Conquer Club

Hey guys, not sure what you all think but this is my opinion. Team play should not count towards someone's wins. I see people posting 30 games with the same teammates. they will probably win, because they have a plan they use over and over and over again, while the others, are teammates for the first time. Risk is not a team game, it is a world conquest game with only a single winner. I think team play should be allowed, but should be different than single play. single play should be 4-6 players, preferably 5 or 6, with only a single winner. That is how ranking should work. I don't know, i think team play can have strategy if two teams are matched with both sides being teams that have played with each other. Otherwise, its rigged. Single play is the true skill at risk. Now, i havn't played on this site to often yet, but i've done a ton of risk. So let me know what you think on this comparison.

Menmaatre

DIFFERENT SCOREBOARDS, ohshitcapslock...

This isn't risk... its a world domination game called Conquer Club

i think he has a point and would be happy to not receive and points for team games, even tho they are the majority of games i play, i play them for fun. and i think the only way to really determine skill is via singles.

I disagree, team games require different skills to win than singles games do. And of course people will have higher win percentages when playing team games because the odds of winning are better.
At the most (6 player doubles) you would have a 33% chance of winning.
Whereas in singles (6 player standard) you have a 16% chance of winning. Not to mention diplomacy is more important in standard games too.

Game type specific scoreboards have been rejected, but maybe in the future we can get something to further differentiate between players besides analyzing their Games list.

My partner and I schooled several of those "long-time" teammates in the beginning. Not tons of them, but a couple. We also got thrashed ourselves against some of them. It's not rigged, it's not unfair, it's part of playing the game on this site. I was at 1399 points two weeks ago and now I about to be a cook, I don't mind, it's been fun. Just play man, stop worrying so much.

AK_iceman wrote:Game type specific scoreboards have been rejected,

but why? is it too hard to program? or is it thought to be unimportant?

AK_iceman wrote:but maybe in the future we can get something to further differentiate between players besides analyzing their Games list.

mnnn, that doesn't sound very optimistic

I agree with AK that with win percentages now it's less of a grating issue than it was. Anyone can see who plays singles and who goes with teams just by looking at the win percentage.

<--33% and proud of it.

I agree with AK on the fact that team games do take different skills, but one of the major problems with team games is you only need 1 player on the team with these skills in order to be successful.

If you can put together 1 skilled player and 2 people who will listen to that 1 player's suggestions, that team can win a ton of games with only 1 of those 3 players really deserving the points. It's just very hard to determine the actual skill level of a team player.

Can someone explain why separate scoreboards were rejected?

I play a heck of a lot of terminator but if you do not make the last kill it is not your win.

I also am trying to learn doubles and doing poorly at it and i am in lots of them but have no plan. we have 1 scoreboard I am good with that.

If you play at all you know who the better players are the scoreboaed is just a measurment to help us judge

maniacmath17 wrote:I agree with AK on the fact that team games do take different skills, but one of the major problems with team games is you only need 1 player on the team with these skills in order to be successful.

If you can put together 1 skilled player and 2 people who will listen to that 1 player's suggestions, that team can win a ton of games with only 1 of those 3 players really deserving the points. It's just very hard to determine the actual skill level of a team player.

Can someone explain why separate scoreboards were rejected?

Not 100% sure, but I think it was because it wasn't possible to recalculate all scores separately for team and singles games. I remember reading that this was due to the game logs being lost for some games. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

I agree that it is easier to get points through playing doubles - but only if you are good at doubles games!
AK is completely correct that a different set of skills are needed for single play as compared to doubles. Its the odds that make one more difficult than another, not the game type itself.
I personally don't care too much about the scores - I play doubles games because I enjoy having a team mate to coordinate tactics with. Most of he team games I play are open to anyone to join, I admit that sometimes newer players join that seem to have no coordination in their play - but that’s really a matter for them. I prefer to play a solid doubles team that knows what they're doing but I don't restrict anyone from playing against me because of their rank.

