suggestion for it. Otherwise, leave the game I love alone >:x

So you believe that we should eliminate all suggestions, then? Because given the number of people who play games here, it is evident that most people are fine with how things are, and we should not look at changing anything.

Metsfanmax, I understand your point. You want the games to be set up completely randomly, whether or not that gives an advantage to a player is ok because it was completely random. But let me ask you this: would you favor a suggestion where every territory was given to player 1 or player 2 with equal probability, but each decision was made independently of the others? In other words, there would not be the constraint that each player starts with the same number of territories. This is a way to make the drops more random, but the disparity in starting positions would be larger than it is now because there would almost always be an unequal number of initial territories. We could also do this for the number of troops on each territory. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree this is a bad idea.

My point is that we already do a great deal to ensure that players begin games on an equal footing. The luck factor that makes CC great is during the game, where you can choose to take a risk or choose not to. Luck for the sake of luck is not in the spirit of CC, and I propose that the above suggestion would do a great deal to reduce unfair drops while keeping all aspects of luck that make CC so great intact.

Woodruff wrote:ConquerClub is a website that is ENTIRELY BASED ON variants of a game very similar to Risk.

That's why I said go make a suggestion, if you want this to be incorporated into some new variant. It absolutely should not be the default behavior, since that is not how the real game works.

So you believe that we should eliminate all suggestions, then? Because given the number of people who play games here, it is evident that most people are fine with how things are, and we should not look at changing anything.

No, you just shouldn't change the default behavior of the game to something that is so alien to the board game the site is based on.

carlpgoodrich wrote:Metsfanmax, I understand your point. You want the games to be set up completely randomly, whether or not that gives an advantage to a player is ok because it was completely random. But let me ask you this: would you favor a suggestion where every territory was given to player 1 or player 2 with equal probability, but each decision was made independently of the others? In other words, there would not be the constraint that each player starts with the same number of territories. This is a way to make the drops more random, but the disparity in starting positions would be larger than it is now because there would almost always be an unequal number of initial territories. We could also do this for the number of troops on each territory. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree this is a bad idea.

My point is that we already do a great deal to ensure that players begin games on an equal footing. The luck factor that makes CC great is during the game, where you can choose to take a risk or choose not to. Luck for the sake of luck is not in the spirit of CC, and I propose that the above suggestion would do a great deal to reduce unfair drops while keeping all aspects of luck that make CC so great intact.

This is not how normal Risk works. In normal Risk, each player gets the same number of territories. I'm not making the point that I want the game to be as random as possible - I'm just making the point that I love Risk with exactly the amount of randomness it currently has, and no more or no less.