Play order determined by Troops Due (POLL! Please Vote)

[Woodruff]

ConquerClub is a website that is ENTIRELY BASED ON variants of a game very similar to Risk.

That's why I said go make a suggestion, if you want this to be incorporated into some new variant. It absolutely should not be the default behavior, since that is not how the real game works.

So you believe that we should eliminate all suggestions, then? Because given the number of people who play games here, it is evident that most people are fine with how things are, and we should not look at changing anything.

No, you just shouldn't change the default behavior of the game to something that is so alien to the board game the site is based on.

Alien to the board game? Do you play on any map other than "Classic" (which isn't even the Classic board)? If you do, you're playing "alien to the board game" already.

This is not how normal Risk works. In normal Risk, each player gets the same number of territories. I'm not making the point that I want the game to be as random as possible - I'm just making the point that I love Risk with exactly the amount of randomness it currently has, and no more or no less.

This website isn't Risk. That is painfully clear to anyone who takes a moment to look at the "START GAME" menu.

[Metsfanmax]

Alien to the board game? Do you play on any map other than "Classic" (which isn't even the Classic board)? If you do, you're playing "alien to the board game" already.

Are you failing to read the part where I said default behavior? If you can't even take the time to understand what I'm saying, I'm not going to take you seriously any more.

[Woodruff]

Alien to the board game? Do you play on any map other than "Classic" (which isn't even the Classic board)? If you do, you're playing "alien to the board game" already.

Are you failing to read the part where I said default behavior? If you can't even take the time to understand what I'm saying, I'm not going to take you seriously any more.

You keep changing your story. Are you concerned with being "alien to the board game" or are you concerned with "default behavior"? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways...but you're trying to do so.

[Metsfanmax]

Alien to the board game? Do you play on any map other than "Classic" (which isn't even the Classic board)? If you do, you're playing "alien to the board game" already.

Are you failing to read the part where I said default behavior? If you can't even take the time to understand what I'm saying, I'm not going to take you seriously any more.

You keep changing your story. Are you concerned with being "alien to the board game" or are you concerned with "default behavior"? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways...but you're trying to do so.

I'm not changing my story at all - you're just bad at reading. I said that I don't want the default behavior of the Conquer Club game to be alien to the board game.

[Woodruff]

Alien to the board game? Do you play on any map other than "Classic" (which isn't even the Classic board)? If you do, you're playing "alien to the board game" already.

Are you failing to read the part where I said default behavior? If you can't even take the time to understand what I'm saying, I'm not going to take you seriously any more.

You keep changing your story. Are you concerned with being "alien to the board game" or are you concerned with "default behavior"? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways...but you're trying to do so.

I'm not changing my story at all - you're just bad at reading. I said that I don't want the default behavior of the Conquer Club game to be alien to the board game.

The status quo is always preferable to improvement, fairness and competitiveness.

[carlpgoodrich]

Ok guys, you both have made your point. I'd like to get this thread back on topic. I just added a poll, and I would still like to hear from more people about what they think about this.

[greenoaks]

100% say leave things as they are

woo hoo

[MrBenn]

Eliminating the "luck" of the drop plays a huge part of map development. Anything that would further help to balance out the "luck" factor and increase the "strategy" factor has to be a winner for me. After all, surely the dice are randomness enough?

[drunkmonkey]

I've tried suggesting that the initial drop is "re-rolled" until neither person starts with a bonus advantage, and it was shot down because "luck is part of the game". I thought that response was stupid then, and it's stupid now. This suggestion has my full support.

[rdsrds2120]

I don't like it much, and I agree with Metsfanmax. With all the time we put in making other things ("intensity cubes", etc.,) random, why would we want to disturb this? Besides, I can name off 10 suggestions I'd rather have before this - and with how clogged suggestions looks right now, I'd rather put some priority levels on other topics.

[carlpgoodrich]

To be honest, I am surprised by the number of people who don't like this suggestion, although according to the poll the majority still likes it (7 to 6 right now). I guess I am baffled by the notion that it is a good thing for people to start on unequal footing. Making the dice random is important because that involves the strategy, but the drop is pure dumb luck.

So... let me ask this again, but direct it to everyone who does not like this suggestion: would you favor changes that make drops more unequal but also more random? What about a map with only two territories and a +10 autodeploy on each (so that the player who goes first almost always wins)?

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

[Metsfanmax]

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

Your confusion occurs because you believe that Risk is a pure strategy game. It is not. It is a game where even the player with far superior strategy compared to the others can get humbled by a few rolls of the dice. You may not like that, but that's what Risk is.

[drunkmonkey]

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

Your confusion occurs because you believe that Risk is a pure strategy game. It is not. It is a game where even the player with far superior strategy compared to the others can get humbled by a few rolls of the dice. You may not like that, but that's what Risk is.

Yes, but in a 1v1 game, if I drop a bonus and go first, I'm going to beat you. It's as simple as that. Where's the fun in that game for either of us?

Luck plays a big factor here, but it shouldn't decide the game before the first die is thrown.

[Metsfanmax]

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

Your confusion occurs because you believe that Risk is a pure strategy game. It is not. It is a game where even the player with far superior strategy compared to the others can get humbled by a few rolls of the dice. You may not like that, but that's what Risk is.

Yes, but in a 1v1 game, if I drop a bonus and go first, I'm going to beat you. It's as simple as that. Where's the fun in that game for either of us?

Luck plays a big factor here, but it shouldn't decide the game before the first die is thrown.

