Conquer Club

2dimes wrote:You could go to the computer museum. It's not bad.

Where's that? Montana, I assume?

There's one in Boston, Mass. No idea why.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Silly Knig-it wrote:And one is supposed to do what, when playing a doubles or more tournament, and someone's vacation comes up six months into the tournament?

Honourably forfeit the game, as in pretty much every other game or sport when a player or team has to drop out due to circumstances foreseen or unforseen?

Just an idea.

Many tournaments last a year or more. Theoretically everyone should have at least one vacation during that time period. If everyone followed your suggestion, everyone would forfeit and the whole thing would be a failure.

Fair point, but perhaps the fault is in the way such tournaments are organised. If it's going to take years, postponing games for a week or two shouldn't be a huge hassle.

I still think that the honorable thing to do in the OP's situation would be to forfeit, but perhaps a postponement is a good workaround.

If everybody was on the same schedule, sure, just postpone the tournament. But the reality is that we are not on the same schedule, not even close. Everybody is going to be away at different times, so if the games were to stop at those times, they would pretty much be stopped most of the time. If we assume that people take 2 weeks of vacation a year and a tournament has something between 30 and 60 players, that pretty much guarantees that at any given moment one of them will be on vacation. The tournament would pretty much be postponed permanently.

And of course it's not just vacations. People have all kinds of emergencies that force them away from their online presence for various periods. Even in a little 16-player tournament there is someone away more often that not. In a larger tournament, I can pretty much guarantee that someone is away at any given moment. Most tournaments would start out postponed from Day 1 and never get off the ground.

Serbia wrote:Where's that? Montana, I assume?

Yes, Bozeman.

http://www.compustory.com

When I went the spawn were too young to be interested, so they went shopping with mom while I took my time, then I walked them through it when they came to pick me up.

They had a pretty good traveling display on the Gutenberg press, with a working replica someone built using some original parts from an old one. They also had some old prints from when s looked like an f.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Silly Knig-it wrote:And one is supposed to do what, when playing a doubles or more tournament, and someone's vacation comes up six months into the tournament?

Honourably forfeit the game, as in pretty much every other game or sport when a player or team has to drop out due to circumstances foreseen or unforseen?

Just an idea.

Many tournaments last a year or more. Theoretically everyone should have at least one vacation during that time period. If everyone followed your suggestion, everyone would forfeit and the whole thing would be a failure.

Fair point, but perhaps the fault is in the way such tournaments are organised. If it's going to take years, postponing games for a week or two shouldn't be a huge hassle.

I still think that the honorable thing to do in the OP's situation would be to forfeit, but perhaps a postponement is a good workaround.

If everybody was on the same schedule, sure, just postpone the tournament. But the reality is that we are not on the same schedule, not even close. Everybody is going to be away at different times, so if the games were to stop at those times, they would pretty much be stopped most of the time. If we assume that people take 2 weeks of vacation a year and a tournament has something between 30 and 60 players, that pretty much guarantees that at any given moment one of them will be on vacation. The tournament would pretty much be postponed permanently.

And of course it's not just vacations. People have all kinds of emergencies that force them away from their online presence for various periods. Even in a little 16-player tournament there is someone away more often that not. In a larger tournament, I can pretty much guarantee that someone is away at any given moment. Most tournaments would start out postponed from Day 1 and never get off the ground.

That seems like an overly complicated way of viewing the problem You might be surprised to find that many other sports and games manage to get tournaments off the ground in spite of players dropping out due to other commitments or sudden changes.

It does seem like a problem of organisation, more than anything else.

2dimes wrote:

Serbia wrote:Where's that? Montana, I assume?

Yes, Bozeman.

http://www.compustory.com

When I went the spawn were too young to be interested, so they went shopping with mom while I took my time, then I walked them through it when they came to pick me up.

They had a pretty good traveling display on the Gutenberg press, with a working replica someone built using some original parts from an old one. They also had some old prints from when s looked like an f.

Nice. One of these days...

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Silly Knig-it wrote:And one is supposed to do what, when playing a doubles or more tournament, and someone's vacation comes up six months into the tournament?

