Conquer Club

I posted a more limited idea than the one I am posting now under Equalized Dice. Here is a more aggressive idea: since the dice are the engine of the game, it seems straight forward to allow the dice parameters to be adjusted when games are initially set up.

Concise description:

• Adjustable dice parameters to be set when game is initialized

Specifics:

• Parameter: max number of dice for the attacker and defender
• Parameter: tie goes to: attacker, defender, no one
• conventional 3v2 parameters are just part of the variables: ie. attacker, 3 ; defender, 2 ; tie, defender

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Adjustable odds makes the "strategy space" larger for the community
• Removes the most explicit connection to that other game.
• Could be just plain great, and I should get free EFFEN membership for life for suggesting it.

docdurdee wrote:I should get free EFFEN membership for life for suggesting it

I didn't know vodka had memberships.

Fully agree with the thread title. This is a much better idea.

I still don't think that it is needed and I do think that the increase in options will make it harder/slower to fill games but it is certainly worth to have a discussion about it now.

Timminz wrote:

docdurdee wrote:I should get free EFFEN membership for life for suggesting it

I didn't know vodka had memberships.

Everyone knows vodka has memberships... it's not hard to get in, but it's hard to get out.

This is an excellent idea that will increase the overall strategy available to players on this site. Doc is proposing that increased strategical variety be offered to us, and as a member who gathers my points by applying superior intelligence to available strategy, I look forward to giving it a try!

The total number of strategy options available on the site will be increased, which will be a good thing for those who can comprehend the benefits of greater strategical variety.

Individuals whose low intelligence can't handle increased variety of strategical options will no doubt post here in vehement emotional disagreement, even though nobody is arguing that the present one is a bad option. The simple fact is that implementing additional strategical options, such as this one, will increase the overall popularity of the site.

As of now there's only one option, which only accommodates people of one preference. The new option will attract groups of people with differing preferences regarding strategy, many of whom are not members here yet, and who will end up paying the monthly premiums. More paying members means more money.

More money is a good thing.

.....

KLOBBER wrote:This is an excellent idea that would increase the overall strategy available to players on this site. Doc is proposing an additional strategy be offered to us, and as a member who gathers my points by applying my superior intelligence to available strategy, I think it's a great idea!

Those individuals whose low intelligence can't handle additional strategy options will no doubt disagree, but let them; their low IQ speaks for itself. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that implementing additional options, such as this one, would increase the overall popularity of the site.

Copy/Paste?

Have a look at:
viewtopic.php?t=35818
viewtopic.php?t=34965
viewtopic.php?t=14168
viewtopic.php?t=10391
viewtopic.php?t=9082
And maybe clarify why yours is different (better?).... couldn't hurt.

less Klobber is a good thing.

this is one of the few new ideas i actually kind of like. if you can customize the rules to your liking for an actual game of RISK at home or whatever, why not online, also? i like the idea of having more choices, even though i would probably not use them. myself, i would generally stick to the "classic" dice rules, but as long as all players in a given game are in agreement then why not be able to mix them up a little. there are two small drawbacks i have that i think could probably be resolved with a little brain power, which i happen to be running low on nowadays.

1. adding more options could potentially make joining a game difficult and complicated. i already have a hard enough time sorting between team games, different card rules, freestyle vs sequential, etc. not to mention the maps. each different gametype requires a different strategy, and i sometimes have a hard time keeping track (which is why i play primarily classic rules on the classic map). however, i guess some people can handle more complex things than i and would just enjoy it that much more
2. people would specialize in one specific gametype and become pros at it, making it less fun for casual gamers to want to explore different rules. this already happens to a lesser extent, you hear occasionally about people playing a hundred escalating fog games on an obscure map like age of merchants and going undefeated. this is of course great for whoever has mastered the map but discourages new players and even veterans from playing new gametypes. i can only imagine what it would be like trying to play someone who's specialized in 5 player fog no cards freestyle with 5v5 dice on waterloo or some other godawful map like that.

This does sound like a much better suggestion than the original and it looks like the OP has put some thought into it.

What are the probabilities of the various dice strategies? That is the most important factor that I would look at before jumping on the bandwagon for or against. Would make an interesting comparison to the dice as they are now.

i'll cautiously throw my weight behind this suggestion as it is likely to increase the odds of winning in the attackers favour. i will not for the equalised dice option for the opposite reason.

greenoaks wrote:i'll cautiously throw my weight behind this suggestion as it is likely to increase the odds of winning in the attackers favour. i will not for the equalised dice option for the opposite reason.

this is not correct. the dice parameters are adjustable and as a result, so are the odds. as a throwback to the "equalized dice" debacle, the parameters would be:

attacker, 3 ; defender, 3 ; tie, no one

where again, the numbers are the max number of dice.

D

BaldAdonis wrote:Have a look at:
viewtopic.php?t=35818
viewtopic.php?t=34965
viewtopic.php?t=14168
viewtopic.php?t=10391
viewtopic.php?t=9082
And maybe clarify why yours is different (better?).... couldn't hurt.

ahhh, thanks for the links! I'll take a look. I should have beforehand, but laziness has it's appeal.

I found that viewtopic.php?t=34965 to be similar to what I was proposing. The only difference is in the constraints placed.

I'm not a fan of the weighted dice option or the DD million-sided dice, but this idea seems reasonable. It seems to have been discussed already so I won't be expecting my lifetime vodka membership... but that's ok. I was sort of more interested in it "theoretically" anyway as I would see myself sticking to the conventional dice.

then i withdraw my support for this.

greenoaks wrote:then i withdraw my support for this.

I'm sure your support would have birthed this beast.

docdurdee wrote:

greenoaks wrote:then i withdraw my support for this.

I'm sure your support would have birthed this beast.

LOL!