What to write... you ll have to forgive me, my posts are never structured, just big rants.
Wasn't really a lot throughout the thread that seemed to be pushing anything substantive forward. Im not sure I have anything substantive to add, but the common problem of CC members complaining because people pick a complicated map and excel at it and then pointing at them and saying well thats all the player can do - is a juvenile idea at best (intellectually honest of us I think all realize that and the point has already been made in previous post in this thread), but is there way to promote a different way conqueror can be chosen? I guess as former conqueror who used above ^ method (a little) to get there I'll take a swing back at the opposite view as I find it just as ridiculous *but maybe there is slightly something to it. View being, the conqueror needs to play at least X number of maps to prove they are good at more than just one complicated map. First lets just stop it right there and make the point. No conqueror needs to prove themselves on doodle earth. Ive never touched the map, and a dozen other maps ... because why? You open the map, you look at it and say... oh thats how you play that map? The fk why would I waste my time playing that? End of story. I want a map and game of risk where I sink my teeth into one side of the map, and my opponent grabs that map by the teeth too and we wrestle all over with it for at least 10 rounds before winner is even close to being clear.
If we were gonna change way conqueror was done to be a slightly better site, sure we could. I've always thought the current system didn't necessarily reflect the best player on the site... You won't be able to do that. But we could alter it to be more representative. Give time limit to conqueror of say 4 months. But like any new system lots will be... ugh, of no use. The selection and time to become conqueror could change. I got to around 2000 before I joined kort, and just shy of 2500 before USA 2.1 was released. Then I went up and up, and forget who I was competing against, but just kept going higher until I was finally in position to take spot for some number of months I don't remember.
So ok, some love to whine about playing 1 map... but really is that the issue? What is needed to be conqueror? I would suggest a new category and to remove conqueror being given to top player of scoreboard, and give it to this new category which we could all make. My first requirement is this category can only be given to polymorphic games or standard 1 v 1. Id say I got at least 1500+ points from being in my clan. That wasn't my skill. I had great teammates all of Kort who helped me climb. So why should the conqueror be able to rely on his clan games to prove he's the best? Makes no sense. Also, while some may disagree, no standard multiplayer games. This doesn't reflect skill. So you can play 10 standard games against 12 different players? Lose 10 points in the games you lose, and win over 120 in the two you manage to win? so you go -80 lets say over course of 8 games. and +240 in the 2 you win? That isn't skill. You cut your losses in games by playing against wide range of opponents, and the few you win you win big. So what. Some of those players probably weren't that skilled and imbalanced the game in favour of someone else. How many missed turns were there that you couldn't control? How many alliances and other stuff people will rightly or not rightly complain about that we can just remove from the conqueror equation. If we are going to have a new system of conqueror... really show it as them being the best. Make it standard 1 v 1, or polymorphic to show that if it was a team game, they could lead a group to victory in 2v2 3v3, or 4 v 4. And its them first another. Its not multiplayer risk. Just show that their raw planning, and play through beats others. If you bring in clan games, or multiplayer games... I could argue all day it won't prove anything.
Id suggest just make the new category: Conqueror. The new category will show who is conqueror and will not affect the scoreboard. I think that can safely put an end to a lot of the complaining that goes on around here. Yes... the current way to get to conqueror means you need a high score. But its like listening to chalkboard hearing people say conquerors can't win on any other map. It was set up that way. Id be happy to play in this new category with no score points and beat lots of opponents are *qualified* maps lets say.
So, more maps is fine. But lets talk about those maps. I suggest we look at maps, and say, does a conqueror need to prove himself on this map? And why? You can remove especially complicated maps I would say is fine. Something so specialized like Das Schloss, city mogul, if someone wanted to argue that these maps be removed from the selection of maps dedicated to the CONQUEROR category I could get on board with that. But lets say specifically what criteria we are looking for. Some may represent my own bias... but so be it.
First this is what I think should be used for CONQUEROR: map pool under 42 territories. map pool over 42 in mid range. map pool of large numbered territories. Hive, use 2.1, Eurasia. Veto all maps that could easily be argued rely on good starting dice. I.e. you are given 1-6 territories on the drop, and if you get good dice you grow, and if you don't get good dice, well the game is over in first 2-3 rounds because you just won't keep up with opponents. Its trying to prove who is a conqueror. Not who gets good dice. Ultimately... yes you could say any game of risk depends on dice, but as long as I got the point across is all Im wanting. We can also veto maps where there are clear early or long term objectives where in whoever gets that objective will just win the game. Was the objective to win Australia? Did you get it? And you won? Sounds skilled and complicated. If the game is being fought for a single objective where little counter play is available once the objective is decided... Im ok with these type maps being got rid of.