Honourably forfeit the game, as in pretty much every other game or sport when a player or team has to drop out due to circumstances foreseen or unforseen?

Just an idea.

Many tournaments last a year or more. Theoretically everyone should have at least one vacation during that time period. If everyone followed your suggestion, everyone would forfeit and the whole thing would be a failure.

Fair point, but perhaps the fault is in the way such tournaments are organised. If it's going to take years, postponing games for a week or two shouldn't be a huge hassle.

I still think that the honorable thing to do in the OP's situation would be to forfeit, but perhaps a postponement is a good workaround.

If everybody was on the same schedule, sure, just postpone the tournament. But the reality is that we are not on the same schedule, not even close. Everybody is going to be away at different times, so if the games were to stop at those times, they would pretty much be stopped most of the time. If we assume that people take 2 weeks of vacation a year and a tournament has something between 30 and 60 players, that pretty much guarantees that at any given moment one of them will be on vacation. The tournament would pretty much be postponed permanently.

And of course it's not just vacations. People have all kinds of emergencies that force them away from their online presence for various periods. Even in a little 16-player tournament there is someone away more often that not. In a larger tournament, I can pretty much guarantee that someone is away at any given moment. Most tournaments would start out postponed from Day 1 and never get off the ground.

That seems like an overly complicated way of viewing the problem You might be surprised to find that many other sports and games manage to get tournaments off the ground in spite of players dropping out due to other commitments or sudden changes.

It does seem like a problem of organisation, more than anything else.

Sports are a poor comparison. They are generally played in games that last an hour or two. Conquer club is played in games that last at least a couple weeks and often several months. It's easy enough to say that everybody will show up every second Saturday for a few months. It's something else to insist that everybody show up every single day for many months.

Furthermore amateur sports, excepting world tournaments and such, are normally played by people who live in some narrowly-defined geographic region, and often share other demographics in common (all employees of the same company with more-or-less similar schedules, or all students, with more-or-less the same school holidays, etc., etc.) CC is dealing with people who live around the world, in every time zone, diverse in age and every other demographic.

Even so, many sports find it necessary to allow substitute players, because even with their shorter games they cannot guarantee that every single player will show up every single time. That's basically all a turn-sitter is, a substitute player.

Is there a game or sport that you would consider comparable? I think this conversation could go on and on, but might be easily cut short if you said that you thought CC was unique and that other codes of game playing shouldn't apply.

Symmetry wrote:Is there a game or sport that you would consider comparable? I think this conversation could go on and on, but might be easily cut short if you said that you thought CC was unique and that other codes of game playing shouldn't apply.

It's mostly unique. The only things similar that I can think of are other online games which are now mostly defunct. There's no real-world equivalent I can think of that requires you to take one turn a day for months at a time. Any other board game is usually played in a single sitting.

Dukasaur wrote:Sports are a poor comparison.

Even so, many sports find it necessary to allow substitute players, because even with their shorter games they cannot guarantee that every single player will show up every single time. That's basically all a turn-sitter is, a substitute player.

I agree with your first statement - poor comparison. Turn-sitters are decidedly NOT like substitute players. Take basketball. A player, say, Kevin Love of the Cavs, gets tired, they rotate someone in off the bench. Team game, happens all the time. In CC though, when a player is "away", whatever the circumstance; Kevin Love, right? - they don't rotate in a new player all the time; typically Lebron James, who was already on the floor, simply takes over for Love, meaning the opponent is now playing against two Lebrons. Or Chariot Of Fires, as the case may be. In most team sports, when you go to your bench, you're typically getting a lesser player by some measure. In CC, when you account sit, you actually have a chance to stack the deck. See the problem here?

Serbia wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Sports are a poor comparison.

Even so, many sports find it necessary to allow substitute players, because even with their shorter games they cannot guarantee that every single player will show up every single time. That's basically all a turn-sitter is, a substitute player.

