game=6023124
*sigh*... 115 rounds and no sign of an ending to the stalemate.

The other game took 81 rounds, and that was with players who made large mistakes...

The thing is, it's impossible to make small gains on this map. Notice how the territories in the middle all give you 7 or 8 troops? As ...

I saw the message it was updated, had to go check it out.

I still think it's retarded in order to see all the maps you first click on "start a game" and then on "browse maps". There should be a link to "map gallery" right below "game finder" or something....but on to the map.

It looks okay ...

To be honest, I liked the simplicity of "Shapes". Also, typing "attack F5" is easier than typing "attack Johannesburg". I guess I'll get used to it.

It does look very nice, though.

Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time?
This is symptomatic of a well-balanced map - and in my opinion is pretty standard in 3-player games in any case
One of the games started as 6-player, the other as 5-player, but both are 3-player now and look ...

we've added the [side stats] button to move statistics to the side of the map, as it was before this update, and you can make this your default on the Game Settings page .
Thank goodness! I've set it back to the way it was before. This new look is ugly and wastes too much space for me. (might have ...

Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time? One party in the North (beginning with Montagnail in the north-east), one in the West (mountain ranges & coast), and one in the South. And the main fighting then happens either between South & West along the ...

A potential objection to the idea of having Nimiipuu start neutral is that it leaves only 71 territories, which means that there will be either 2 or 3 neutral territories no matter how many players there are. And that also affects how many armies everyone starts out receiving - in most cases, it ...

Just wanted to give a thumbs-up to this map. I'm playing it right now. It has some very interesting strategic qualities, and is easy to understand.

In contrast to what someone said earlier, the arctic bonus is quite useful. I started by taking the Northeast and Greenland. With only 2 territories ...

Your method will only tell me which maps have been played the mos t. To me, that is rather worthless information because there are quite a few variables involved that determine a maps play frequency. Frequency != popularity. What I think is the meat of 'popularity' is if there was a formula to ...

I have often thought that the start a game, or game finder page, should have the monthly top 20 most popular games listed. This list would take only 1 thing into account, and that is ,(simply), # of new games started each month. NOT games in progress.
All of this talk about formulas, and how to ...

mibi wrote:I used to compile such a list but based on total pages of active games. Cairnswick also had a thread about map movement stats but it sorted by total games played.

Does anyone have a link to either of those lists? I'd love to see the results myself.

Yeah, the native territories are better than the European homelands (unless using unlimited fortifications in which case I think the European homelands are a bit better. I never play that setting though).
Heh, well that might explain that then. I always play on the "unlimited, flat rate, no fog ...

I'd just like to say that this is my favourite map. For some reason, I play better on it than on any other map.

No, it's not perfectly even, but much more so than most, and it feels very unique. Starting from a native territory does seem to make things a bit more challenging (and the strategy is ...

Is this the right place to post a "bug"?

I think that the text on the map needs to be edited to make it clear that not only can kings not ATTACK in any direction but down the mountain, but also that there can be NO TROOP MOVEMENTS from kings to helipads that you own. This is not obvious at all; I ...

First, as to the serious consideration ... I tried to combine the ideas. The first day, there were far more votes for "keep the old system" BUT your idea was not included.

Now there are less than 10 in all, 4 for your idea..... out of several thousand players.

It seems that either people don't ...

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have ...

I think putting the ratings and the wall on the same page might be a good idea (side by side or one below the other). It would gather the feedback in one place.

The wall has nothing to do with feedback!
Is it forbidden to talk about the game on the wall? If not, then it seems to me that... well ...

5 star fair play means you do something 'not written in the rules' but still common sence. like http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431 for example, something you won't see everyday.
Yes, the person in the thread went "beyond the call of duty". But that was a unique situation ...

I think putting the ratings and the wall on the same page might be a good idea (side by side or one below the other). It would gather the feedback in one place.

It is more difficult to find the reasons behind a rating than it once was (because game chat is often long and it's hard to see the situation by just glancing at it), but at least it's doable now. So kudos for that.

Maybe people will start summing up the game at the end of the game chat, to make it ...

Night Strike wrote:You would have to give them a 1 rating. A 0 means you didn't provide a rating and is not calculated into the average.

Yes, you're correct. I meant to say "1".

Thank you for providing the link to games with the two players! This is very helpful.

Until further notice, I'll be using the system in this fashion: anyone who doesn't break any rules gets a "5" on "fair play". Anyone who doesn't say anything bad in chat gets a "5" for "attitude" (anyone who ...

Thank you for providing the link to games with the two players! This is very helpful.

Until further notice, I'll be using the system in this fashion: anyone who doesn't break any rules gets a "5" on "fair play". Anyone who doesn't say anything bad in chat gets a "5" for "attitude" (anyone who doesn ...

To continue with the current feedback system, Lackattack would have to hire more and more dedicated staff to work endless on the feedback complaints.
I don't quite understand... is this some sort of legal thing, then? Is letting someone say "this guy sucks" opening you to the possibility of a ...

Well, as long as we're giving useless suggestions here, I'll add another one:

Get rid of the manual "Attendance" ranking and have it be entirely automatic.

What is there to lose? Attendance isn't subjective anyway.