I still play singles games against anyone I come across when I feel like it - I think the minute you don't want to play a game for fear of losing points - you've got to examine the reason you play the game in the first place.

there is a clear difference between doubles and singles...however....there is a huge difference between 3 player games, and 6 player games....there are players that could win 3 player games, and never, not once win a 6 player escalating game against good players...

but it would be nice to have the two differentiated...team score, singles score, and total score, but dont knock the skill it takes to win doubles...It is very hard to gain points in them....your win ratio has to be 5 to one up to 8 to one depending on your score, and if other good teams play with a low score, your chances of winning are only 50% theoretically

Singles games with 3, 4 players are completely different than 5 and 6 player games...especially in escalating....they are practically two different games alltogether really....and no cards isnt even in the same ball park as escalating, and flat rate, depending on the players is a mix of the two...the point here is...the score is just an average score....and even if only singles games are included, it will by no means be completely accurate....

the most benefit of differentiating, would be that players that want to keep their score high, and are better team players, might play more singles, if they were kept track of seperately....

but once again...i think what we really need in here, is an arena to play games without score and rank....just a point free zone, even if you could only play a few at a time, so all the players that are essentially trapped by their points and score, could play some of the games they are missing out on....if they play 100 and win 100, they gain nothing, but have a blast doing it..

As usual well thought out post AA

How about just have a couple of specific doubles and triples partners to put in your profile that you play a lot with, and only games where both teams are in their teammate's list will count. This makes sure that random teammates don't lose points because they don't have a plan, but if two experienced teams go against each other, they have a plan and the game won't be totally lopsided. Does that make sense?

Team games take just as much skill as any game. 1 wrong deployment or fort can cost the game just like in singles. It can be quite a challenge to coordinate and stay on the same page. Sometimes more so of a challenge trying to get 2 or 3 people on the same page than playing single, even regular pards aren't always on the same page.

Very well said SKETRS ! I play virtualy all team games, Triples a few doubles. Because i do enjoy getting a game plan together and seeing it work out for a win. It's a kick for all 3 players to work together and make a bad start turn for a win. That just what i prefer. I wont knock or run down single games or any other types of games and dont realy care how the winning percentages are figured....... That is ONE of the great things here at CC , variety !

Genghis Khan CA wrote:This isn't risk... its a world domination game called Conquer Club

Haven't all wars being between groups of allies?... It's a world domination game... world domination is about allies or teams... not individuals... as others have posted here, it requires skills to coordinate a team game. I know wacicha is a player respected by many here, isn't he having problems playing team games?

Two team games and now 1vs1 are great because there is no room for players giving out the game to someone else... (are you here Sully?)

There is no more skill required to ply standards than what is required to play team games... Those who keep asking about having separate scores usually are the ones who are unable to play a team game....

.

AK_iceman wrote:I disagree, team games require different skills to win than singles games do. And of course people will have higher win percentages when playing team games because the odds of winning are better.
At the most (6 player doubles) you would have a 33% chance of winning.
Whereas in singles (6 player standard) you have a 16% chance of winning. Not to mention diplomacy is more important in standard games too.

Game type specific scoreboards have been rejected, but maybe in the future we can get something to further differentiate between players besides analyzing their Games list.

singles ( 2 player standard ) 50% chance
singles ( 3 player standard ) 33 % chance

so the singles odds are the same as team odds unless its 4 players or above. you cant just pull a portion of the information and use it.

triples- 50% chance
doubles ( 2 player ) 50% chance

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

AK_iceman wrote:I disagree, team games require different skills to win than singles games do. And of course people will have higher win percentages when playing team games because the odds of winning are better.
At the most (6 player doubles) you would have a 33% chance of winning.
Whereas in singles (6 player standard) you have a 16% chance of winning. Not to mention diplomacy is more important in standard games too.