I agree with your first statement - poor comparison. Turn-sitters are decidedly NOT like substitute players. Take basketball. A player, say, Kevin Love of the Cavs, gets tired, they rotate someone in off the bench. Team game, happens all the time. In CC though, when a player is "away", whatever the circumstance; Kevin Love, right? - they don't rotate in a new player all the time; typically Lebron James, who was already on the floor, simply takes over for Love, meaning the opponent is now playing against two Lebrons. Or Chariot Of Fires, as the case may be. In most team sports, when you go to your bench, you're typically getting a lesser player by some measure. In CC, when you account sit, you actually have a chance to stack the deck. See the problem here?

Yeah, I do see that problem, although I don't know any solution that doesn't have its own problems.

Symmetry wrote:Is there a game or sport that you would consider comparable? I think this conversation could go on and on, but might be easily cut short if you said that you thought CC was unique and that other codes of game playing shouldn't apply.

Again Symm, maybe you'd understand if you actually played the game eh? Take some time away from the troll life and join a tournament and actually bring an informed opinion to the table?

The point about LeBron James isn't completely accurate, actually. Yes, sometimes the person sitting for you is Chariot of Fire, but sometimes it's macbone, and that's not so good. =) I've had friends ask me to sit for them, and on some games, I just try to muddle through it (psst, don't ask Mac to sit for you).

When I go on vacation, I want to disconnect from everything. That means no email, no Conquer Club, no work. It's just not feasible to stop a game when any one of the 8 players in a quads game goes on a trip if we want to finish a tournament in a reasonable amount of time. In team games, at least the ones I play in, it hurts to have someone missing and someone else having to step in and take the turn unless it's someone else on the team. The sitter often has to catch up on what our goals are, what we've been working toward, and other considerations that the person playing the game understands already. Yes, the sitter may be a stronger player (and they may be a weaker player). Still, unless they've been closely following the game, they're going to have to spend some time catching up, and if the map is unfamiliar or the settings are tricky, that can be difficult.

I agree that the sitter situation as it stands now it's ideal, and if the games could be postponed or placed on a hiatus, that would be better, but doing so would drag out the games tremendously.

I think a stronger comparison would be to playing risk at home with the family, as opposed to professional basketball. At home during the holidays, when it's your dad's turn, but he'd rather be watching the football game, often grandma can sub in with no one giving a damn. Again I think comparing any CC player to a professional athlete is a horrible comparison.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Is there a game or sport that you would consider comparable? I think this conversation could go on and on, but might be easily cut short if you said that you thought CC was unique and that other codes of game playing shouldn't apply.

It's mostly unique. The only things similar that I can think of are other online games which are now mostly defunct. There's no real-world equivalent I can think of that requires you to take one turn a day for months at a time. Any other board game is usually played in a single sitting.

Mostly unique is almost a tautology. Either it's unique, or there are points of similarity.

If you can only see similarities with failed online games, isn't that a good reason to try something different?If

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Is there a game or sport that you would consider comparable? I think this conversation could go on and on, but might be easily cut short if you said that you thought CC was unique and that other codes of game playing shouldn't apply.

It's mostly unique. The only things similar that I can think of are other online games which are now mostly defunct. There's no real-world equivalent I can think of that requires you to take one turn a day for months at a time. Any other board game is usually played in a single sitting.

Mostly unique is almost a tautology. Either it's unique, or there are points of similarity.

If you can only see similarities with failed online games, isn't that a good reason to try something different?If

I'm kind of new to posting on here, but have been reading the forums since Razor did the joke thread for the Sept. monthly challenge. Anyways...

I think that the way that "unique" seems to be used in this instance would be using its other definition, which is to say that something is "very special or unusual", as opposed to being "unlike anything or anyone else". When it's being used in that way, I think it would actually be perfectly acceptable to use a modifier and say that it's "mostly unique". I think in your hurry to point out what you perceived to be a flaw in someone else's logic and reasoning, you left a major hole in your response by reading the words that were written without reading their meaning.

don't feed the troll, LLT...

riskllama wrote:don't feed the troll, LLT...

Too late...

Are you guys really discussing game related stuff with symmetry seriously?
That would be like me arguing stuff against women regarding their period. The guy doesn't deserve to be read.

