Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:24 pm**

Fazeem wrote:I added a Poll after seeing that could be done.

I edited the poll so that you could only pick one option instead of two.

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:38 pm**

chapcrap wrote:
Fazeem wrote:I added a Poll after seeing that could be done.

I edited the poll so that you could only pick one option instead of two.

I do like the changes though. 8-[

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:33 pm**

I think my next suggestion should be all polls should be public or at least have the option to make a poll public lol

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:40 am**

The poll is public?..

As for the idea I like it a lot, I think it should be excluded for certain maps like team games on fuedal, etc.

What I think chapcrap was trying to say before though, Fazeem, is that you are making two arguments. One argument was this:

Fazeem wrote:
chapcrap wrote:I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

...

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. ...

But then in the same sentence, you finish by saying:

Fazeem wrote:Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So what you said is that you think that you should be able to pick 1 territ games, and have the small chance of having two people next to each other, BUT you can't have 1 territ games in small maps, because there too much of a chance that you will end up next to each other. You are basically saying its okay for the chance to happen, but only sometimes, and I'm not sure why, and I think that chapcrap doesn't know either

I for one would love to be able to have 1 territ in a doodle earth game! As well as other maps. So why take that option from me, I would love that setting, but you might not, so you can make the choice not to play those games.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:12 am**

well put iamkoolerthanu.

make it available for all maps and those who don't want to risk it on small maps don't have to join those games, much like me now with Trench.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:10 am**

iamkoolerthanu wrote:The poll is public?..

As for the idea I like it a lot, I think it should be excluded for certain maps like team games on fuedal, etc.

What I think chapcrap was trying to say before though, Fazeem, is that you are making two arguments. One argument was this:
Fazeem wrote:
chapcrap wrote:I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

...

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. ...

But then in the same sentence, you finish by saying:

Fazeem wrote:Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So what you said is that you think that you should be able to pick 1 territ games, and have the small chance of having two people next to each other, BUT you can't have 1 territ games in small maps, because there too much of a chance that you will end up next to each other. You are basically saying its okay for the chance to happen, but only sometimes, and I'm not sure why, and I think that chapcrap doesn't know either

I for one would love to be able to have 1 territ in a doodle earth game! As well as other maps. So why take that option from me, I would love that setting, but you might not, so you can make the choice not to play those games.

In a way you are right as I am talking on 2 seperate points but overall, No I am saying I can see how this option is not feasible to work in some maps and scenerios and in those cases it can just not work much like manual now.

My argument and suggestion are seperate things that are connected as I have continually stated that on all maps that the optional setting would be feasible you should have the option of a minimum of 1 and maximum of whatever the default for the number of players playing would be. If the sites oh so gracious programmers are not concerned by the possibility of a 1 territ game on a small map creating problems then they would not restrict it. I did not raise the issue I simply addressed it logically. I used examples of maps I could forsee it being a issue with nothing more or concrete.

Not sure how recognising that every option cannot always work in all situations after someone else raised the issue is being anything less then a realist. I gave examples of game settings that are already implemented and also come with limitations where they are not playable in all maps/scenerios. I do not get how anyone shy of the obtuse could not grasp what I am saying at this point.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:50 am**

this is a good idea, i like it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:59 pm**

iamkoolerthanu wrote:The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:42 pm**

Fazeem wrote:...
If the sites oh so gracious programmers are not concerned by the possibility of a 1 territ game on a small map creating problems then they would not restrict it. I did not raise the issue I simply addressed it logically. I used examples of maps I could forsee it being a issue with nothing more or concrete.
...

Okay I see what your saying, you don't actually want to restrict this setting on small maps, you were just saying that it could be restricted, if and only if there is an issue with small maps. You weren't actually stating that you wanted to restrict small maps. Now that we are past this confusion, I agree completely, I would want to see this implemented, and to make a comment on whether or not small maps should be excluded, I think they shouldn't. It should only, IMO, be excluded for maps where you cannot change the territ count, like maps you already start off with 1 territ, because it's just redundant. All other maps should be able to have this setting

Fazeem wrote:
iamkoolerthanu wrote:The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

Very cool I've never seen a poll like that as far as I can remember, that actually would be a cool option!

