Conquer Club

IcePack wrote:I'm strongly against this suggestion. 100%

Agreed, the poll also is suggesting this at the moment.

Sometimes change can be good, but sometimes change seems to be done simply for changes sake and this feels like one of those times. I really hope, on top of all the changes that have been already made in the last few months, that something that fundamentally alters the way the game is played like this change would can be left in the dustbin.

A new member just joining may not like to just deploy and wait 24 hours to take their first ever turn. So I vote no.

I am also against this suggestion.

please leave it as it is

Interesting read so far.
I have seen so many players complaining in gamechats and clan war threads that their opponent had such a huge advantage because they went first. Now the majority is against a change of the rules which would minimize the problem? And i haven´t seen any logical argument against the change yet.

Let´s check the situation:
Let´s assume Player A is always the player who is allowed to attack first.

Atm, Player A deploys first, attacks first. Player B has all disadvantages.

With that change, if player A is lucky enough to be in the strong position of turn order, having the advantage of going 2nd and being able to attack first:
Player A attacks first, but Player B was allowed to deploy first.

What is not to love about this? I really don´t see it.
And, it fixes the problem that you have a foggy game and your opponent conquers parts of the maps before you have seen the board.
No need for any 12 hour fog gentlemen agreements any more.


I guess many players see it from the point of view that they are not allowed to attack on their first turn. How about seeing it from the position of player B who is allowed to deploy once before the game starts with normal turns?

If you want a system which is as fair as possible, then "yes" is the obvious vote.
If you want to get all the advantages for yourself if you play first, or you want to be able to complain about how unfair it was that your opponents always went first, then i suggest you vote "no"

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

I am confused... how can you be against this idea?
In the current situation, the player that starts has all the benefits, when we would change it, the benefits will be shared.

In some situations, it will be better to be the second to go, doessn't matter, the chance of being second to go is still the same.

I have been in a load of games where the outcome is obvious after whoever has taken the first turn , so think it is an excellent idea .

this is SUCH A GOOD IDEA.

i cant believe there is opposition to this, never mind vehement opposition. fools! think about it for a moment!

Bruceswar wrote:I am also strongly against this idea. NO way in hell will this work as you think. Just leave it alone. It will only piss people off and make some leave. You need people coming not going.

IcePack wrote:I'm strongly against this suggestion. 100%

Jdsizzleslice wrote:This makes absolutely no sense.

Best Quotes.^

frankiebee wrote:I am confused... how can you be against this idea?
In the current situation, the player that starts has all the benefits, when we would change it, the benefits will be shared.

In some situations, it will be better to be the second to go, doessn't matter, the chance of being second to go is still the same.

This would make the second go the first go, you're just changing the order in which people go.

Seulessliathan wrote:Interesting read so far.
I have seen so many players complaining in gamechats and clan war threads that their opponent had such a huge advantage because they went first. Now the majority is against a change of the rules which would minimize the problem? And i haven´t seen any logical argument against the change yet.

Let´s check the situation:
Let´s assume Player A is always the player who is allowed to attack first.

Atm, Player A deploys first, attacks first. Player B has all disadvantages.

With that change, if player A is lucky enough to be in the strong position of turn order, having the advantage of going 2nd and being able to attack first:
Player A attacks first, but Player B was allowed to deploy first.

What is not to love about this? I really don´t see it.
And, it fixes the problem that you have a foggy game and your opponent conquers parts of the maps before you have seen the board.
No need for any 12 hour fog gentlemen agreements any more.


I guess many players see it from the point of view that they are not allowed to attack on their first turn. How about seeing it from the position of player B who is allowed to deploy once before the game starts with normal turns?

If you want a system which is as fair as possible, then "yes" is the obvious vote.
If you want to get all the advantages for yourself if you play first, or you want to be able to complain about how unfair it was that your opponents always went first, then i suggest you vote "no"

I like it.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

frankiebee wrote:I am confused... how can you be against this idea?
In the current situation, the player that starts has all the benefits, when we would change it, the benefits will be shared.

In some situations, it will be better to be the second to go, doessn't matter, the chance of being second to go is still the same.

This would make the second go the first go, you're just changing the order in which people go.

No, because it's mitigated by the extra deployment.

Essentially, this update serves merely to mitigate the luck of first turn in maps / settings where it needs mitigating (world 2.1, hive etc etc etc).

It does 'make the second go the first' as you put it, but that new first go now has a few well placed 4 stacks to contend with.

How many times have you played a game on a large terr map only to find that the game is essentially finished before you've taken your first turn?

This does not change the fact that the first attacker will get an advantage, but it does limit that advantage in a way that can only benefit the game.

It is an excellent idea for 1v1 games --- too often, especially in a big game, the first player drops 4 and above, attack and the 2nd player starts with lower troop count and only 3 drops.....not fair

1 vs 1 ,,yes ,, but for others settings(3, 4,5,6,7, etc players) i think its not nesesary.

Lets try for start to implement this option only for 1vs 1, to see how this will work.

I say NO
if u want change something to make it balanced,
than change the territory bonus ( from 12 on u get 4 troops ) to a higher number,
that way the problem of first guys getting more troops in rd 2 already ( first anyhow)
and the guy who plays second has regions already reduced and starts off with lower troop count.

make it from 15 troops get 4 troops, 18 gets 5, 21 gets 6 ? ......................

When I first saw the message in my box this morning, I just thought "WTF! They want to change something so fundamental ! No way ! "
And I voted no.

Then I read all the post.
And I voted yes .

I think humans are basically against change, any changes, and so current 31% pro 62% against isn't that bad. I assume most of people did like me, clicked on the pm, voted no, and left to do something else. Too bad the first post didn't explain more the advantage of this idea.