Anyways, back on topic. In clan games, if you are not sure you ll be able to play an entire game because you ll have vacations or important stuff, you simply ask not to participate.
It is very rare that a player needs sitting for 2 or more turns straight unless he went awol or whatever important shit happened in real life that puts cc as your lowest priority.

A tournament is very different as some require committment for a very long amount of time. People often register to tournaments without really thinking of the schedule and the long term committment they are making. That s why i never join long tournaments. But yeah.. over a year you necesairly have moments when you need sitting and take a break.

betty : the correct response to women complaining of menstrual cramps is "walk it off" and point in whatever direction you are not currently heading.

owenshooter wrote:most clan wars are fought by 2-3 guys from each side, dictating each and every move or playing each and every move.

That's not true from my experience. There are a lot of great players that I have a lot of respect for that were part my clan, or still are part of the new one... and now that it's merged, some great new players that I have yet to get to know since I don't play as much as I used to. If a player is so bad that they can't make decisions themselves, then what's the point in having them in your clan? If they have the potential to be great, then you teach them, but you shouldn't have to dictate. Turns are discussed though because you need to know what the game plan is. If you don't decide on one with your teammates, you've already lost.
...


As for account sitting, I've had someone sit my account for a few weeks where something bad was happening in real life. Sometimes it is better to have someone take your turns than to let the members of your team down. Other times, you might be going away for a weekend, and ask for help. That's perfectly valid. If sitting was against the rules, you'd have more people lose all interest in the game. Player retention is important.

If you are a good enough player, you shouldn't have to worry about someone sitting a few turns. If you were losing the game, then you should by all means continue to lose it, not win it by forfeit. Usually, the person taking the turns is just doing the minimum possible to keep games going and the account from losing a ton of points.

Okay, if I sit for a cadet or something and my level of play brings their score up a little, I can see your point. BUT, since those games will not have been started by me, they're probably going to be lost anyway due to the initial moves unless being played against someone who is also of low skill. The chances of them suddenly getting some major points advantage is very slim.

betiko wrote:Are you guys really discussing game related stuff with symmetry seriously?

Yes, of course. We are having a "conversation" with someone who figures while visiting his family in Bozeman he might be tempted to stop by the computer museum in Boston.

I'm looking forward to some tips about where the best place to eat near the pyramids of Giza is, on my next trip to England.

For the kids, sometimes an adult conversation means talking to people you disagree with. That's not something horrific, or unbelievable.

Symmetry wrote:What was your favorite Smurf?

Oh, I don't know. Probably Smurfette she was kind of hot.

You should make a new thread with a poll.

betiko wrote:Are you guys really discussing game related stuff with symmetry seriously?
That would be like me arguing stuff against women regarding their period. The guy doesn't deserve to be read.
Betsy you are on the haq(truth). These guys are charity workers, feeding trolls to keep them alive
Anyways, back on topic. In clan games, if you are not sure you ll be able to play an entire game because you ll have vacations or important stuff, you simply ask not to participate.
It is very rare that a player needs sitting for 2 or more turns straight unless he went awol or whatever important shit happened in real life that puts cc as your lowest priority.
I agree, very rare that multiple turns in a game get fielded by a sitter. I like knowing that if something happens in my life, I'm not letting down my CC crew by missing turns. The boys have my back
A tournament is very different as some require committment for a very long amount of time. People often register to tournaments without really thinking of the schedule and the long term committment they are making. That s why i never join long tournaments. But yeah.. over a year you necesairly have moments when you need sitting and take a break.Sadly some tournaments that aren't billed as long, take forever. Tourney organiser pulls a DSOIV and is either clueless or loses interest. People drop out, numbers need to be filled. Folks take forever to join games etc

Owen dear, me thinks you are projecting your control freak nature when you assert that most clan wars are run by 2-3players calling the shots. Ain't no one got time for that shit. Except maybe Bruceswar, haven't seen him for ages. Rumour is his mom's basement got flooded. Blowing you a kiss if you're reading this Brucie poos.

Sitters are useful. Sitting is sometimes open to abuse. Sitting allows this site to stay alive a little longer by giving people choices.

Hugs and Kisses, the queer coloured jesus < rainbow jesus >