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:27 pm**

Fazeem wrote:
iamkoolerthanu wrote:The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

iamkoolerthanu wrote:Very cool I've never seen a poll like that as far as I can remember, that actually would be a cool option!

yes I frequent a few other forums on religion and music and they all have the option when making a polling thread to either hide who voted for what or make the poll public showing who voted whichever way. I Like the option of transparency so I can see who is sitting where on a subject.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:07 pm**

After reading some of the feedback and the ideas in other suggestions I have thought of a what could be a easy varient and even a name for it. Conquest Mode. Same Idea but simplified Conquest mode changes from the deafult amount to 1 starting territ. I still like the idea of customizable but it may be more difficult just having 1 territ which seems to be the most popular point of.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:44 pm**

I would select starting number of territories but it cannot be on places with killer neutrals and cannot be like a whole continent on the starting turn. I would also like to put in a suggestion of limiting the number of troops in a particular territory on manual deployment so you cannot plop all of the troops on one territory and steamroll with it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:58 pm**

Blazer87 wrote:I would select starting number of territories but it cannot be on places with killer neutrals and cannot be like a whole continent on the starting turn. I would also like to put in a suggestion of limiting the number of troops in a particular territory on manual deployment so you cannot plop all of the troops on one territory and steamroll with it.

Don't worry, that's not possible. Killer neutrals, are never a starting position.
Well, that's luck, is not like you can decide where to deploy. With this suggestion, you have less chances of this happening, than what's currently.
That's a completely, different suggestion. You should search if there's a similar suggestion and post there. If not, make a new thread about that suggestion.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:29 pm**

Couldn't have said it better myself, darth.

On another note, while playing around in a sandbox somewhere, I was able to play some games like this. I didn't think much of this suggestion before I did that, but it was fun. A whole new type of gameplay, especially on foggy. You go for a lot of bonuses that you wouldn't think about holding in other games. I think this would be a fun addition to the gameplay options.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:30 pm**

Can we get a suggs. mod to sticky it?

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:27 pm**

Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times. :lol:

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:24 pm**

nicestash wrote:Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times.

Interesting so you came in with problems and no solutions and to make a snarkey comment on top of it. Solution Idea to your issue would be instead of making it 1 through whatever number split it into 3 option sets that would be map based. Normal Territs, Half Territs and Minimum/1 Territ. now you can go back to making your nose discolored and riding the illogic train.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:35 pm**

Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:

nicestash wrote:Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:51 am**

nicestash wrote:Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:
nicestash wrote:Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

i like your idea nicestash.

Fazeem wrote:
spiesr wrote:How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

I am sure one of the site geniuses would find a spot much like they did with Trench and Fog

this would be a part of Initial Troops - Automatic, Manual or Conquest

the normal or 1 terit option would also mean it works perfectly for Random as well. =D>

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:17 pm**

Fazeem wrote:
nicestash wrote:Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times.

Interesting so you came in with problems and no solutions and to make a snarkey comment on top of it. Solution Idea to your issue would be instead of making it 1 through whatever number split it into 3 option sets that would be map based. Normal Territs, Half Territs and Minimum/1 Territ. now you can go back to making your nose discolored and riding the illogic train.

nicestash wrote:Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:
nicestash wrote:Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

And yet the solution given went over your head or you intentionally ignored in order to continue riding the Snarkey wave. Yes the single territ(conquest mode) starting point would probably be the easiest solution and half the normal starting territs would also be something I could see being popular and either way woulkd be a great addition to the game settings. But given the way you decided to make attacks and jumpin to try and rekindle a side off topic issue that had nothing to do with you I take your posts with a grain of salt.