That game is called Risk, and I find it to be very fun. You're trying to turn this into some other game, which I do not want.

Besides, I've won games where players have gone first with a bonus. Not often, but it's possible.

[carlpgoodrich]

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

Your confusion occurs because you believe that Risk is a pure strategy game. It is not. It is a game where even the player with far superior strategy compared to the others can get humbled by a few rolls of the dice. You may not like that, but that's what Risk is.

Of course the luck from the dice plays a roll (pun intended ). But there you have a choice: "Do I want to take this risk or do I want to play it safe?" THAT is strategy. A player with good strategy takes well calculated risks. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but they chose when they want luck to play a role. There is a huge difference between this and the drop, which is comparable to playing the lottery.

[drunkmonkey]

In other words: why is pure lottery style dumb luck a good thing in a strategy based game? I really don't get it.

Your confusion occurs because you believe that Risk is a pure strategy game. It is not. It is a game where even the player with far superior strategy compared to the others can get humbled by a few rolls of the dice. You may not like that, but that's what Risk is.

Yes, but in a 1v1 game, if I drop a bonus and go first, I'm going to beat you. It's as simple as that. Where's the fun in that game for either of us?

Luck plays a big factor here, but it shouldn't decide the game before the first die is thrown.

That game is called Risk, and I find it to be very fun. You're trying to turn this into some other game, which I do not want.

Besides, I've won games where players have gone first with a bonus. Not often, but it's possible.

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

I'd bet that player you beat who went first with a bonus wasn't ranked above corporal. Anyone who knows what they're doing is going to win that game, unless there is an extreme compensation in the dice rolls.

[Metsfanmax]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

[carlpgoodrich]

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game.

Really? When you play risk, how many territories do you have start as neutrals? CC has 13 in 1v1 on classic (I just joined a game to check ). The reason CC does this is exactily the same reason I proposed this suggestion. And having neutrals changes the game way way way WAY more than my suggestion does.

[stahrgazer]

I like it, creates a much fair playing field.

Agreed, it's a good idea.

First turn advantage already offsets games on some of the maps (region count differences; a map that starts with 12 regions/4 troops each, first turn can make the next player lose a troop if 1 region is taken). Getting a starting bonus and first turn does generally decide the outcome of the game at the drop; not always, but more than ample to say that it's a rule with a few exceptions.

Coding in a check that tries to avoid the player with a bonus also getting the first turn advantage so that he (she) is less likely to swarm all over opponents with that bonus, seems reasonable.

In the multiplayer games, if players 2 and 5 both have bonuses, then the suggested coding change would allow player 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 8 to be in the "pool" to go first. That gives the first player the opportunity to break a bonus before the game is hamstrung by it. Guaranteed? Nope. But a lot more possible than if the player with the bonus also gets the first turn. It's also conceivable that players 1 and 2 get a bonus and player 8 goes first, which makes it unlikely that both bonuses get broken. At least it gives player 8 the opportunity to break player 1's bonus and hope that player 1, in turn, breaks player 2's bonus so that the game potentially begins, as the OP suggests, on a "more equal" footing. If, of course, player 3 got to go first, there's much more likelihood that both "drop bonuses" get broken before first round troops are deployed. At least in these scenarios, the lucky-drop players are fighting to retake a bonus rather than given extra protection troops before anyone gets a chance to stop them.

[drunkmonkey]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

I'll add that the only thing changing in this suggestion is that instead of the first turn being randomly selected, the player at the disadvantage goes first. That does not "turn this into some other game".

If you were playing the board game at home with a friend, and you dropped all of Australia, you're telling me you wouldn't agree to him going first? You would insist on flipping a coin "to make it fair"? I probably wouldn't play many more games with someone that selfish.

[Woodruff]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

I'll add that the only thing changing in this suggestion is that instead of the first turn being randomly selected, the player at the disadvantage goes first. That does not "turn this into some other game".

Excellent point.

[Metsfanmax]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

I'll add that the only thing changing in this suggestion is that instead of the first turn being randomly selected, the player at the disadvantage goes first. That does not "turn this into some other game".

Sure it does. It's a different game when it has different rules. You may not think it's that different, but if you didn't think the change was important, then you wouldn't be supporting this suggestion.

If you were playing the board game at home with a friend, and you dropped all of Australia, you're telling me you wouldn't agree to him going first? You would insist on flipping a coin "to make it fair"? I probably wouldn't play many more games with someone that selfish.

I wouldn't agree to that. That's not what the rules are. If it's selfish to demand to play it the correct way, it's also selfish to demand that you get an exception to the rules just because the luck didn't turn out your way.

[drunkmonkey]

Apparently the plethora of options offered by Conquer Club are what make it great, but choosing who goes first crosses the line and turns it into a different game. This viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, but you won't budge from it, so we have nothing more to discuss.

[Metsfanmax]

Apparently the plethora of options offered by Conquer Club are what make it great, but choosing who goes first crosses the line and turns it into a different game. This viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, but you won't budge from it, so we have nothing more to discuss.

Bold word is the important one. If you don't understand it, then you're right - we have nothing to discuss.

[drunkmonkey]

Apparently the plethora of options offered by Conquer Club are what make it great, but choosing who goes first crosses the line and turns it into a different game. This viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, but you won't budge from it, so we have nothing more to discuss.

Bold word is the important one. If you don't understand it, then you're right - we have nothing to discuss.

Fine...we could have 2 options on startup:

*Fun play
*Let drop possibly decide winner