Conquer Club

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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

greenoaks wrote:

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

Fazeem wrote:

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. ...

agentcom wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

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. ...

Sorry, Fazeem. I completely forgot about that. I corrected it in my post.

As to the rest of the conversation, the more I hear from you two (fazeem and greenoaks), the more I agree that limiting the options is a good thing. But I don't think that we should only take it all the way down to 1 ... I like the idea of starting with a few, too. Like the half territ option that was suggested. I think I would play that more than "Conquest," actually.

agentcom wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

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. ...

Sorry, Fazeem. I completely forgot about that. I corrected it in my post.

As to the rest of the conversation, the more I hear from you two (fazeem and greenoaks), the more I agree that limiting the options is a good thing. But I don't think that we should only take it all the way down to 1 ... I like the idea of starting with a few, too. Like the half territ option that was suggested. I think I would play that more than "Conquest," actually.

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

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. ...

Sorry, Fazeem. I completely forgot about that. I corrected it in my post.

As to the rest of the conversation, the more I hear from you two (fazeem and greenoaks), the more I agree that limiting the options is a good thing. But I don't think that we should only take it all the way down to 1 ... I like the idea of starting with a few, too. Like the half territ option that was suggested. I think I would play that more than "Conquest," actually.

i would be totally against more than 1 additional option, whatever that was.

perhaps Conquest is 3 terits unless you normally get less. perhaps it is only 1. i prefer 1 but would not be against 3. half i will fight against - it doesn't even have a cool name.

what i don't want is a massive expansion to game options. limit them and pick the best. too many options result in games filling slower.

Fazeem wrote:Naw I digress it does not result in games filling slower with more options. Settings people do not like results in games filling slower .... Fight not choice but fight the limiting of it. Freedom to choose settings makes this site great and the variety of choices is why I prefer here to pogo or some other varient site. The more COnquer Club offers the more it further defines itself as it stands head and shoulders above the rest.

All that said I still strongly feel that 1 should be the minimum not 3 the half idea is a compromise to picking specific amount as it will most likely be easier to code and I have founf a number of maps that would benfit from it(Supermax comes to mind 1st) that way the dynamics of play can be tempered with how long it will take to play.