Conquer Club

Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.

Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.

The score is 0-0, there are only 20 active games of 60 total, and you predict 1 win for each side so 1-1 and you already think it is going to come down to the wire?

I hope you are right because I want to see a great match, but it seems a little hard to tell that from the results so far.

I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Chuuuuck wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.

The score is 0-0, there are only 20 active games of 60 total, and you predict 1 win for each side so 1-1 and you already think it is going to come down to the wire?

I hope you are right because I want to see a great match, but it seems a little hard to tell that from the results so far.

I took a look at each game and did a mean guess.. Looks like they are up in some and we are up in others.

Blitzaholic wrote:

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?

jakewilliams wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?

Because I think the finals is 60 games minimum.

jakewilliams wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?

I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?

pmchugh wrote:

jakewilliams wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?

I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?

He is saying why not make it a 67 game challenge

I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.

Chariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.

that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for him

ljex wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.

that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for him

yes.

I still don't understand why we don't make these things an odd number of games off the bat. OK, maybe it's due to each clan giving an equal # of map preferences, but you could easily sneak 1 or 3 or 7 random maps (w settings both clans agreed on) into the fold right off the start.

Snowgun wrote:I still don't understand why we don't make these things an odd number of games off the bat. OK, maybe it's due to each clan giving an equal # of map preferences, but you could easily sneak 1 or 3 or 7 random maps (w settings both clans agreed on) into the fold right off the start.

It's a fair point, but I think most people would rather just play in the home/away framework, and deal with a tiebreaker if and when. Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.

Tiebreakers are very rare. I've seen like 5 of them in 50 wars here.

Dako wrote:Tiebreakers are very rare. I've seen like 5 of them in 50 wars here.

You call 10% very rare? You must go off the fucking HANDLE when someone rolls a defensive double 6.

It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.

ljex wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

jakewilliams wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.


another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?

I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?

He is saying why not make it a 67 game challenge

let's see how the 1st 60 go for now.

Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.

Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.

I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.

Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.

Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

HAHA... mad props for the Dodgeball reference!

jj3044 wrote:

Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.

Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

HAHA... mad props for the Dodgeball reference!

Don't encourage him. Good luck to those of you I like.

Snowgun wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.

Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.

I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.

Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

You should've seen the game chat in the tiebreaker we had against Nemesis... I'd wager it was one of the most-watched clan games ever, at least at the beginning. A little actual drama (as opposed to bickering-style drama) is no bad thing.

To be fair, the BeNeLux game was probably more watched.

Ugh, fuckin' Benelux...

Game 8055670 KORT Wins!