Conquer Club

The good thing is: everybody agrees that whatever system is used, it should be explicit. So perhaps the best and easiest alternative would be to have it as a game option? That way, both ways are possible while nobody is caught unawares by unexpected behaviour

mc05025 wrote:I do not like that. Giving the opportunity toa player to decide if he should take a card or not makes the game more complicated. Deciding if you should take a card or not is not easy in many cases. I suppport any feature that makes the game more complicated and more intresting.

Would you support a feature that required you to solve a math problem correctly before initiating an assault? Not all complications to the game are desirable simply because they make the game more complicated, nor is it the case that giving people more options is always a good thing. There needs to be a better argument for this than simply that "it gives people more options." There are myriad ways to do that. We want to retain only the ones that truly add fun gameplay that is challenging in a non-trivial way, while retaining an element of fairness and preventing abuse.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mc05025 wrote:I do not like that. Giving the opportunity toa player to decide if he should take a card or not makes the game more complicated. Deciding if you should take a card or not is not easy in many cases. I suppport any feature that makes the game more complicated and more intresting.

Would you support a feature that required you to solve a math problem correctly before initiating an assault? Not all complications to the game are desirable simply because they make the game more complicated, nor is it the case that giving people more options is always a good thing. There needs to be a better argument for this than simply that "it gives people more options." There are myriad ways to do that. We want to retain only the ones that truly add fun gameplay that is challenging in a non-trivial way, while retaining an element of fairness and preventing abuse.

^This. I've always known the rules to be, if you take a territory, you get a card at the end of your turn. (this is applied to all cases). The only difference is that here unless you click the button that says end turn, you don't really end your turn. As such the strategy doesn't really apply to how risk is supposed to be played. You don't want a card? Fine, then don't take a territ and just use your troops to buff your own. You have to take a territory to break someones bonus? Its a choice you have to make. But the fact is, which is more important to you? Not getting the card or breaking your opponents bonus/hold on a certain area?

Metsfanmax wrote:

mc05025 wrote:I do not like that. Giving the opportunity toa player to decide if he should take a card or not makes the game more complicated. Deciding if you should take a card or not is not easy in many cases. I suppport any feature that makes the game more complicated and more intresting.

Would you support a feature that required you to solve a math problem correctly before initiating an assault? Not all complications to the game are desirable simply because they make the game more complicated, nor is it the case that giving people more options is always a good thing. There needs to be a better argument for this than simply that "it gives people more options." There are myriad ways to do that. We want to retain only the ones that truly add fun gameplay that is challenging in a non-trivial way, while retaining an element of fairness and preventing abuse.

Obviously I do not support features that has nothing to do with the game but I support any kind of complications that fits normally at the existing rules. I include on these the

1.intentional missing of a turn
2.killling your teammate
3.stealling a kill at freestyle ecalating casual game
4.giving the enemy or your own position at fog games
5.lying on the chat or backstubing
6. Start last at a freestyle game with objective, take the objectve and hold down the b key
7. at freestyle game when there are only 2 players at the game, play before your opponet and then leave a couple of hours before taking your turn again in order to make sure your opponent is not online
and maybe there are more

Some of you think that some of them are cheap tactics while some of you think that they are ok. I am using and I like all of them as they add a complication and while I am calculating my moves I concider that my opponent is going to use them. All of them fit nicely at the game. I do not say lets try and make more of them, but eliminating them doesn't sound a good idea to me especialy when there are so many other changes that should be done.


Finally that game has nothing to do with the board game. The way that the board game doesn't have the feature to skip a card doesn't mean anything. The board game is at classic map and flat rate. If you like the board game, stick at the clasic map, flat rate and sunny and noone is going to use any of the aformentioned strategies against you.

IcePack wrote:So if you are playing a 1 min freestyle esc game, and can't get your whole turn (assualt, reinforcement, end turn) in because of lack of time...is it going to reward your slow play with a card as well regardless of whether you were assualting still, reinforcing, etc?

