Conquer Club

Just got premium 2 days ago and i have lost/going to lose 90% of my games, most due to getting horrible dice in my 1st couple of turns.

My question is what player no./map/type/cards etc etc... is the least dependent on dice rolls? i want to escape the luck based part of this game.

CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

Trips and Quads with no cards, chained

8p classic speed freestyle, although you might need a good connection here.. and not to be afraid of harsh words.

I think the most luck based game of all would be 2p, Seq, Doodle Earth or other really small map, Flat Rate, Unlimited...

I would wish you luck on your impossible quest, but...


No, seriously, you can't avoid the luck factor. The best ways to minimize it usually involve no cards, no fog of war, and higher numbers of players for a more chess-like game... but you aren't getting away from the dice.

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

Trips and Quads with no cards, chained

8p classic speed freestyle, although you might need a good connection here.. and not to be afraid of harsh words.

I think the most luck based game of all would be 2p, Seq, Doodle Earth or other really small map, Flat Rate, Unlimited...

If THAT was the goal, I am afraid it failed miserably!


But to get back to the original question, dice ALWAYS affect play, and skill wins in the long run (sometimes the VERY long run). That said, here are some ideas:

ANY map is going to be more dice dependent in 1 V 1, particularly the no card games in 1 v 1. On the other end, Eight player on a small map can be extremely luck dependent. Some later players don't even get a turn on the Doodle map, for example.

Escalating is perhaps the least dependent upon dice, per se, BUT is dependent upon order of play and luck of card draw, etc.

No Cards is very luck dependent in single, but many highly skilled players like that version for multiple player games because (they have said in forums, private posts) they feel they are more skill dependent.


Larger maps also are more luck-dependent in 1 v 1, but with more players, tend to reduce the luck effect (its never eliminated).

Team play also seems to reduce luck quite a bit, but I seldom play teams.

Overall, I would suggest a 4-6 player game with flat rate or no cards on one of the larger maps will probably be more skill dependent, BUT I have lately played almost 100% 1 v 1 (due to time, etc). So, i might be biased.

If you specifically want 1 v 1, choose a small to medium map and flat rate cards.

If you like larger games, try a big map like World 2.1, with no cards (or perhaps flat rate)

If you play teams ... try to arrange a game with people you know of similar rank. OR try to find a public game not already dominated by brigadeers and such.

PS, it is always handy to blame dice. It has been said that the best games are those that allow one to credit skill when winning and credit luck when losing . AND, "random" does NOT mean "even" until you get into thousands of rolls. (even then ... the tails of the bell curve exist, they are just more rare than the middle in a normal distribution). BUT if you find yourself losing a lot ... you might consider that it really is skill and not just luck. Try visiting the strategy forum, getting a mentor, or just play a lot of games and learn as you go.

I will give you and example. In Pearl Harbor, 1 v 1 the first player typically gets a huge advantage due to the number of bonuses available. HOWEVER, there are a couple of folks I have played who will win ... no matter the turn order, no matter the drop, and almost no matter the rolls. I still cannot figure out quite how they did it, but it happened enough that I KNOW it was not pure luck!!!

SO, if you play in CC, luck will be a part .. you accept that

OR .. play chess!

If you have lost 90% of recent games to bad luck, I would advise keep playing those games because the law of averages dictates you are about to go on a mighty big hot streak...

I don't think that Cundy wants to completely eliminate the luck factor. But I bet he wants to reduce it to the point where it is, let's say less than 50% of the game.

A bit of luck is entertaining. Depending completely in luck is unfun!

IMHO, the less luck maps are:

- Big maps, as they tend to minimize the luck factor. Neither start position nor good luck strikes are as important in World 2.1 as they are in Doodle.
- Conquest maps, as the predefined starting positions avoid being doomed just by a bad starting position.
- No cards, as cards are an additional luck factor, and we have enough luck factor with dices.

Escalating games, with unlimited fortifications, are probably the least dice dependent games out there.

Cundy wrote:Just got premium 2 days ago and i have lost/going to lose 90% of my games, most due to getting horrible dice in my 1st couple of turns.

My question is what player no./map/type/cards etc etc... is the least dependent on dice rolls? i want to escape the luck based part of this game.

I can't tell you what maps and settings make for the game least dependent on luck but i can tell you the map to avoid if you don't feel lucky.

Doodle Earth, Seq, Unlim, Sunny.

^^The most luck dependent map and settings on the game^^

Cundy wrote:Just got premium 2 days ago and i have lost/going to lose 90% of my games, most due to getting horrible dice in my 1st couple of turns.

My question is what player no./map/type/cards etc etc... is the least dependent on dice rolls? i want to escape the luck based part of this game.

you are playing mostly 1v1 games, what do you expect?-0

THE ARMY wrote:Escalating games, with unlimited fortifications, are probably the least dice dependent games out there.

