Would You Play Conquest Deploy?

[Fazeem]

The suggestions room has come to a point of stagnation and dead heat so here it is for a more trafficked room would you the General CC population like to play a new deployment option we are calling Conquest? Here is a brief description of it

Initial Deployment - Conquest

Concise description:
Every player starts with 1 and only 1 terit

Specifics/Details:
Instead of starting with 8, 10 or 12 terits you get 1 and must advance from there - no more dropping bonuses
This would be a conquest mode similar to the Realms, the Feudals & the King's Courts maps but for every map
Conquest Deployment is 1 terit, decided randomly from the available starting terits. in Classic it could be anywhere on the map, with Feudal it would be 1 of the castles.

for a map like Pot Mosbi that has normal terits and auto-deploys assigned at the start then it should be 1 auto-deploy or 1 normal terit but everyone in the game gets the same type of starting terit.

Neutrals would start with whatever they do now. for most maps that is 3 however there are some terits that currently start with 2, 5 or some other figure. they would continue to start with that figure.

3 would be the starting value for players. a large number would be similar to Manual single terit deployed on and 1 or 2 would make it far too difficult to advance from the 1st turn.

if the starting terit is a castle that currently starts with more then it would continue to start with that under Conquest.

Each player starts game with a single starting point territory all other territories on map are neutral, Players then battle towards one another building a empire/force from scratch. From the beginning every seeking out and risking immediate battle by joining a conquest game.

It will add a great new gameplay option providing more variety and enjoyment all around here. A number of Maps will be far more challenging and it will enhance features like fog of war and nuclear. Players will have to place a lot of forethought on whether they choose to play as this setting has the potential to make a game very fast or slow depending on the great random factors of drop and dice. Overall it would be yet another defining facet in the sites continual growth of variations that everyone can appreciate

It will double the number of maps on this site without doubling the number of maps.
Provides an alternative option to Automatic or Manual in Initial Deployment

[Great-Ollie]

I think it would be a great game play option. I would play it for sure.

[spiesr]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

[Metsfanmax]

I voted "yes," but with some hesitation. I don't think that proliferating with tons of new options is a good idea. tnb is correct that you make the game not special if you dilute it too much.

[jigger1986]

New options=New Medals=I love it!

[BigBallinStalin]

Why restrict what maps it can be used on? Let people figure it out for themselves.

(e.g. trench sucks on maps where there's resetting neutrals, but that doesn't stop some from enjoying that map for trench settings).

[Fazeem]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

did you oppose assassin in regards to certain maps also? I ask because that is almost always a unfair drop on some maps but people still love to play them with that setting. If you Do not like a option remember it is just that a option that will not effect you unless you choose to utilize it. Not all proposed options are feasible I get that and not all settings work on all maps I get that also, but people get screwed all the time by drops and dice and depending on the settings some screws are worse then others. Would you propose repealing all things that may make for a unfair Game, if so most settings, the current drop system and the dice all would have to be redone so that things can be nice and orderly with a fair drop and game for all because that uniformity will make the site better right?

[OliverFA]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Wanting to engage in friendly debate, I will make that question: How would those drops "unfairness" be compared to the current "unfairness" of normal drops? I mean: In some Classic games, if you get a bad drop like for example all your troops very separated then you have a very hard game. On the contrary, if you get two or even three territories together you have suddenly a starting advantadge.

Yes, it is possible that sometimes drops could be unfair, but they would not be more unfair than with normal deploy. I bet that they would even be less unfair as each player only has 1 territory and thus 3 troops to start with, so the small initial income minimizes the effect of any unfair deploy.

[OliverFA]

Why restrict what maps it can be used on? Let people figure it out for themselves.

(e.g. trench sucks on maps where there's resetting neutrals, but that doesn't stop some from enjoying that map for trench settings).

Because that's the strongest argument of people opposing this option. They say that this option would completely spoil some maps. And IMO they have a point.

The new 12 players option has been removed from some maps because it is not compatible with them. In some cases there are not starting positions, but in others (Conquer Rome) is not about starting positions but just about really spoiling the map.

So there is a precendent of a setting being removed from maps that don't fit that setting. Personally, I would not want to play Conquest Deploy with Feudal War, but I would love to play it with World 2.1, Eurasia, Oasis, Hive...