Game type specific scoreboards have been rejected, but maybe in the future we can get something to further differentiate between players besides analyzing their Games list.

singles ( 2 player standard ) 50% chance
singles ( 3 player standard ) 33 % chance

so the singles odds are the same as team odds unless its 4 players or above. you cant just pull a portion of the information and use it.

triples- 50% chance
doubles ( 2 player ) 50% chance

however u r using the simple odds, as if it is all based on luck and there is nothing else to decide, what about in triples when a team of 3 very experienced players takes on a team of complete newbs who miss turns here and there and havent played as a team before, i would then say the odds of winning the triples is far greater than 50% probably more like 85%.

alex_white101 wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

AK_iceman wrote:I disagree, team games require different skills to win than singles games do. And of course people will have higher win percentages when playing team games because the odds of winning are better.
At the most (6 player doubles) you would have a 33% chance of winning.
Whereas in singles (6 player standard) you have a 16% chance of winning. Not to mention diplomacy is more important in standard games too.

Game type specific scoreboards have been rejected, but maybe in the future we can get something to further differentiate between players besides analyzing their Games list.

singles ( 2 player standard ) 50% chance
singles ( 3 player standard ) 33 % chance

so the singles odds are the same as team odds unless its 4 players or above. you cant just pull a portion of the information and use it.

triples- 50% chance
doubles ( 2 player ) 50% chance

however u r using the simple odds, as if it is all based on luck and there is nothing else to decide, what about in triples when a team of 3 very experienced players takes on a team of complete newbs who miss turns here and there and havent played as a team before, i would then say the odds of winning the triples is far greater than 50% probably more like 85%.

a triples player can still miss turns/internet down
a noob can still play a singles game and be inexperienced

the same beliefs you can mention about triples can be applied towards singles as well. the odds are the same unless its 4 players or more in a singles game.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:
a triples player can still miss turns/internet down
a noob can still play a singles game and be inexperienced

the same beliefs you can mention about triples can be applied towards singles as well. the odds are the same unless its 4 players or more in a singles game.

im afraid i just dont buy this. i have missed maybe 5 turns due to my internet being down, i have experienced noobs missing turn after turn in team games or just joining and never taking a move. the odds of winning a triples game are far higher than 50% when the teams are unbalanced. its like a professional football team playing a randomly selected group of 10 year olds who have never played together before and have only played 2 football matches in their whole lofe. (i am of course referring to real football not the one where u pick the ball up and throw it around) the odds are simply not balanced like you are suggesting.

alex_white101 wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:
a triples player can still miss turns/internet down
a noob can still play a singles game and be inexperienced

the same beliefs you can mention about triples can be applied towards singles as well. the odds are the same unless its 4 players or more in a singles game.

im afraid i just dont buy this. i have missed maybe 5 turns due to my internet being down, i have experienced noobs missing turn after turn in team games or just joining and never taking a move. the odds of winning a triples game are far higher than 50% when the teams are unbalanced. its like a professional football team playing a randomly selected group of 10 year olds who have never played together before and have only played 2 football matches in their whole lofe. (i am of course referring to real football not the one where u pick the ball up and throw it around) the odds are simply not balanced like you are suggesting.

a singles game can be unbalanced too. 5 new recruits vs a major? every scenerio you come up with works for both teams and singles.

the percentages are the same

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:
a singles game can be unbalanced too. 5 new recruits vs a major? every scenerio you come up with works for both teams and singles.

the percentages are the same

of course this scenario would be skewed, however i cannot see the odds of a standard game (no matter who i splaying who be it the conquerer against 5 chefs) ever being the same as an experienced triples team or doubles team playing a inexperienced triples or doubles team. the odds of winning team games are always higher. i know, i play lots of team games, and also standard, and of course i expect to win alot more of my team games simply because i am on an experienced team generally playing a few newbs, (i have tried to rectify this as u know urself JR by joining several trips games that have already been set up and seeing who joins me.....). but i cannot see that winning a 1 vs 1 could ever be as likely as winning a triples game.

If it were the same, then why don't we see any singles players at the top of the scoreboard who only play n00bs? The answer of course is because it isn't anywhere close to as easy as just getting a couple experienced players and playing team games.

I've played 38 triples games and won 35 of em, (92.1%). So you'd think I would keep playing them since I've had so much success right? But I've stopped playing those triples games because it really just feels like stealing points to me.