How so THE ARMY? I'd like to hear the logic behind that revelation.

owenshooter points out the obvious problem... 1v1s tend to go to the player with the first move. Add the drop, dice rolls, cards and you've got a lot of luck involved. Often it is a player's patience that is the biggest factor... going for too much too fast and remaining too weak to hold your ground (too)
and not just the dice.

Cundy wrote:My question is what, ...(game) is the least dependent on dice rolls? i want to escape the luck based part of this game.

scrabble.-0

owenshooter wrote:

Cundy wrote:My question is what, ...(game) is the least dependent on dice rolls? i want to escape the luck based part of this game.

scrabble.-0

nice to see you back and funny as ever

Ok i think ill finish the last 2 1v1s ive got left then try some 4-8 player games on large maps.

Just one question. Say its a 1v1 game and the other person has just gotten a area. I figure i have to break the bonus, Ive only got a few to do so with (around 4-8 on a small map). So i attack and i get a few double loses, in turn he hold the bonus and just runs through me next turn and gg. Im so sure this is what i have/should do but after losing so many game this way im starting to think its not.

What should i do in this situation?

oVo wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:Escalating games, with unlimited fortifications, are probably the least dice dependent games out there.

How so THE ARMY? I'd like to hear the logic behind that revelation.

owenshooter points out the obvious problem... 1v1s tend to go to the player with the first move. Add the drop, dice rolls, cards and you've got a lot of luck involved. Often it is a player's patience that is the biggest factor... going for too much too fast and remaining too weak to hold your ground (too)
and not just the dice.

I said the same thing. Least DICE dependent, not least luck dependent. You can have terrible rolls, but if you cash your cards right, can win ... especially in a big multiple player game when you can "harvest" everyone else's cards.

Cundy wrote:Ok i think ill finish the last 2 1v1s ive got left then try some 4-8 player games on large maps.

Just one question. Say its a 1v1 game and the other person has just gotten a area. I figure i have to break the bonus, Ive only got a few to do so with (around 4-8 on a small map). So i attack and i get a few double loses, in turn he hold the bonus and just runs through me next turn and gg. Im so sure this is what i have/should do but after losing so many game this way im starting to think its not.

What should i do in this situation?

The key is not to get into that situation. I like 1 v 1 because they move "fast". In general, you have to be aggressive because any increase in armies, etc makes a big difference. BUT, you have to balance that with not defeating yourself too much. (speaking as someone who plays a LOT of 1 v 1. I am not the best player by a long shot, but I more or less hold my own.)

Basically, I would say that if you want a fast game, want to learn the basics of a map without investing quite as much time as in a larger game, try 1 v 1. Realize that multiple player strategy and 1 v 1 strategy differ. Still, on trickier maps, it is nice to have the routes and bonuses down pat before you take on a huge game. If you worry a lot about losing ... probably avoid 1 V 1.

General Mojo wrote:If you have lost 90% of recent games to bad luck, I would advise keep playing those games because the law of averages dictates you are about to go on a mighty big hot streak...

This is pretty silly advice.

TFoote wrote:

General Mojo wrote:If you have lost 90% of recent games to bad luck, I would advise keep playing those games because the law of averages dictates you are about to go on a mighty big hot streak...

This is pretty silly advice.

Turns out he was right (lol) i said i would stop playing 1v1s but i like having at least a few turns every time i log in so i started a few more 1v1s and my bad strike is smoothing out (that or i stopped sucking... >.<) finally up bout 100 points from recent 1v1s

PLAYER57832 wrote:

oVo wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:Escalating games, with unlimited fortifications, are probably the least dice dependent games out there.

How so THE ARMY? I'd like to hear the logic behind that revelation.

owenshooter points out the obvious problem... 1v1s tend to go to the player with the first move. Add the drop, dice rolls, cards and you've got a lot of luck involved. Often it is a player's patience that is the biggest factor... going for too much too fast and remaining too weak to hold your ground (too)
and not just the dice.

I said the same thing. Least DICE dependent, not least luck dependent. You can have terrible rolls, but if you cash your cards right, can win ... especially in a big multiple player game when you can "harvest" everyone else's cards.

Cundy wrote:Ok i think ill finish the last 2 1v1s ive got left then try some 4-8 player games on large maps.

Just one question. Say its a 1v1 game and the other person has just gotten a area. I figure i have to break the bonus, Ive only got a few to do so with (around 4-8 on a small map). So i attack and i get a few double loses, in turn he hold the bonus and just runs through me next turn and gg. Im so sure this is what i have/should do but after losing so many game this way im starting to think its not.

What should i do in this situation?

The key is not to get into that situation. I like 1 v 1 because they move "fast". In general, you have to be aggressive because any increase in armies, etc makes a big difference. BUT, you have to balance that with not defeating yourself too much. (speaking as someone who plays a LOT of 1 v 1. I am not the best player by a long shot, but I more or less hold my own.)