[OliverFA]

I voted "yes," but with some hesitation. I don't think that proliferating with tons of new options is a good idea. tnb is correct that you make the game not special if you dilute it too much.

I agree that there is no need of new options just for the sake of new options. But in this case, this option is really meaningful as it makes for very different game. World 2.1 with Conquest Deploy will be a very different game from normal deploy. And just imagine if Infected Neutrals get ever implemented, a Conquestized map with infected neutrals. would be like playing Civilization with Barbarian Hordes!

[frankiebee]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that on every ''normal'' map like classic, drops would be more fair. With the drops now, usually it is decided by whom get an early continent, unless you play escalating.

I think this option would be fun, wonder how it would be in combination with trench warfare. (on Hive, lol )

[greenoaks]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that on every ''normal'' map like classic, drops would be more fair. With the drops now, usually it is decided by whom get an early continent, unless you play escalating.

I think this option would be fun, wonder how it would be in combination with trench warfare. (on Hive, lol )

and FoW

[frankiebee]

12 player, hive, fog, trench, conquest, nuclear, speed, adjacent

Who would be with me for that marathon ?

[OliverFA]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that on every ''normal'' map like classic, drops would be more fair. With the drops now, usually it is decided by whom get an early continent, unless you play escalating.

I think this option would be fun, wonder how it would be in combination with trench warfare. (on Hive, lol )

and FoW

And chained reinforcements.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why restrict what maps it can be used on? Let people figure it out for themselves.

(e.g. trench sucks on maps where there's resetting neutrals, but that doesn't stop some from enjoying that map for trench settings).

Because that's the strongest argument of people opposing this option. They say that this option would completely spoil some maps. And IMO they have a point.

The new 12 players option has been removed from some maps because it is not compatible with them. In some cases there are not starting positions, but in others (Conquer Rome) is not about starting positions but just about really spoiling the map.

So there is a precendent of a setting being removed from maps that don't fit that setting. Personally, I would not want to play Conquest Deploy with Feudal War, but I would love to play it with World 2.1, Eurasia, Oasis, Hive...

Their argument is moot if they are not being forced to play certain maps with certain settings. Their argument can be made against trench, nuclear spoils, or whatever setting they think would be terrible for whatever map they have in mind. It's an arbitrary position which should be ignored. Conquer deploy should also be left to whoever chooses to play it--on whatever map and whatever settings. It's not like their use of that setting prevents them from setting up games with different settings.

The opposition simply has a silly argument.

[OliverFA]

Their argument is moot if they are not being forced to play certain maps with certain settings. Their argument can be made against trench, nuclear spoils, or whatever setting they think would be terrible for whatever map they have in mind. It's an arbitrary position which should be ignored. Conquer deploy should also be left to whoever chooses to play it--on whatever map and whatever settings. It's not like their use of that setting prevents them from setting up games with different settings.

The opposition simply has a silly argument.

What worries me is that this argument is being used so often in the suggestions forum nowadays. It's always about people opposing new options just because they think they will dislike them.

An important point we are missing is that new options could appeal to new users. I wonder how many people have come to CC over the years and leave because it lacked the option they liked.

[BoganGod]

Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

+1

[Fazeem]

Their argument is moot if they are not being forced to play certain maps with certain settings. Their argument can be made against trench, nuclear spoils, or whatever setting they think would be terrible for whatever map they have in mind. It's an arbitrary position which should be ignored. Conquer deploy should also be left to whoever chooses to play it--on whatever map and whatever settings. It's not like their use of that setting prevents them from setting up games with different settings.

The opposition simply has a silly argument.

What worries me is that this argument is being used so often in the suggestions forum nowadays. It's always about people opposing new options just because they think they will dislike them.

An important point we are missing is that new options could appeal to new users. I wonder how many people have come to CC over the years and leave because it lacked the option they liked.

Hey give each of these fine people a cigar again your points are the main reason I brought the discussion over here, I keep seeing threads like is CC on the decline or posts about why people are leaving and it is kind of the old guard mentality that is causing it in a lot of the cases. I love this site I am teaching my kids how to play on the board right now because they always see me on here and want to play.

The future is what you make of it the more simple levels of gameplay added as new dynamics the better for the long runof CC. I think we all grasp not every thing can be done at once it takes time but the immediate stonewall of consideration simply based on you may not like the setting is counterproductive. I do not like Chocolate much or Coffee and Beer but I do not feel my dislike should prevent others in indulging not would I want someone else's dislike to prevent me from drinking Tea and Wine while eating vanilla.

