[OFFICIAL POLL]No First Player Attack

[agentcom]

I'm going to tl;dr a Suggs thread for the first time in I don't know how long. I voted indifferent. As long as there is a set rule that makes sense, I don't think that it matters. You guys make the rule and I'll adjust to it along with everyone else. The change here would have some merit.

[watsy]

after months of lazyness, I finally posted how to post snapshots in public chat on here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6&t=197686

^When everyone learns to do that, the 12 hour Fog rule will then not be needed. The first player will just have to paste the starting game snapshot and everyone can then be happy

Yes but could like be auto as game starts

[White Buffalo]

I vote no. When new members are checking the site out for the first time they often play 1 v 1. How are they going to feel if they play first and can only deploy and then have to wait (sometimes 24 hours) until their next turn to make an attack.? At least at the moment they get to take a turn 50% of the time immediately.

[Mr Changsha]

65% against is a fairly conclusive result.

A couple of points:
a) This change would not benefit all game types even within the narrow focus of1vs.1 and team games generally. For example, within the narrow field that I play this change would simply not improve the game (no fog, no cards, chained small initial deploys etc). I feel the game I play is perfectly balanced as it is. It is quite amusing to me that some players choose to play games that have an initial 'unfairness' built into them - no doubt so they can get easy points - and then want to screw with the rules of risk to make their game more fair. If they care so much about fairness then they would play a setting like mine which is always a perfectly fair fight..a settings that follows the original rules of risk very closely. If you play a version of the game that screwed with the basic rules then accept you are playing a scewed-up, ill thought-out game.

b) I'm not convinced that introducing yet another option is what this site needs. In my view we already have too many options as it is. This game must be extremely confusing to the new player and, as I have written about at great length before in my 'Why CC is ACTUALLY declining' thread, this confusion for the new player has been caused by introducing too many new maps and settings to keep the actually quite small,but vocal, hardcore minority happy while ignoring what a mess of confusion this site must seem to the new or casual player.

[Squirly]

wow, what total bullshit.

some of you won't be happy until we have a "don't keep score" option.
game of chance and "risk" but lets not have anyone think the game is unfair or let anyone get upset.

they should implement these pussification rules in vegas so everyone has a nice vacation too.

[Artimis]

If you were going to implement this change in the rules as a game option that could be checked or unchecked, then I would say proceed with extreme caution.

However, it seems likely that this change in the rules is going to be a straight jacket that is forced upon everyone. To which I say: "No. No, no, no, NO!" And here is why:

• In games with the trench setting, no one will want to be the first player, because the first player to go(but prohibited from attacking) will be effectively the last player to go after everyone else has taken their turn normally, save for a few perks(deployment, fortification).
• In games on conquest maps where you're surrounded by a sea of neutrals that you have to fight through in order to get to your opponents you will have the same problem as trench, no one will want to be first to go.
• In fact, most game settings that I can think of(I've played quite a few) in games with three or more players, this change will simply move the advantage on to the second player to take their turn. First to go will essentially become the least desirable placement in turn order.

If this change is intended to make 1v1's, *ahem*, more balanced. Then this change should be made an option for 1v1's and 1v1's only!

Considering the potential backlash from making it compulsory across the website, the reduction in revenue from this site could result in lackattack having a 'Sir Alan Sugar' moment when he tells bigWham:



For goodness sake, don't ram this down our throats just because you're convinced that *you know you're right*. Because people who *know they're are right* are the most frightening kind of individual that society has ever produced.

[DoomYoshi]

Thank you everyone for responding. The poll will continue to run, and you can continue this thought process. For now, we have the results we need.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Arama86n]

Thank you everyone for responding. The poll will continue to run, and you can continue this thought process. For now, we have the results we need.

[agentcom]

OK, still haven't read the whole thread, but I'm a little surprised by the results here. I think there's a possibility that people aren't fully considering this suggestion. I would recommend that people go back and read BW's initial post on the matter.

Keeping in mind that this is only for 2-player or 2-team games, BW is completely correct about the effects of this proposed system and how they help to balance things out.

There is no question that first turn gets an advantage. There is no question that the proposed system reduces that advantage. There is a possibility that it could flip the advantage to the second player/team. However, there is no question that the second player/team's advantage would be smaller than the first player/team's advantage was prior to the change.

