[OFFICIAL POLL]No First Player Attack

[Swifte]

This is something we could test before making it the rule. I'd be interested in seeing some data and hearing from more people that have actually played it this way, before putting it to a vote. Otherwise people are just guessing which will be better.

The purpose of this thread is to gauge the community`s reaction. Since the rule effects players equally (you still have an equal chance to be first, second or any other player), it is a zero-sum change. It isn`t better or worse.

I meant does it actually make the game play better or worse...

[watsy]

what about a auto snapshot at start of game for all to see ?

No comments auto snapshots means no changes to be made just straight down to risk speeds up wars by 12 hrs must be someone who wants to comment

[L M S]

10000000000000000% AGAINST.

[Tammy DeLee]

in that case the 2nd player becomes the first player, so definitely not! You know the risk when you join the game, so if it turns out badly, no one to blame but yourself. but this is only a trial poll to get an idea of how much public feedback something like this would get, So it doesnt really matter what we think on the subject, now does it? Damn L! 153? all of the sudden I feel really small! lol

[rhp 1]

I voted don't change, but with minimal conviction... implementation of a rule like this assumes that players, over time, don't equally get first turn goes and second turn goes... if that were the case? Then I'd be all for it... but over time its clear, to me at least, that everyone has an equal opportunity for first go, and it def evens out over time... so I don't really see the point... in the board game you generally roll for first go which is just about as arbitrary as it is on here...

[Metsfanmax]

I voted don't change, but with minimal conviction... implementation of a rule like this assumes that players, over time, don't equally get first turn goes and second turn goes... if that were the case? Then I'd be all for it... but over time its clear, to me at least, that everyone has an equal opportunity for first go, and it def evens out over time... so I don't really see the point... in the board game you generally roll for first go which is just about as arbitrary as it is on here...

Assuming the algorithm that chooses turn order is perfectly random, then each person will average out with the same number of first and second turns in 1v1s. The issue here is not whether the current system is fair (it is), but just whether each individual game is balanced.

[BigBallinStalin]

You can't balance every individual game with a one-size-fits-all rule (no first player attack). It'll simply create 'balance' in some games and inbalances in others--depending on the map, settings, and player's strategies.

Of course, if we ignore all that, then this rule seems like a great idea!

Since the rule effects players equally (you still have an equal chance to be first, second or any other player), it is a zero-sum change.

This isn't true because the change in rules forces a change in strategies. Old strategies may become less effective, while new ones must be developed and tested. The players who can find those newer strategies would reap the benefits, thereby causing the rule to lead to a negative-sum change.

Unfortunately, with no recourse to avoid this rule change, players who can't as effectively adapt would be discouraged from playing. Of course, 'vice-versa' applies to the current state of affairs--but only for some unknown percentage who have probably already left if they've proven themselves to be poor strategists (unless they've teamed up and follow orders).

[BigBallinStalin]

In general, this rule is such a bad idea because no one really understands how it will affect the players, their strategies, and their valuations of various maps and settings. The arguments in favor of this rule have currently been ignoring this or have been imaging this problem away. This rule would not be a problem if the rule was optional, but since it isn't, then it isn't a wise idea.

This tactic is called 'shooting from the hip'. Some businesses do this and get lucky; however, most who follow this method do not succeed because decision-makers need to understand the consequences of their proposals. This should be obvious, but the consequences aren't readily revealed through polling a small portion of the customers. For example:

Even if the poll showed 51% in favor or even 70% in favor, all that demonstrates is this:

(a) the majority of forum-goers, a small % of overall players, support the proposal.
(b) the views of the majority of players is unknown
(c) the consequences of the proposal are still unknown.
(d) the number of paying customers and freebies who support/don't support the rule is unknown.

Given the CC-wide applicability of this rule and given the absence of gathering any sufficient marketing data, I don't see how this rule would be beneficial, nor do I see how this business can attract more customers (without of course a lucky 'shot in the dark').

This rule and the expectations of its pushers are symbolic of this site's foolishness.

[Arama86n]

Like the NR's arn't confused enough as it is


Amusement aside, I do see the logic to this. And I am cautiously positive to this change, I'm just worried we're making things more confusing than they need to be?
Then again this place must be rather confusing to the new-comer as it is, this might just be a drop of water in that particular ocean hah.

On the point of making this an option, well I would generally be strongly on the side that's waving a red flag against too many options, going too far down that road. But... this might just be one of those things where having the option to play with or without is sound. Escpecially since so many people seem to be against this.

I can live with whatever the outcome is here.
Life is ceaceless change, what's one more

[King Engineer]

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

viewtopic.php?f=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

[Jippd]

Sorry I don't have time to read through 4 pages right now so I may have missed something.

Is it not possible to just make this a game option?

Eventually the site will reach a point where there are too many options making it harder and more confusing for new players. If that happens it may ruin the ability to attract new customers due to the difficulty in understanding the multiple game play options on this site.

Does CC not have a the ability to send a mass PM to all users? I think everyone should be made aware of this thread so they can vote on it. I would support the idea of a mass PM if it were limited to once a week or once every other week. Sort of a very short and sweet mailing letter. It might get the community more involved.


Regarding my thoughts on the issue:

I say yes because implementing this would make games more fair and balanced. I see some people think this will give more advantage to first player it will not. Attackers advantage means 2nd player can easily take out whatever player 1 deploys and more often then not improve their position by the end of round 1.

I say no because it ruins the traditional rules of risk. Real risk isn't like that after all. What we play on conquer club also isn't like real risk though now is it. There are no parachutes, polymorph, nukes and all the other things that we love. So can the traditional argument stand up? My mind says no but my heart says yes haha.