Basically, I would say that if you want a fast game, want to learn the basics of a map without investing quite as much time as in a larger game, try 1 v 1. Realize that multiple player strategy and 1 v 1 strategy differ. Still, on trickier maps, it is nice to have the routes and bonuses down pat before you take on a huge game. If you worry a lot about losing ... probably avoid 1 V 1.

I'm sorry, did you write 1 vs 1 strategy? I am sure you meant 1 vs 1 pray for the drop, hope to go first and sacrifice two lambs (which is the current sacrifice, inflation notwithstanding) for the dice...

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

However seeing as DiM and yeti_c (the makers of the map) also did a test for auto-attacking, they found streaks in the dice so auto-attack especially with big numbers have streaks...so are more unbalanced arent they?

So did it do the opposite?
I dont know but it's a fun map.

t-o-m wrote:

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

However seeing as DiM and yeti_c (the makers of the map) also did a test for auto-attacking, they found streaks in the dice so auto-attack especially with big numbers have streaks...so are more unbalanced arent they?

So did it do the opposite?
I dont know but it's a fun map.

afaik they found that the dice DONT get stuck...

t-o-m wrote:

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

However seeing as DiM and yeti_c (the makers of the map) also did a test for auto-attacking, they found streaks in the dice so auto-attack especially with big numbers have streaks...so are more unbalanced arent they?

So did it do the opposite?
I dont know but it's a fun map.

Yeah...go re-read that thread, they found that the dice didn't streak...or at least yeti did, dunno about DIM.

And just gonna move this into Q&A so other people can find it in the future

Twill

Twill wrote:

t-o-m wrote:

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

However seeing as DiM and yeti_c (the makers of the map) also did a test for auto-attacking, they found streaks in the dice so auto-attack especially with big numbers have streaks...so are more unbalanced arent they?

So did it do the opposite?
I dont know but it's a fun map.

Yeah...go re-read that thread, they found that the dice didn't streak...or at least yeti did, dunno about DIM.

And just gonna move this into Q&A so other people can find it in the future

Twill

No one will ever oficially admit a flaw in the dice. That would mean a potential huge loss of money, once every paying member can demand all they have payd back, based they were announcing and selling something they didnt got.

So, dice are pefect, 100% random, there were never a single glitch that caused a single die to go wrong here.

And there will never be.

Mathemethics and statistics, as a science, are the flawed ones. After all, they fail to explain the universe, while CC players and staff can explain everything that happens in their domains.

RADAGA wrote:

Twill wrote:

t-o-m wrote:

Phlaim wrote:CC Mogul was designed to eliminate dice factor. Because of the high amount of armies you get it's basicly only based on strategy.

However seeing as DiM and yeti_c (the makers of the map) also did a test for auto-attacking, they found streaks in the dice so auto-attack especially with big numbers have streaks...so are more unbalanced arent they?

So did it do the opposite?
I dont know but it's a fun map.

Yeah...go re-read that thread, they found that the dice didn't streak...or at least yeti did, dunno about DIM.

And just gonna move this into Q&A so other people can find it in the future

Twill

No one will ever oficially admit a flaw in the dice. That would mean a potential huge loss of money, once every paying member can demand all they have payd back, based they were announcing and selling something they didnt got.

So, dice are pefect, 100% random, there were never a single glitch that caused a single die to go wrong here.

And there will never be.

Mathemethics and statistics, as a science, are the flawed ones. After all, they fail to explain the universe, while CC players and staff can explain everything that happens in their domains.

I've looked at the mathematical statistics for random.org, seems pretty random 99% of the time...

I've looked at the mathematical statistics for random.org, seems pretty random 99% of the time...

SO you have checked the data that they collected, stored, handled, tested, double-checked with themsleves as witnesses and validators, and concluded that their data is good.

I have a cottage in the moon to sell to you. I have the deed here, I certified it, and I checked with myself it´s authenticity. I cannot show you the original document, but I can show you an image I scanned, and made more "readable" in photoshop if you wish proof.

just handle me 1.000.000 USD and it is yours.

RADAGA wrote:

I've looked at the mathematical statistics for random.org, seems pretty random 99% of the time...

SO you have checked the data that they collected, stored, handled, tested, double-checked with themsleves as witnesses and validators, and concluded that their data is good.

I have a cottage in the moon to sell to you. I have the deed here, I certified it, and I checked with myself it´s authenticity. I cannot show you the original document, but I can show you an image I scanned, and made more "readable" in photoshop if you wish proof.

just handle me 1.000.000 USD and it is yours.

Well, it's just that all the data that I've seen from countless "Dice Analyzer" posts seems to confirm what random.org is telling me. If I were to find an equal amount of astronomers talking about how there's a house on the moon, then I might believe that you had one.