Considering that every player has an equal chance of being on the first or second team, there really should be hardly any "no" votes. The only downside to some players is that they now have to think differently about that first turn. I guess some people don't want to be bothered with that. I would think that the votes of people who have really thought about this suggestion would range from indifferent to in favor.

There is just no way to argue that this does not reduce the first turn advantage, which is completely random in whom it benefits. That means that it increases the impact of other factors in determining who wins the game. Some of these other factors are also random (cards, dice), but one of those factors is not: skill/gameplay.

Given that this suggestion unquestionably makes a player's skill more determinate in the outcome, I'm switching to in favor of this, although it sounds like this isn't going anywhere, which is a shame.

[Metsfanmax]

Given that this suggestion unquestionably makes a player's skill more determinate in the outcome, I'm switching to in favor of this, although it sounds like this isn't going anywhere, which is a shame.

The main reason for dispute is not that it balances out the game. Rather, it is that we do not want the game to be more balanced. You could carry your logic to conclusions that completely change the nature of the game -- and while it might be a fun game, it's not Conquer Club. It is also true that removing the dice from 1v1 games would make a player's skill more important in the outcome, but do you advocate forcing this change on those games?

[BigBallinStalin]

OK, still haven't read the whole thread, but I'm a little surprised by the results here. I think there's a possibility that people aren't fully considering this suggestion. I would recommend that people go back and read BW's initial post on the matter.

Keeping in mind that this is only for 2-player or 2-team games, BW is completely correct about the effects of this proposed system and how they help to balance things out.

For 1v1, maybe (I see no difference on net for 1v1 games with +3 deploys on medium/large maps).

For 2-team games...




1st player loses the advantage of attacking first.
2nd player gains the advantage of seeing (most likely) where the 1st player/team is planning to make its move, thus can more effectively counter.
Thus, the new rule can favor the 2nd player/team. You can get rid of one 'imbalance' while creating another 'imbalance'. It's silly.

Besides, for a good portion of team games, it's preferable to go second--given various initial positions. Let the first team deploy and strike, let them lose those armies and/or gain territories in areas which are not as important. This is actually an advantage for the second team.

[perchorin]

Given that this suggestion unquestionably makes a player's skill more determinate in the outcome, I'm switching to in favor of this, although it sounds like this isn't going anywhere, which is a shame.

The main reason for dispute is not that it balances out the game. Rather, it is that we do not want the game to be more balanced. You could carry your logic to conclusions that completely change the nature of the game -- and while it might be a fun game, it's not Conquer Club. It is also true that removing the dice from 1v1 games would make a player's skill more important in the outcome, but do you advocate forcing this change on those games?

Yes, this!

[IcePack]

imagine, looking for risk. being guided by a search to conquer club
you start your first game and you can't attack
you're going to say...wtf is that about
they're having enough problems keeping new players around then thinking either "its not risk" or to far from risk for first impressions
i would much rather see them impliment a "basic, medium, advanced" range and have them unlocking new features, maps, settings etc being looked at before they spend their time doing random changes to the game that are going to scare those new players away
keeping it as is, is familliar (for new players)
but its also going to confuse / push away new players (who came here looking for risk, likely), which i think is the most important factor in play on the change.

i would much rather see them impliment a "basic, medium, advanced" range and have them unlocking new features, maps, settings etc being looked at before they spend their time doing random changes to the game that are going to scare those new players away

no exaggeration

i have invited / gotten at least 2 dozen players to sign up over the 3 years
i would say 25% of them didn't even start their first game...even with me chatting with them and pointing them to find the instructions page and everything else they either didn't get the info, was to much info to process, or just didn't want to bother
another 50% played some got clobbered, and stuck around very little
either because the settings were different then risk, or harder, or lack of information or having to go through to much information on forums to be competitive etc.
and frankly, very few have stuck around long term...and only 2 bought premium
there needs to be LESS for new players to grasp when they first start
and for those who like achievements, medals, unlocking stuff it encourages them to SLOWLY and controlled learn the game and maps and not be overwhelmed all at once

it works for nintendo, xbox, etc... it should be good enough for CC

[Gweeedo]

This is one of the few on line games where you can just jump in and play.
Complexity level =1

[Namliam]

Absolute NO vote from me! Many of the reasons stated above are 100% spot on. It sounds like our voices have already been heard though. I was late to the party on this one.