[Orange-Idaho-Dog]

I voted no, because of the way it is proposed to be rolled out. BigWham mentioned that it could be implemented for certain game types and if that is the case I would be in favor of it. I only see this being an issue in 1v1 games (polymorphic included) and I would not want this on a 4 player singles game for example, or team games. The clan game FOG "rule" is a courtesy only, and these games don't need to be impacted by a rule change for that reason.

[Donelladan]

You can't balance every individual game with a one-size-fits-all rule (no first player attack). It'll simply create 'balance' in some games and inbalances in others--depending on the map, settings, and player's strategies.

I would like to know how this rules could inbalance other game depending on maps and settings.

I may see cases where 2nd player will have advantage, but I can't see how 2nd player could have more advantage because of that rule than 1st player has now, on any maps/settings.

[chemefreak]

Terrible idea. Just terrible.

What's next? A rule that says if you get too good of dice your turn ends? Going first is part of the luck of the draw. This game is all about luck.

[jackal31]

Terrible idea. Just terrible.

What's next? A rule that says if you get too good of dice your turn ends? Going first is part of the luck of the draw. This game is all about luck.

This is the first thing I thought of when starting my read. I am still thinking of how it would enhance the experience here without compromising the game itself.

My vote is not submitted as of yet....gotta give it some thought.

[reptile]

i def support the change. Seul brings up great points

[King Engineer]

Terrible idea. Just terrible.

What's next? A rule that says if you get too good of dice your turn ends? Going first is part of the luck of the draw. This game is all about luck.

^Thats a very good point!

Those people who do not like the advantage of luck should be playing strategy games like Age of Empires etc............

People should avoid maps/settings that have first player advantage..............with options like Manual, Trench, unlimited and parachute fortings, spoils, one can easily eliminate the first player advantage in 99% team games, and 50% 1v1s....?

And with Polymorphic, first player advantage is useless.

I just think we have too many different game settings (and I am looking forward for many more to come). However, wasting adding a setting for something so minute (or unnecessary) will just confuse new players as well as eat up on resources that could be used to create a better new setting from among the 1000s of suggestions out there.

[Bones2484]

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

- Positional Advantage: Disagree. Player 2 as the first to attack gets this advantage in all but Unlimited Forts.
- Continent Advantage: Disagree. Player 2 as the first to attack gets this advantage as first to break continents. Though Player 1 gets at least 1 round of deploy.
- Deploy Advantage: Disagree. Player 2 as the first to attack gets this advantage as first to weaken opponent.
- Fort Advantage: Agreed Player 1, but minor concern.
- Card Advantage: Agreed Player 2.
- Fog Advantage: Agreed no Player, but people who complain about Fog are pathetic whiners anyways. Easily solvable with a workaround.
- Attackers Advantage: Agreed Player 2.

This just shifts the advantage. I'd rather be Player 2 if this is implemented. Offense is ALWAYS better than defense.

If you really want to "fix" this, take away all bonuses from Player 1 (or both players) in Round 1 and only give a standard deploy. Not perfect, but doesn't drastically shift the power at the beginning of the game.

[Gweeedo]

@King Engineer, Who is talking about game settings?
I believe this will effect all games.

If you are feeling lucky come and play CC
I think the Idea is to bring more people in.
If it turns out that your luck is not running, go somewhere else...this is a game of luck.

Too much luck involved with the dice alone.
First turn advantage is too much!

Trying to reduce the luck involved in a game like this is difficult. I think CC is pointed in the right direction.

What if they sweetened the pot? Would you Sacrifice first turn attack to get a free card?
The first turn Card is an issue (if you like spoils)

[greenoaks]

how would this work for a 12-player game?

do the first 11 deploy and the 12th player gets to attack?
if only the first deplaoys and the 2nd attacks, how is that fair to those playing 3-12?

[BigBallinStalin]

You can't balance every individual game with a one-size-fits-all rule (no first player attack). It'll simply create 'balance' in some games and inbalances in others--depending on the map, settings, and player's strategies.

I would like to know how this rules could inbalance other game depending on maps and settings.

I may see cases where 2nd player will have advantage, but I can't see how 2nd player could have more advantage because of that rule than 1st player has now, on any maps/settings.

Dropping without attacking reveals one's plans and without the means for attacking, one can't , the 2nd player can better coordinate his move and attack more effectively--fort more correctly, etc., because he knows what you're going to do. The 1st player can't prevent this as effectively and then resumes with a disadvantage because either his shit's been damaged, he can't sneak away with a quick attack from earlier, or simply because he couldn't attack when he should've had the opportunity to do so. The whole point of dropping is usually always to attack, so why take that away and grant the 2nd player an informational advantage? This sucks for team games and >2 player games. It's pointless and counterproductive.

And what imbalance is to be corrected by team games from this rule? None. You've got >2 players, so per-turn drops are usually smaller, thus the alleged imbalances melt away.

Mr Changsha summed this up in 2 sentences. Sorry, I thought it would be obvious.


This rule may be great for 1v1s for huge drops (I never had problems with Waterloo's +6 or so because I'm not a whiny bitch about selectively remembered injustices), but obviously it's not as great on other maps and settings.

[casper]

Definitely NO. Maybe for 1 vs 1 games but that's about it. Also, going first is not really an advantage in escalating since you only get 4 cards on the first set.

Can this be put in the headlines side panel on the main page so more CC members see it?

[scottp]

Not No,

HELL NO!

[Crazyirishman]

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.

[spiesr]

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

Following this logic I assume that you would rather go first in games as they are now yes? I ask you this then. Would you rather go first under the proposed change or second under the existing system?