Conquer Club

Perhaps its time to take a look at the neg feedback system. Both of my negs are because I hung someone in a game. Is that a good enough reason to recieve one? I mean I've said some crappy things in game chat where i was deserving of one- but for a hanging?

i had 2 cards , Alex had 1 or the other way around- cant remember but yorkiepeter had 5. all pretty much even in armies . for a 40 cash , i took 31,21,5 vs 56 spread across 20 or so countries and the last battle was 12,5 vs 1, 8 ........ did i have any other choice than take the shot ?

Why do you think talking smack rates negative feedback
and what do you mean by hanging someone?

in an escalating game - where you go to eliminate a player and come up a few armies short ........

i guess it all depends on how ridiculous the hanging was. y'know, what were the numbers....if someone shows a penchant for reckless attacks that are overly optimistic, bordering on straight up folly, then the feedback is perfectly designed to warn others about that player.

i don't think that describes you at all, dude. maybe you can sweet talk 'em into removing the neggie.....

You need to put "It depends on the situation into the poll". If you had a good chance of eliminating the guy that is fine. It is also fine if you didn't have a good chance but were certain to lose the game if you didn't do something - take a huge risk I mean. What isn't fine is if you were in a good position yourself and wasted both yourself and your opponent when the odds were against you.

For you Scott.... yes.

I will say that *how people play* is a legit reason for feedback. I think it depends on the situation. Did you suicide, or just get really bad dice? Did you do it for one card or a chance to win the game? But what am I talking about, b/c I never leave real feedback anyway.

xxxx

I think good reasons for negative feedback are:

-Insulting someone above a healthy trash talk
-Deadbeating
-Playing against your teammates in a team game
-Ruining the game for no reason, just to annoy
...
-Have fun

And many more.. but not hanging someone if he/she had even a long shot at him/her.. or even if someone does it by stupidity.

BUT.. when you get hung it's a healthy measure to leave neg. feedback for the guy who did it. Many of the stress' problems nowadays are because people don't play their anger.

I'd like to know who's hung.

I've given up on feedback... So many people leave stupid feedback that it doesnt count for much...

In the interest of English grammar (not to mention in the interest of not getting wicked too excited):

Bruce Write wrote:hanged/hung

What's the deal with the word "hanged"? Other than to avoid a joke like the one in "Blazing Saddles" about Cleavon Little being "hung," is there a reason for the distinction?

Yes, the reason is that most language commentators recommend using hanged for the past tense and past participle of hang when referring to death by hanging, and hung for the past tense and past participle in all other meanings. Why they recommend this is another question entirely.

The Modern English word hang is the result of a fusion of three verbs: two from Old English, one transitive and one intransitive (like the distinction between lay and lie), with influence from one from Old Norse. One form of the word made its past tenses by changingthe vowel (like sing-sang-sung), and the other by adding a suffix (like hate-hated).

Omitting many pages of confusing linguistic jibberish, what happened is that the distinction between the transitive and intransitive verbs was lost, the two verbs became a single verb, and northern England and southern England had different forms. By the sixteenth century, the northern form hung penetrated into general English and became the dominant form used--except in the case of execution by hanging. Presumably hanged continued to be used here because judges would use this older form when sentencing convicts (legal language, like religious language, is usually very formal, and more resistant to change than other varities of English).

There is, therefore, historical precedent for using the hanged form for hangings. However, hung is also found in this sense, and has been for hundreds of years; it seems to be becoming more and more frequent. In modern use, both forms are very common for this sense and must be considered standard, though as noted, hanged is preferred by most people who express opinions on the subject.

of course it depends on the situation.... and if it was a legitimate attempt.. or just some random suicide thing. and i know that suiciding would never come from u scott. your a great player and like your points to well.

wicked wrote:I'd like to know who's hung.

why you naughty little tramp......

i was getting all excited, then i read tahiti's post....

wicked wrote:I'd like to know who's hung.

hung and snipped- yes Neph- she is a tramp

that ain't the half of it! you should've been in chat last night!
and I only mention this b/c Scoot was in there and I just remembered now he asked me something about feedback then and I forgot to look at it. Sorry Scoot... was too distracted by the conversation.

one of my feedbacks is related to this example. I had a 60% chance to take the player out and fell a couple armies short. Needless to say, Pedro left me a negative feedback for the very same issue and this guy is thought to be a respectable player by some ? Kind of makes him look silly when 188 positive feedbacks outweigh his OPINION.