Back to the above as I feel it is at the core of the issue...
In a perfect world everyone has lighting fast internet speed and no timeouts. However, in reality as we know it this is far from true. I actually can't even play 1 minute speeders on my current setup for the reason that my computer simply can't communicate with the server fast enough. So the illusion that both players have the same amount of time rarely coincides with what is actually happening.

That being said, the advantage gained at the end of a turn due to connection speed is only increased with the benefit of having that little extra amount of time in the end to confirm the finish of your turn and get your card(potentially a very big contributing factor to the winning of a game). For the sake of the closest thing to an even playing field I think that an automatic card may be the best bet, especially in a speed game. Why put more emphasis than there already is on connection speed and at least give someone an automatic card with a successful assault. If you have a message of any kind that makes you confirm one way or another, there is too much of an advantage to a fast connection.

So essentially, for the sake of a truly fair game, you really can't have the option of not taking a card. The only way would be if your turn could be extended to make up for your internet connection (new suggestion?).

mc05025 wrote:Obviously I do not support features that has nothing to do with the game but I support any kind of complications that fits normally at the existing rules.

OK, but do you concede that this feature introduces no extra complexity given that you have to take a strategic decision either way? As ahunda mentioned:

No spoil on timeout means you have to decide if it is worth sacrificing your reinforcement phase to avoid a spoil.

Auto spoil on timeout means you have to decide if it is worth sacrificing your assault phase to avoid a spoil.

From this point of view, I can't see why you would defend either option except that it is what you are used to.

D4 Damager wrote:

mc05025 wrote:Obviously I do not support features that has nothing to do with the game but I support any kind of complications that fits normally at the existing rules.

OK, but do you concede that this feature introduces no extra complexity given that you have to take a strategic decision either way? As ahunda mentioned:

No spoil on timeout means you have to decide if it is worth sacrificing your reinforcement phase to avoid a spoil.

Auto spoil on timeout means you have to decide if it is worth sacrificing your assault phase to avoid a spoil.

From this point of view, I can't see why you would defend either option except that it is what you are used to.

I think he supports it because it is a tactic he can use. This option eliminates a tactic that some players appreciate.

Its a very basic rule of risk...every turn u get to conquer a territ you are awarded a card.
Do we pretend we are playing something else?
It is a cheap tactic, not strat.Its a clock exploit.
if u dont want to card, play no spoils or dont attack.
I think fair play is more important than any 1 min freestyle game.

Edited the first post to add a poll.

Just want to say that I am in full support here. I would assume all the other CD's would be also.

Dukasaur wrote:The point has been made before, and needs to be made here: consider what this would mean in real life. If you were playing the board game at the kitchen table, and someone finished his turn but forgot to take a card, would that stand? Or would you grab a card and hand it to him? I think the not-taking-spoil thing is an exploit. Granted it's an exploit the site has tolerated, but it's still not a genuine "strategy".

My House Rules have allowed one exception per player--especially if alcohol and other stimulants are involved. Requests for a second exception are loudly rejected.

Since the general rule of "Risk" has been: you must card if you take a territory, then this loophole on this site shouldn't be tolerated. Since this is CC and IIRC the rules on spoils are not codified anywhere on the site, then I'm not so sure. "Foe and move on" if you don't like particular players doing that?

Best Compromise:
I do like the "End Turn - Do not card" button though. We should allow an option in the game settings which prohibits/allows this 'exploit' for particular games, thus satisfying the "don't touch my freestyle, speed games" crowd and also people like DocBrown. Since that button enables users to clearly establish particular rules for particular games, and since people are free to join any game they want, then the entire spectrum of players can be satisfied.

(Should we add this option to the poll? ).

Tip of the Hat to Nicky15 and Vid_FISO.

I've played Risk games before where unless you remember to take your card at the end of the turn, you don't get one. =)

The issue here is this statement:

What's a set of spoils? You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!