As an example of a good map, Id say Iberia is something a conqueror could play on and win. Large maps, like Eurasia, use 2.1, or Hive, easily should be hallmarks that a conqueror can hold his weight in. If you can divide a map into multiple bonuses, multiple areas, and see that you got a good drop in a third, a bad drop in a third and at least playable in the last third ... then its a qualified map to show skill. If its a map where you know the drop will dictate how well you do because its entirely based on 3 things, and whoever gets 2 of the 3 things will win... why bother playing. Its not conqueror material. Its just... did you get the better drop? So, maps that usually over playable drops +80% of the time, so you'd willingly take either side of the drop... could be standard we use going forward to determine conqueror.
From here, I reject an idea revolving a year long event. Everyone gets busy, or gets distracted. You would just be substituting it from being who is conqueror based on being really amazing at a few maps, to well who's a conqueror based on having free time to play cc as required for a year straight (and be just as good for the whole time)? Just one perceived issue for another in my view. You could restrict amount of time conqueror lasts and how easy it is to be conqueror once and be it again. Id say you opt in to this CONQUEROR category, and some kind of measure is kept. To some extent, yes a variety, but a select variety of maps that warrant skilled play.. which everyone could disagree on I get. Over half the maps on CC sure you can say you've played them, or are even good at... I would just say so what if you are good at them. Doesn't make you the best at risk because you can play the classic risk map. Classic risk map is shit. Someone takes the time to play every single map on cc in a 1 year map, and wins at least one game on each... again how does that make someone a conqueror?
Id say it could be a weighted scale. More value being given to the big maps, and medium maps. Sure lets say they play some small maps just to do it. Ive play 4 maps on Eurasia mini and I'm undefeated... I don't see why it matters. Surprisingly... though I detest smaller maps I actually did enjoy them... but won't put thought into showing it being representative of whether a player is conqueror material. Winning or losing Eurasia mini wouldn't bother my state of mind. Wed have to devise a score system. So, either a percentage of wins, or given say every small map 1 point, medium map 3 points, large map 7 points, and lets say conquer Rome is a specialized map we all agree a conqueror should be able to prove himself able to win... ok throw in some specialized maps and give them 10 points. For the maps that offer higher points, limit the number of entires possible. So you can play each specialized map twice, but then no more from that map will go towards your score. IF the map pool of specialized maps is lets say 5-10 maps we all agree are valid, then you could get say 100-200 points from winning on those maps up to 2 times each. Then, we give credit to large map wins up to 4 wins on each of the maps. And medium maps or whatever are more open, up to 20 games.
But even this is deeply flawed. Its just again favouring those who are more able take on higher game counts. But a person could select their time frame, again if it resets every 2 months or 4 months, and previous winner reigns as conqueror for the next 2 to 4 months. Maybe more people would get their shot. Or, you use this system for the first half of the allotted time period say 2 months, and during the last 2 months, the top 12 performers have a face off round robin and the winner of that takes conqueror.
I could go on, but any system I fore see certain players being able to just win in a different way. And there would be just as little (perceived) credit to that system as well. Always be people don't like how the people at the top got there. Hmm ok I could just keep chatting. Im pretty sure there is stuff I meant to bring up but never did. Basically, complaints are fine enough... as long as you suggesting ways in which a conqueror could be deemed without those complaints or any other complaint. I have some issue with current system. You could make conqueror based on win percentage. Instead of it tracking your entire game history, just have it catalogued by the new system, based on polymorphic, based on qualified maps where a win is a win with skill... not some knowledge of the map. I don't think u s a 2.1 is really that complicated. There are very few killer neutrals. Or special rules. But its a big map. I think that is to its credit. A conqueror should be able to play on Eurasia, hive, u s a 2.1, or some other large map and be able to manage deploying higher number of troops.
Having said all of this, I just don't like deploying 3 troops at the start of the game. You either get a 6 v3, or maybe 4 4 4 v 3 at best, or 4 4 v 3, and stack a teammate with 1 troop to make their first turn better. And its pretty boring. Despite all the bad press... playing one map that is a solid risk map is far better than what you hear it being complained about. Quality over quantity any day in my books. Any day. If you have a risk site with 250+ maps but 230 of those maps are garbage, for those of you who choose to play on the 20 that are worthwhile playing and forego the rest, I salute you. If you find that 150 of the maps regularly finish by round 10... and its just like well that was boring. But you can find a map where strong players can regularly take each game into round 20 and its fun every time... my suggestion is to play the maps that are fun every time
Problem is quality games where opponents can push and you each get a great game. You pick 20 maps that favour your playing style where you will have fun. For those of us that like to be selective... god forbid we did pick one of those 200 maps right?! I mean whatever would we do? I can only imagine we would only at BEST ever win 1 in a 100. We re jus so bad them. We can really only play our 20 maps... I think if I played that 121st map Id just spent most of the night looking at and thinking... what do I do? How do I play risk again? How do I roll dice? I can only roll dice on my 20 favourite maps. Can I even deploy troops in those there maps? I always forget, can you fort in those other maps? I mean, in the maps I know, you deploy, attack, and fort? But Im too dumb to know how to play the others. Maybe you fort, attack deploy? Sigh. I'm just to dumb and helpless to know anything other than my favourite maps.
The lols.