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:58 pm**

^ Dude, i know you think your idea is the best idea in the world, but both with chapcrap/nicestash you have acted like a 3rd grader in completely ignoring what they said and taking it as a personal attack. If anything you should be taking it a constructive criticism, the people have been nice enough not to lash back out against you like you have done to them, while showing downsides and prospective problems with your suggestion. These things would have to be done anyways, so actually take their posts with a grain of salt, instead of bashing, claiming that they are off topic (they truly are on topic for what its worth) and you might get them to come back with some more. If i had a suggestion where I had 99 posts of constructive critisism, and 1 post where it just said that s/he liked the idea i would take the 99 posts of constructive critism.
This is slightly off topic i realize, but i felt it needed addressed.

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:22 pm**

rishaed wrote:^ Dude, i know you think your idea is the best idea in the world, but both with chapcrap/nicestash you have acted like a 3rd grader in completely ignoring what they said and taking it as a personal attack. If anything you should be taking it a constructive criticism, the people have been nice enough not to lash back out against you like you have done to them, while showing downsides and prospective problems with your suggestion. These things would have to be done anyways, so actually take their posts with a grain of salt, instead of bashing, claiming that they are off topic (they truly are on topic for what its worth) and you might get them to come back with some more. If i had a suggestion where I had 99 posts of constructive critisism, and 1 post where it just said that s/he liked the idea i would take the 99 posts of constructive critism.
This is slightly off topic i realize, but i felt it needed addressed.

I believe they call the additional offtopic banter you peons keep using flaming and it is not constructive criticism it is intentionally derailing I can handle critique but senseless swipes on nothing tangents like yours and those you sympathize with is counterproductive. Notice ther have been other with concerns and we built on those points bu now you have got me following suit so I will try and refrain from taking the bait from here on as it seems the mindstate of many of you sidetrackers is just taking this off course. I think I have addressed all possible downsides(In fact I was taken down another tangent when I acknowledge that there were potential issues and how to possibly address them) and maybe you should reread the posts or maybe they are just in a pack mentality state trying to be part of the Negativity clique. ANd yes this is a great Idea and a simple one that can be easily implemented if the graciaous coders and admin give it support. Like most things it may require refinement at points but the premise is sound. NOw I am sure one of you will have another little clever quip or a doomsday scenerio with extremely low probability so please continue on the glass half empty approach I have glass to get back to filling...

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:59 pm**

nicestash wrote:... but I worry about clutter in the game finder. ... It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult.

What if this wasn't available on the gamefinder screen? I don't know if we have to make games searchable by how many starting territs there were. But even if it was on gamefinder, you could just have a dropdown, rather than radio buttons, for the starting territ selection. If you left it blank, then the gamefinder would just find all games like when you leave any other option blank. Alternatively, the gamefinder could have 2 options: normal and custom. Custom would return all results where the number of territs was not set to the default.

Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

I'm not sure how hard it would be to code. My instinct is that it wouldn't be that hard to make a dropdown box that is programmed to have all numbers from 1 to MAX = Number of available starting territs divided by Number of players.

Of course, the game creation page would then have to be dynamic and the dropdown box would have to update when you changed the number of players. A lot of websites have pages like this (think about forms you fill out online where the options on questions below change as you fill out the form). But if you wanted to avoid that, you could just set the dropdown to MAX = number of starting territs divided by 2 and if you ever made an illegal selection, it would take you to the page that it does when you try to make an 8 player trips game.

Anyway, it looks like you all have come up with a number of interesting options. The most versatile option from the perspective of somebody making games would be to allow a custom number of starting territs determined by the user. The alternatives that have been proposed allow a predetermined number. It sounds like people have proposed Normal, Half and Conquest (cool name fazeem!).

This has been a fun thread to read, let's make sure we all keep it civil. If you feel offended by any of the several posts above this one, keep it to yourself. No one has gotten out of control yet, but I don't want to see any personal attacks being exchanged here.

