Conquer Club

Why does CC have a monopoly on these games?

Why can't we host our own 52-player games?


If people are willing to join, then so be it, right?



*(I guess there's some coding issue or whatevs involved, but would it be difficult to overcome?)

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why does CC have a monopoly on these games?

Why can't we host our own 52-player games?


If people are willing to join, then so be it, right?



*(I guess there's some coding issue or whatevs involved, but would it be difficult to overcome?)

I think if people made a ton more 52 player games it would be hard to get it full. This button makes it easy so that its easy to find, and fills relatively fast

That and I think if there were 52 player games everywhere it would have lost its shine. When we had those annually they felt a lot more special

MoB Deadly wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why does CC have a monopoly on these games?

Why can't we host our own 52-player games?


If people are willing to join, then so be it, right?



*(I guess there's some coding issue or whatevs involved, but would it be difficult to overcome?)

I think if people made a ton more 52 player games it would be hard to get it full. This button makes it easy so that its easy to find, and fills relatively fast

If that's the case, then put the new 52-P games on the button.

And if that's not possible (or undesirable by the CC-Elite), then let people make those games anyway to let the market decide.

jleonnn wrote:That and I think if there were 52 player games everywhere it would have lost its shine. When we had those annually they felt a lot more special

That's your opinion, but perhaps many other people think differently (and don't visit this forum). If we allowed others to host 52-player games then this issue would be resolved by people 'putting their points where their mouth is.'

with the decreasing number of members, it's projected that in 2016, there won't be 52 members left to fill that type of a setting

Pedronicus wrote:with the decreasing number of members, it's projected that in 2016, there won't be 52 members left to fill that type of a setting

Thank you, Dr. Doom-and-Gloom.

I hear Obama is looking to nationalize the Club, which might save it, but it is still unclear as to whether this will include a redistribution of points.

Neoteny wrote:I hear Obama is looking to nationalize the Club, which might save it, but it is still unclear as to whether this will include a redistribution of points.

Will there be a point tax with a point tax bracket based on the monthly measure of net income of points?

BMO

Of course. That will be necessary for the subsidization of farming.

Good effort, but it's not going far enough.

True freedom can only exist if we are able to create games with any ammount of real or imaginary players.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Good effort, but it's not going far enough.

True freedom can only exist if we are able to create games with any ammount of real or imaginary players.

Only if the imaginary players came with real points would I want this.

Pedronicus wrote:with the decreasing number of members, it's projected that in 2016, there won't be 52 members left to fill that type of a setting

Is this true? Where are the membership decline stats?

DoomYoshi wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:with the decreasing number of members, it's projected that in 2016, there won't be 52 members left to fill that type of a setting

Is this true? Where are the membership decline stats?

Just read the writing on the wall. (Pedronicus Pun)