Conquer Club

Glad to see this idea seems to have some momentum behind it. Not really playing anymore so bad had my dice got.

if i could anser you a bit baldadonis. you dont seem to want this no matter what. others are saying they do. i have played withput dice for ages and I confrim that quite often just because you have the easiest bonus doesnt mean you always win, just like the game with dice.

When playing with more than one person anything can happen. an example being a game i played not long ago, the board power had missed a build up across the world and got clobbered, only by a coule of armies but it broke the bonus and got the game back on an even keel.

You say answer questions, but I see few, nearly all you say is just anti the idea because you dont agree with it. why should we go and play in a corner because you cant play it, too bad. more people seem to want it than not so far so why dont we see what comes of the poll then lets talk about whether there are slimy little tricks that can be pulled.

I repeat, my experience of playing this is it requires a lot more thought, less luck, thinking ahead, planning and more strategy.

It comes as no surpirse to me that many of the officer ranks here play wiithout cards and limited troop movements. why is this, could it be that they try to reduce the luck elemant as much as possible? and place more emphasis on having to really think about things.

Phantom7 wrote:if i could anser you a bit baldadonis. you dont seem to want this no matter what.

When playing with more than one person anything can happen. an example being a game i played not long ago, the board power had missed a build up across the world and got clobbered, only by a coule of armies but it broke the bonus and got the game back on an even keel.

You say answer questions, but I see few

I don't care if you do play it. I don't care if people play forum mafia, or trivia. But winning any of those is different from winning a CC game. It shouldn't go on the same record, and there's already a place for those games. You don't need dice, you aren't using the site's capabilities, you can already play the game by posting your moves: if you want to do it, you can.

When playing with one other person, the game is solvable. How do you expect to reconcile that? Would you block 2 player no dice games? A lot of dice complaints come from 1v1 games, so telling them that they can't play without doesn't help (since players complaining and the dice ad-hoc is the basis for this idea). Plus, every game is eventually a two player game, and from that point on, the outcome is decided.
Or, if you decide to keep 2 player games, what would you do if someone wrote a script to beat the game for them?

I'm not trying to say it wouldn't be a good idea, but what is proposed right now has flaws. The game you want to play can already be played, nothing needs to change, the people who want to play it just have to do it.

Calm down folks, no need to get so aggressive about it, it's just a suggestion

Quite right Twill.

As I have tried to ensure everyone has understood, this is about seeing whether there is a need for such an option. I have tried to avoid getting into depth, after all, there will be much discussion about the rules if this goes further. Many have already pm'd me asking about, and offering ideas on, the rules in play.

Let us hope that those who wish/hope/try to stop it becoming another option, which as a consumer I always believe is good, after all, they have their opinions, can be patient, just as I also hope, that as consumers, we get the option. More options=more choice=better service all round.

I say no, the dice is the WHOLE point of CC.

Another site, another game...

Fruitcake wrote:Let us hope that those who wish/hope/try to stop it becoming another option, which as a consumer I always believe is good, after all, they have their opinions, can be patient, just as I also hope, that as consumers, we get the option. More options=more choice=better service all round.

But you already have the option.

BaldAdonis wrote:...there's already a place for those games. You don't need dice, you aren't using the site's capabilities, you can already play the game by posting your moves: if you want to do it, you can.

insomniacdude wrote

But you already have the option.

BaldAdonis wrote:
...there's already a place for those games. You don't need dice, you aren't using the site's capabilities, you can already play the game by posting your moves: if you want to do it, you can.

This is not the option we are posing.

I really do not wish to get bogged down with a couple of posters who have an entrenched position on this. Most seem to want to the option. All those who have pm'd me offering advice on rules etc. have all said they would want it as a full option because they feel it is an intrinsic part of the game. It has been pointed out to me that certain game boards and rules on those boards, played on here have little resemblance to the core game. I agree with them. I also agree with them that this option does keep to the spirit of the core game, which is strategy, not dice.

It says on the original board game " A game of strategy and skill" it says on the front page of this very site "stay up all night strategizing their next move". In neither of these cases does it say that dice are at the core of the game.

Why don't we just see who wants it.

For the record, some boards played here have an average of less than 50 games going at any one time. Classic has around 3,000. It is also interesting to note that research has shown me that many more senior ranks specialise in just one board, some on the same boards mentioned previously where the diversity from the core has gone yet further. Do we stop them because so few play on them? No. Why? Because as consumers it is all about choice. There are many who want to play nil dice games, and have points awarded or deducted for winning or losing that style of play. With respect, I cannot see your rationale for saying to these people (who are still in the majority as the votes keep ticking over) that they should go into a corner and play without giving them what they want…your argument that it detracts from the core of the game is spurious in our opinion, however, we do not say to you, we will stop you from playing whatever style or game you wish to play. You, on the other hand do. That is most odd to all of us.

Your negative comments have been noted, everyone will have an opportunity to have input should this go to the next stage.

As Twill said: it's just a suggestion

Fruitcake said

Why don't we just see who wants it.

Thats right. There is a long way to go in this yet.

Fruitcake wrote:insomniacdude wrote

But you already have the option.