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:42 pm**

Fazeem wrote:After reading some of the feedback and the ideas in other suggestions I have thought of a what could be a easy varient and even a name for it. Conquest Mode. Same Idea but simplified Conquest mode changes from the deafult amount to 1 starting territ. I still like the idea of customizable but it may be more difficult just having 1 territ which seems to be the most popular point of.

greenoaks wrote:
nicestash wrote:Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:
nicestash wrote:Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

i like your idea nicestash.
Fazeem wrote:
spiesr wrote:How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

I am sure one of the site geniuses would find a spot much like they did with Trench and Fog

this would be a part of Initial Troops - Automatic, Manual or Conquest

the normal or 1 terit option would also mean it works perfectly for Random as well.

agentcom wrote:
nicestash wrote:... but I worry about clutter in the game finder. ... It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult.

What if this wasn't available on the gamefinder screen? I don't know if we have to make games searchable by how many starting territs there were. But even if it was on gamefinder, you could just have a dropdown, rather than radio buttons, for the starting territ selection. If you left it blank, then the gamefinder would just find all games like when you leave any other option blank. Alternatively, the gamefinder could have 2 options: normal and custom. Custom would return all results where the number of territs was not set to the default.

Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

I'm not sure how hard it would be to code. My instinct is that it wouldn't be that hard to make a dropdown box that is programmed to have all numbers from 1 to MAX = Number of available starting territs divided by Number of players.

Of course, the game creation page would then have to be dynamic and the dropdown box would have to update when you changed the number of players. A lot of websites have pages like this (think about forms you fill out online where the options on questions below change as you fill out the form). But if you wanted to avoid that, you could just set the dropdown to MAX = number of starting territs divided by 2 and if you ever made an illegal selection, it would take you to the page that it does when you try to make an 8 player trips game.

Anyway, it looks like you all have come up with a number of interesting options. The most versatile option from the perspective of somebody making games would be to allow a custom number of starting territs determined by the user. The alternatives that have been proposed allow a predetermined number. It sounds like people have proposed Normal, Half and Conquest (cool name greenoaks!).

This has been a fun thread to read, let's make sure we all keep it civil. If you feel offended by any of the several posts above this one, keep it to yourself. No one has gotten out of control yet, but I don't want to see any personal attacks being exchanged here.

Just Saying lol

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:20 am**

agentcom wrote:I'm not sure how hard it would be to code. My instinct is that it wouldn't be that hard to make a dropdown box that is programmed to have all numbers from 1 to MAX = Number of available starting territs divided by Number of players.

Of course, the game creation page would then have to be dynamic and the dropdown box would have to update when you changed the number of players. A lot of websites have pages like this (think about forms you fill out online where the options on questions below change as you fill out the form). But if you wanted to avoid that, you could just set the dropdown to MAX = number of starting territs divided by 2 and if you ever made an illegal selection, it would take you to the page that it does when you try to make an 8 player trips game.

although i like the idea of choosing the starting terits i would vote against that as an option. it would dilute the demand for games by spreading us out across too many options much like what happened when the extra speed variations were introduced. ONLY WORSE. games will take too long to fill when someone creating 20 Eurasia's with 10 starting terits each would split wannabe players with the guy who created 20 Eurasia's with 9 starting terits and the guy who created them with 11. now consider that sort of variation across every map on this site and i know its not an infinite explosion in choice but it does seem close.

agentcom wrote:Anyway, it looks like you all have come up with a number of interesting options. The most versatile option from the perspective of somebody making games would be to allow a custom number of starting territs determined by the user. The alternatives that have been proposed allow a predetermined number. It sounds like people have proposed Normal, Half and Conquest (cool name greenoaks!).

it wasn't entirely me. just like someone brilliant suggested they drop 'the' from that social networking site, 'The Facebook'. i suggest we drop 'mode' from Fazeem's naming of the 1 starting terit option, Conquest Mode.

i also believe the issue of how it would look has been addressed

Fazeem wrote:
spiesr wrote:How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

I am sure one of the site geniuses would find a spot much like they did with Trench and Fog

this would be a part of Initial Troops - Automatic, Manual or Conquest

Conquer Club

Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions

Re: Select Amount of Starting Positions