[OliverFA]

In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

[koontz1973]

In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

But you could also say the exact opposite. Maybe some of the ones left because we have too many settings and some that are even alien to normal risk players.

To say that the reason for the decline is not enough settings is ludicrous.

[OliverFA]

In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

But you could also say the exact opposite. Maybe some of the ones left because we have too many settings and some that are even alien to normal risk players.

To say that the reason for the decline is not enough settings is ludicrous.

Of course there is not a single reason. Each person staying or leaving the site has his/her own reasons. But if I had to bet my money, I would bet that most people left because they did not have the settings they wanted.

And by the way, I think that you illustrate very well a big mistake that CC is doind form long ago. Why keep trying to be "a Risk site"? Why not be an strategy or a wargame site? Limiting to just Risk is losing a lot of customers.

We agree that choices just for the sake of choices is bad, complicates things and alienate people. But choices that bring interesting and diferent choices are good. Just to talk about a different setting than the one of this thread. I trully believe that infected neutrals can do a lot more good than bad to the site. At most, there is a matter of redesigning the new game screen so it is less overwhelming.

On the other hand, about the choices screen: Why not make a collection of pre-settings? Put together settings that work well together and make those combinations selectable ones. That brings the best of both worlds.

[Fazeem]

In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

But you could also say the exact opposite. Maybe some of the ones left because we have too many settings and some that are even alien to normal risk players.

To say that the reason for the decline is not enough settings is ludicrous.

Of course there is not a single reason. Each person staying or leaving the site has his/her own reasons. But if I had to bet my money, I would bet that most people left because they did not have enough reasons.

And by the way, I think that you illustrate very well a big mistake that CC is doind form long ago. Why keep trying to be "a Risk site"? Why not be an strategy or a wargame site? Limiting to just Risk is losing a lot of customers.

We agree that choices just for the sake of choices is bad, complicates things and alienate people. But choices that bring interesting and diferent choices are good. Just to talk about a different setting than the one of this thread. I trully believe that infected neutrals can do a lot more good than bad to the site. At most, there is a matter of redesigning the new game screen so it is less overwhelming.

On the other hand, about the choices screen: Why not make a collection of pre-settings? Put together settings that work well together and make those combinations selectable ones. That brings the best of both worlds.

I am running into a logical conundrum with people leaving because of too many options being just as likely as people leaving or not staying because of lack of options. That is like saying just as many people quit visiting there favorite eatery because it offers too many different choices as those that leave because it does not offer variety. One group is able to get what they want by what is already there but does not want to support others being able to choose what they like that is different from them.

Beyond being a new level of selfish this does not make any sense if you like the same options nobody is trying to take those from you, if you like variety you should have it available within reason. I have only briefly worked in marketing before so I do not claim to be an expert but that model of thought is counterproductive the goal is bodies logged on and staying coming back let those starting a new game choose how they want to play it and you can facilitate that. If they do not want to wait for a game with their preferred settings to start they may search out a game and find they like or reaffirm they do not like different settings.

[OliverFA]

I think that the real problem with too many options is that they can overwhelm new people when they see the overcrowded "start a game" screen. I find hard to believe that too many options can alienate experienced players. Just don't worry about the ones you dislike and that's all.

There is also the argument that the player base gets too fragmented with too many options, but I disagree too. When I don't find a game with my favourite options and don't want to wait, I join games that are close. For example, if I wanted to play no spoils I can join flat rate, because they are close enough.

[Fazeem]

I think that the real problem with too many options is that they can overwhelm new people when they see the overcrowded "start a game" screen. I find hard to believe that too many options can alienate experienced players. Just don't worry about the ones you dislike and that's all.

There is also the argument that the player base gets too fragmented with too many options, but I disagree too. When I don't find a game with my favourite options and don't want to wait, I join games that are close. For example, if I wanted to play no spoils I can join flat rate, because they are close enough.

THis I can agree with but there are other solutions for those who may be overwhelmed when new here. As to this idea I have yet to see a legitimate argument why it is not good for the site.

[Fazeem]

lets not let great potential fall to the wayside support the settign you like and be vocal as we can see CC is listening and improving