Conquer Club

All that matters is the WIN!

winning is indeed nice... but id rather just have fun. I demand my money's worth!!!

What are desires that will get you ignore listed?

I'll take lame things noobs want for 600 Alex!

but if people can't forfit they tend to just stop playing. and gthe game is delayed 15 min. before they get dropped. All I'm saying is that there should be a way for people to bow out in a more respectfull manner to the remaining players. As far as the cards go.. if they forfit thier armies become nutral and whom ever kills all the nutral could get the cards.

gopher897 wrote:but if people can't forfit they tend to just stop playing. and gthe game is delayed 15 min. before they get dropped. All I'm saying is that there should be a way for people to bow out in a more respectfull manner to the remaining players. As far as the cards go.. if they forfit thier armies become nutral and whom ever kills all the nutral could get the cards.

omg thats ONLY for speed games.... ugh

Peaceful Warrior wrote:actually, more than that...

i said "SO FAR"

I will admit, I like the idea of allowing an unhappy player to step out of the game, but I am also aware that it is simply not feasible...

Think about it, there are really only two options, (1) the person who surrenders gets to keep his points, or (2) the player who forfeits gives points away.

With the first, players who strive to win would lose out.

With the second, people would generate faux games, simply to give points away, then quit, re-join CC, and do it all over again.

Sad, but simple truth...

Sometimes, there's just no hope. A resign button would be nice. Or for people that have to drop out of a game for whatever reason, a way for them to quit without deadbeating out for 3 rounds.

Then i can make 10 accounts join games with them all and click resign and rake in the points.

I think that this is a great idea, except for in games where points are given for conquering players.

been put in play, it was abused, it was removed, its been rejected multiple times...


check the to do list before you post please

Rejected Gameplay

1) Auto-Kick When Missed Turns Are Not Consecutive
2) Bring Back 'Surrender' Button
3) Exchange Countries Between Team Mates
4) Flexible Alliance
5) Fortify Through Team Members
6) Trade Cards
7) Unlimited Adjacent Fortification

These options would add a lot to the site/game!
Why were they rejected?

What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.

Long story short, it wasts time.

I wouldn't mind the fortify through teammates though.

Auto Kick.

No those options would not. Some if not all of those would be abused and they dont make gameplay as smooth as it could be.

Surrender is the only one that I could be a used but people would abuse that and thats probly why it got taken off.

[quote="Fire Mario"]What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.

I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.

Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.

Your thoughts?

PhoenixSF wrote:

Fire Mario wrote:What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.

I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.

Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.

Your thoughts?

Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort

[quote="soundout9"]Some if not all of those would be abused and they dont make gameplay as smooth as it could be.

I guess i can imagine that some people would look to abuse such options, but i confess 'how' and 'why' still eludes me.

Point taken tho' - so far as i understand it.

For the love of Christ, learn how to quote!

soundout9 wrote:Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort

Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.

YAY!

Unlimited Adjacent wouldn't work. It's either one or the other. If you can unlimitedly(that a word?) GO form adjacent spot to adjacent spot you will be able to go anywhere, it would just take longer. Unlimited offers this to you with less time consuming ways.

PhoenixSF wrote:

soundout9 wrote:Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort

Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.

You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.

When it all comes down to is lack has said no and he is not going to change his desiscion because either he does not think it is in the best interest of the site or there is too much coding to do or just not very popular with the general public

Fortify Through Teammates

soundout9 wrote:

PhoenixSF wrote:Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.

You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.

When it all comes down to is lack has said no and he is not going to change his desiscion because either he does not think it is in the best interest of the site or there is too much coding to do or just not very popular with the general public

I can see i should have been more specific in my initial clarification. I was thinking that the game option would be in the form of a drop down box or similar which allowed the host to choose the number of adjacent fortifications allowed (up to say 6). Logically, smaller maps would need less to meet the middle ground as you say.

To be honest tho', i'm not losing any sleep over it. I just thought it would add to the gameplay.