Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:

Gweeedo wrote: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.

TheMissionary wrote:My vote would be to not allow an attack in the first round, if the first player cannot attack.

agentcom wrote: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.

Artimis wrote:

TheMissionary wrote:My vote would be to not allow an attack in the first round, if the first player cannot attack.

So disallowing attacks by both players in the first of the game is preferred? Just what is the point of having a 'round one' in the first place if no one can choose whether or not to attack? Might as well just abolish the entire 'first round' altogether, except that would make the 'second round' the new 'first round'.

It's not broken, don't fix it.

TheMissionary wrote:I'm saying if there were to be no attacks by player 1, it should be of equal value to not allow any other player in the first round to play. This gives everyone the opportunity to gauge the board for 1 round.

I also agree that neither option is necessary. IF this is going to be implemented, it should be made fair for all players.

macbone wrote:I voted "No" for this option.

But fundamentally, this rule alters the basic rules of Risk. I know we've moved past Risk with our parachute forts and nuclear spoils, but I'd like to see the basic Risk game preserved in some form. Many people who come here are looking for Risk online, and where possible, I'd like to see that basic model available.

Gweeedo wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Gweeedo wrote: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.

Not Surprised, just amazed...at some of the lifers here. Never figured players would want to keep it a game of dice?
Maybe an option is best...for those of us who enjoy playing Strategy games.

Gweeedo wrote:I was mainly pointing out that many players have stated that they love this game and do not want to change it because it is all about luck and that is why it should remain the same...no change.

Most all games have dice. This game is all dice. This is a game of dice.
The power of the dice can be subdued.

What you say is true for the most part.
Some people are born lucky...others are simply bad at the dice games. What is the use putting thought into a game (knowing you have done a superb job) just to be beat with the dice.

This game gives a person a false sense of victory. You can be great at risk (cuz you is Lucky) but suck at Strategy games.

Gweeedo wrote:Quote:Over time we all get roughly the same luck.

I can see how a person would understand this to be the case.
Not true.
But even if it was, who wants to play (put that kind of time) 5000 games.

Gweeedo wrote:Quote:Over time we all get roughly the same luck.

I can see how a person would understand this to be the case.
Not true.
But even if it was, who wants to play (put that kind of time) 5000 games.

Serbia wrote:Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Serbia wrote:Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Serbia wrote:Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

Serbia wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Serbia wrote:Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

WHERE IS MY INVITE you're welcome dude I HAVEN'T GOT MY INVITE YET

Bollocks.