Scott-Land wrote:Here is the play in question: i had 2 cards , Alex had 1 or the other way around- cant remember but yorkiepeter had 5. all pretty much even in armies . for a 40 cash , i took 31,21,5 vs 56 spread across 20 or so countries and the last battle was 12,5 vs 1, 8 ........ did i have any other choice than take the shot ?

What? I seriously don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?

wicked wrote:I'd like to know who's hung.

mmmm ... is it hanged then?

how are the votes 3-2 ..... damn you Nietz

Scott-Land wrote:how are the votes 3-2 ..... damn you Nietz

LMAO

in a legitimate attempt, that isnt suiciding, i think leaving a negative feedback says more about the giver than the receiver...if you never make a go of it, you will miss some opportunities...also...all of us have won a game or two form having someone hung right in front of us...its all part of the game...all part of the risk....

thank god I dont have a negative feedback for every mistake ive made in here, because it would outweigh my positives...

personally, i think the negs should be for reasons a player wouldnt want to play...the fact that they might occasionally get greedy isnt information...its just revenge for losing

almost every player on my ignore list is someone who gives out unwarranted negs. but at the same time...its obvious which ones you pay attention to and which ones you dont... if you had ten that said you suicided, id say i might consider it... one saying you may have acted rashly... ill more consider the giver to be a bit of a complainer.

at the same time, yorkie seems like a good guy...id be amazed if you cant work this out with him...hes only played 157 games...and about to become a colonel... hes obviously good, but probably hasnt seen enough games to know your act wasnt personal, and was just a last ditch effort to win...you could have sat back and lost...or taken a chance at winning...i know what I probably would have done.

If I understand the situation well, I think you did use reckless judgement. It appears that you were attacking from 3 fronts with 31, 21, and 5 armies on each against a total of 56 armies spread out over 20 countries. So, for starters, you had a total of 54 armies to attack with since you attack with one less than occupy the attacking country.

The attack calculator can only figure based on one attacking country so I assumed you were doing that for the sake of the calculation. Also, I had no idea how the armies were spread out, so I did 30,8,and 18 "1s". Both of these assumptions actually improve the odds over what they actually were because by attacking from one large army, you will be rolling 3 dice longer than if you attack from a few and by attacking the largest army first, you will avoid ever facing a situation where you are in 2v2 or even 1v2 dice rolls.

Despite this, it came up as 23% of just pulling it of at all, let alone having anything left over at the end.

The fact that you were attacking from 3 fronts makes the odds much worse, not only for the reason of only rolling 2 dice sooner, but also in the fact that you might not be able to use all those armies. That is, perhaps you'll have some of your armies buried behind territories you own.

Thus, I'd be surprised if you even had a 15% chance of doing this. Maybe 20% at best. In a 3 player game where everyone is basically even, you should have about a 33% chance of winning going forward. Why would you risk everything (because I'm guessing the other player easily took out the guy you missed and then completely gutted you and won the game) on a run with much lower odds than 1 in 3?

That said, I typically leave neutral feedback in such occasions because it's no sin to be unaware of the odds.

Of course, I did fail to take into account the fact that your target was about to cash in big and could have trashed one or both of you. I suppose that changes things but depending on how his armies were arranged, he might have been able to do only so much damage.

i dont think too many decent players pay attention to feedback really anymore. is there a point to it? anybody that doesnt have bad feedback must never play public games, lol. ive got a couple feedbacks that fit this situation i think, ive even got one simply because i told another player "u suck" in the chat after he suicided. ive got one that doesnt have a complaint but simply calls me a winger, and accuses me of taking the game too seriously. does anybody care anymore? i dont think anybody that looks at my feedback takes any of it seriously. when youve got 70 good feedback and a couple of bad ones, theyre just inevitable.