As it has been said before, everyone is thinking about themselves in the situation of being 1st, and being unable to attack. I agree that will be surprising.
But at the end the game will be way more fair, always. City mogul trench 1vs1 ? Can't wait to play it with that option.

I hope more people will change their vote the way I did. This should be implemented. And even if majority is still against it, I am in favor of making it optional. People may change their mind once they tested it.

well said.

bigW - bring out the executivedecisionhammer!

Donelladan wrote:When I first saw the message in my box this morning, I just thought "WTF! They want to change something so fundamental ! No way ! "
And I voted no.

Then I read all the post.
And I voted yes .

I think humans are basically against change, any changes, and so current 31% pro 62% against isn't that bad. I assume most of people did like me, clicked on the pm, voted no, and left to do something else. Too bad the first post didn't explain more the advantage of this idea.

As it has been said before, everyone is thinking about themselves in the situation of being 1st, and being unable to attack. I agree that will be surprising.
But at the end the game will be way more fair, always. City mogul trench 1vs1 ? Can't wait to play it with that option.

I hope more people will change their vote the way I did. This should be implemented. And even if majority is still against it, I am in favor of making it optional. People may change their mind once they tested it.

Agreed

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.

khazalid wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

frankiebee wrote:I am confused... how can you be against this idea?
In the current situation, the player that starts has all the benefits, when we would change it, the benefits will be shared.

In some situations, it will be better to be the second to go, doessn't matter, the chance of being second to go is still the same.

This would make the second go the first go, you're just changing the order in which people go.

No, because it's mitigated by the extra deployment.

Essentially, this update serves merely to mitigate the luck of first turn in maps / settings where it needs mitigating (world 2.1, hive etc etc etc).

It does 'make the second go the first' as you put it, but that new first go now has a few well placed 4 stacks to contend with.

How many times have you played a game on a large terr map only to find that the game is essentially finished before you've taken your first turn?

This does not change the fact that the first attacker will get an advantage, but it does limit that advantage in a way that can only benefit the game.

Can see a few different sides of the argument. I would love to see this as an option, in particular for 1vs1 games. Might be a handy little insurance policy for randoms as well. Would sux on some conquest maps.

Not super keen on taking a multi choice viva every time I try and start a game.

Some of the sheep on site seem to bleat -
More option good.
Less option bad.

Not really that simple. More options but make them the right options. Maybe lets build a coding rule into additions. For every 2 options you add, you must remove 1 option. Have an option pool, with some options getting relegated....

Lastly taking umbrage at all the folks that refer to this suggestion as an update. IT IS NOT AN UPDATE, an update is an improvement/reworking/edit of an existing option or function. This is a CHANGE not an update!

I like the idea, but with all the pushback, making it optional is probably the best business decision.

now who's the pedant?

Donelladan wrote:When I first saw the message in my box this morning, I just thought "WTF! They want to change something so fundamental ! No way ! "
And I voted no.

Then I read all the post.
And I voted yes .

I think humans are basically against change, any changes, and so current 31% pro 62% against isn't that bad. I assume most of people did like me, clicked on the pm, voted no, and left to do something else. Too bad the first post didn't explain more the advantage of this idea.

As it has been said before, everyone is thinking about themselves in the situation of being 1st, and being unable to attack. I agree that will be surprising.
But at the end the game will be way more fair, always. City mogul trench 1vs1 ? Can't wait to play it with that option.

I hope more people will change their vote the way I did. This should be implemented. And even if majority is still against it, I am in favor of making it optional. People may change their mind once they tested it.

I agree with this, especially the bolded portion. However to be honest, I would disagree with this change. The sole reason is because I do not play 1v1 games for fairness. I play it for fun, thats plain and simple.

If I want to play fair, strategic games, then I will play quads clan vs clan. But the games that I play by myself I just want to have fun and not have to play so hard.

In my opinion I think this would be a good update for the people that take every game seriously and the higher ranking players. However half the fun for me is joining a 1v1 games a colonel made and have a chance to get a really good drop and beat them.

And if they create/join a game they are accepting the same "gamble" and I bet they enjoy it too. I bet they would be really happy if I got to go first with a superior drop and they beat me with superior strategy.

This is a badly formed and rushed post - sorry

Swifte wrote: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.

Donelladan wrote:Too bad the first post didn't explain more the advantage of this idea.

See above, but also I don`t want to skew results. What we have already seen over one day is that at first the change is vehemently opposed. Then some players come around to the new way. Then some of the hardcore players come in and are happiest. After a few more days, it will be interesting to see how this morphs.

MGSteve wrote:I don't mean to be cruel but I really think it's terrible idea put forth for all the wrong reasons.

What if one of the reasons is to distinguish us from other RISK sites? What if another reason is that other sites have successfully implemented this rule? Those two things seem contradictory, but the sites being compared changes in each reason.

MoB Deadly wrote: However to be honest, I would disagree with this change. The sole reason is because I do not play 1v1 games for fairness. I play it for fun, thats plain and simple.

If I want to play fair, strategic games, then I will play quads clan vs clan. But the games that I play by myself I just want to have fun and not have to play so hard.

In my opinion I think this would be a good update for the people that take every game seriously and the higher ranking players. However half the fun for me is joining a 1v1 games a colonel made and have a chance to get a really good drop and beat them.

And if they create/join a game they are accepting the same "gamble" and I bet they enjoy it too. I bet they would be really happy if I got to go first with a superior drop and they beat me with superior strategy.

There will still be gamble scenarios. Conquest maps will remain very similar. Pearl Harbour will remain the best map on the site. Doodle/Lux won`t have changed much.