[Uncle Loser]

Instead of letting player one fort but not attack.
Why not let player one attack but not fort.

[Gweeedo]

why not put all assaults on hold, till the second turn.
While you are at it, eliminate the dice...make it unit for unit.

[scottp]

Even MY innovations are generally not this unpopular....nicely done!

LOL, well played!

[BoganGod]

Voted no, all my reasons for doing so have been touched on multiple times by more verbose postings in thread already. Rather than wasting time on this which has been conclusively rejected. Lets get an official vote on something that would help the site and all players, new and old. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=197752

[Foxglove]

Voted no, all my reasons for doing so have been touched on multiple times by more verbose postings in thread already. Rather than wasting time on this which has been conclusively rejected. Lets get an official vote on something that would help the site and all players, new and old. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=197752

Thanks for the link, bogan.

For anyone who wants to know what it's about before clicking, the link is to a suggestion to implement game state snapshots in CC (a feature that currently only exists in the BOB addon script). I suggested that CC implement game state snapshots, and that a snapshot be taken at the start of a game, and after each player's turn.

[Scott-Land]

Interesting read so far.
I have seen so many players complaining in gamechats and clan war threads that their opponent had such a huge advantage because they went first. Now the majority is against a change of the rules which would minimize the problem? And i haven´t seen any logical argument against the change yet.

Let´s check the situation:
Let´s assume Player A is always the player who is allowed to attack first.

Atm, Player A deploys first, attacks first. Player B has all disadvantages.

With that change, if player A is lucky enough to be in the strong position of turn order, having the advantage of going 2nd and being able to attack first:
Player A attacks first, but Player B was allowed to deploy first.

What is not to love about this? I really don´t see it.
And, it fixes the problem that you have a foggy game and your opponent conquers parts of the maps before you have seen the board.
No need for any 12 hour fog gentlemen agreements any more.


I guess many players see it from the point of view that they are not allowed to attack on their first turn. How about seeing it from the position of player B who is allowed to deploy once before the game starts with normal turns?

If you want a system which is as fair as possible, then "yes" is the obvious vote.
If you want to get all the advantages for yourself if you play first, or you want to be able to complain about how unfair it was that your opponents always went first, then i suggest you vote "no"

I like it. It would reduce the advantage of going first. The 'extra benefit' would be in fog settings as all teams would be able to view the board before anyone attacked. Advantage of going first would be offset not necessarily negated- instead of gaining the deployment, attackers edge, and attacking the strategic territories, teams could defend those areas.

I voted no only because there distinction between settings, this would be good for 1v1's and maybe certain team settings, but if your playing a quads game where the going 1st advantage is almost negligible I feel like it would just slow down the game. Just dropping and forting seems like the CC equivalent of trying to teach "good fundamental defense" for basketball since all of us young whipper snappers are all caught up in our attacking and flashy settings.

if this were implemented, I would want to go 2nd in all of my games since I would get the attackers advantage.

You are actually supporting the change by the reasons you've stated Irish. That is the sole reason for the change, why every team wants to go first with current settings- in order to attack. There's an obvious advantage.The new rule would allow teams to defend against that advantage. Second team gets to attack against a defensive deployment

[Gweeedo]

From my understanding, this is used in other game sites?
It must be useful.
I find it amazing that so many of you base your game on luck!
Well, if you have ''good'' luck...more power to you.

You would agree that more luck should be involved...after all, this game is a game of luck!

[Metsfanmax]

I find it amazing that so many of you base your game on luck!

It's really not that surprising that anyone who signs up for a site where the primary combat mechanism is dice rolling should consider luck an important part of the game.

[EvilBaby]

Hello Players,

We rely on the luck of the dice and the luck of a drop. So long as the first player continues to be determined randomly there is absolutely no need to make this change.

This does not operate to level advantages, but would instead prevent strategic maneuvering.

Example: If the drop gave the first player all but one territory of a bonus region map they are already risking troops in an attempt to secure the final territory. To prevent this attack option would deny the first player the ability to decide what is and is not an acceptable amount of gamble and loss.

The ability to decide what can and cannot be done with one's troops is essential to the spirit of this game.

Thank you,
-EvilBaby