BaldAdonis wrote:
...there's already a place for those games. You don't need dice, you aren't using the site's capabilities, you can already play the game by posting your moves: if you want to do it, you can.

This is not the option we are posing.

Right. It's the option BaldAdonis is posing, which you and anybody else who wished to play this way can utilize.

I really do not wish to get bogged down with a couple of posters who have an entrenched position on this. Most seem to want to the option. All those who have pm'd me offering advice on rules etc. have all said they would want it as a full option because they feel it is an intrinsic part of the game. It has been pointed out to me that certain game boards and rules on those boards, played on here have little resemblance to the core game. I agree with them. I also agree with them that this option does keep to the spirit of the core game, which is strategy, not dice.

It says on the original board game " A game of strategy and skill" it says on the front page of this very site "stay up all night strategizing their next move". In neither of these cases does it say that dice are at the core of the game.

Why don't we just see who wants it.

I see who wants it. And I still say it's a bad idea. I'm not tearing anybody down, but arguing that it shouldn't be added. Do you want this thread to be filled with nothing but yes-men, so that the idea doesn't develop at all into something truly suitable for the site?

For the record, some boards played here have an average of less than 50 games going at any one time. Classic has around 3,000. It is also interesting to note that research has shown me that many more senior ranks specialise in just one board, some on the same boards mentioned previously where the diversity from the core has gone yet further. Do we stop them because so few play on them? No. Why? Because as consumers it is all about choice. There are many who want to play nil dice games, and have points awarded or deducted for winning or losing that style of play. With respect, I cannot see your rationale for saying to these people (who are still in the majority as the votes keep ticking over) that they should go into a corner and play without giving them what they want…your argument that it detracts from the core of the game is spurious in our opinion, however, we do not say to you, we will stop you from playing whatever style or game you wish to play. You, on the other hand do. That is most odd to all of us.

Never said you couldn't play it. My argument is that it shouldn't be ranked with the rest of the site's gameplay. It should run on the same point system, because the gameplay is TOO different. It is unique, interesting, and compelling to be sure, but it does not belong in the point/ranking system. In fact, I quite blatantly agreed that anybody who wants to play this CAN play it - in the games forum, out of the point system currently in place on this site.

Options are a good thing as long as they stay relevant to the site. I simply think this isn't relevant to the site, and no argument produced so far in this thread has been able to convince me. I'm an open-minded guy though, so if it finally pops up I'll be sold. I'm just waiting to be sold.

insomniacdude wrote

My argument is that it shouldn't be ranked with the rest of the site's gameplay.

And we think it should be, simple as that. As I keep saying, let's wait until this has gone further, or not. Until then, this argument is spurious. I have put it forward as an option, let the members decide.

Simply to put I think that there should be games with no dice.







Chances of that happening are 1 against 7776 or 0.0128600823%

Look I know you think the dice are a vital part of the game, but unrealistic things happen waaaaay to often. I`m tired of it. I wish the lotery was so easy to win.

KristianMD

I would be willing to give it a try.

KristianMD wrote:Chances of that happening are 1 against 7776 or 0.0128600823%

Looks like you were that one in 7776.

I played a game over winter break in which I defended with one man. I rolled FIFTEEN 6s in a row.

Believe it or not, but "unrealistic things" happen all the time, especially in a place I like to call reality (which, to the best of my knowledge, is about as unrealistic as it comes, right?)

the dice keeps killing me. it almost like the dice is my enemy and the other players ally when your from USA.

they shoul definitly change it or something

well i personally think without dice you might as well go and play cluedo.

alex_white101 wrote:well i personally think without dice you might as well go and play cluedo.

Er Cluedo has Dice in?!

C.

What would it hurt to give people the choice of that kind of a game? It is not like those against this will be forced to play that way.

peanut72 wrote:What would it hurt to give people the choice of that kind of a game? It is not like those against this will be forced to play that way.

I've always wondered about that too.

Some people are so against it, and they don't even want it as an OPTION for others to play.

i dislike the idea, it ruins the game

jakejake wrote:i dislike the idea, it ruins the game

But some people want a style that ruins the game

You have the support of me and all the fish I control.

spearfish wrote:You have the support of me and all the fish I control.

Are you aquaman?

Risktaker17 wrote

But some people want a style that ruins the game

A very good subjective answer.

This is exactly correct....in your eyes. And, I am certain, every voter for the option has no problem with your opinion, just as I do not. There are many things about some of the games here that I think detract from the core of this game...but let's not go back down that road, all these opinions are subjective, surely that is why we have a democratic vote...to find out, first of all, if there is any call for such an option. So far, it seems there is. What is showing steadily, is that many do want this as an OPTION.

yeti_c wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:well i personally think without dice you might as well go and play cluedo.

Er Cluedo has Dice in?!

C.

no i was making the point that risk without dice is like a fry up without bacon and may as well go and play a different game.

alex_white101 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:well i personally think without dice you might as well go and play cluedo.

Er Cluedo has Dice in?!

C.

no i was making the point that risk without dice is like a fry up without bacon and may as well go and play a different game.

I was making the point the Cluedo actually has Dice in it...

Thus your analogy was flawed...

C.