I'm still not sure what the "just like reality" is referring to (war? other board games? poker night?), but the rules say that if you conquer a region, you get a spoil. I can just imagine this around the table - someone rolls the dice, makes their moves, and then sits back and waits 59 minutes for the clock to run out so they don't take a card.

I understand that people use this tactic. The question is, is this a bug or a feature? If it's a bug, then close the loophole and implement Doc's suggestion. If it's a feature, change the Instructions to include something like "If you don't finish your turn before time runs out, you don't get a spoil, just like reality!"

Personally, I see this as a cheap tactic in nuclear spoils play, since you can break your opponent's bonus but not have to worry about nuking your own bonus your next round. What's the point of nuclear spoils, then?

Mc says he supports complexity in games. Fair enough. But I support choices and consequences. Do I risk breaking that bonus if it means I might have to nuke my own? Should I hunt another player, even if it means I risk nuking my teammate? Choices and consequences are good for Conquer Club and lead to more interesting gameplay.

But in the spirit of choices and consequences, I voted for the third option, because in a speed game, not ending the turn in time really does have consequences for Escalating play for the reasons MC mentioned. How long can I wait before ending the turn? Will I have enough time to reinforce? So I'd like this rule to be enforced for 24-hour games, where 1 hour is enough time for anyone to make their moves, even the most complex ones, whereas in speed games, the clock is your enemy, and taking too much time should result in not being able to reap the benefits of a spoil.

Dako pointed me to the original thread here: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=126900

Some people from there that were clearly in favor of a very similar version of this suggestion:

Metsfanmax wrote:Seems like a pretty good idea to me. The cash at the end of turn idea is more consistent with real Risk gameplay, but there's no reason why this particular aspect of it has to match up, if there are no negatives to changing the reward time.

One potential problem is that the server has to remember that you earned a card for a long time, before actually granting it to you.

rdsrds2120 wrote:If I'm understanding this right, you basically want to award cards to those that run out of time as well, granted they've done what's required to get a card normally?
I like that idea. I hate lagging at the end of a speed game where I need a card. It really affects my gameplay.

Metsfanmax wrote:One potential problem is that the server has to remember that you earned a card for a long time, before actually granting it to you.

I don't think that it would make a HUGE deal.
Right now I think that the system checks to see if you've successfully attacked/bombarded then awards a spoil upon ending your turn.
Instead of doing that, you can do the same thing and just have the check happen when you press 'Begin Turn' on the following. Holding one boolean value on the game is nothing compared to everything else that it stores.
Even if that's now hot it happens, it wouldn't be hard to store a boolean value of getting a card true or false, but I'm not a web developer. Up to turtle.

Personally I've always been fine with it and not seen it as a cheap tactic. If the oppo lets the clock run down so he doesn't card it means two things:

1. He's not earning any more cards for the foreseeable future

2. He cannot fort

I consider that punitive enough and any further advantage obviously rests with me. So I'll take that advantage and let the deliberate not-carding slide.

i fully agree with this suggestion, i hate this loophole in nukes and escalating.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Personally I've always been fine with it and not seen it as a cheap tactic. If the oppo lets the clock run down so he doesn't card it means two things:

1. He's not earning any more cards for the foreseeable future

2. He cannot fort

I consider that punitive enough and any further advantage obviously rests with me. So I'll take that advantage and let the deliberate not-carding slide.

They can still fort in unlimited games.

Personally, I support this in all games except speed-freestyle games.

As a moderator here, I think the question is whether or not it makes the game better. It seems to me, that typically if a player times out, it's on accident and did not really want to time out. I have the feeling that this is more of an accidental thing than a purposeful thing used for strategic purposes. I have no numbers to back that up. However, with that view in mind, I think it's a good idea to implement this in some capacity.

How feasible would it be to implement this for sequential games but not freestyle? I'm not particularly opposed to allowing people to time out, but like Ace mentioned early in the thread, I think there is a serious issue if something is explicitly banned in clan play that is considered valid outside the clan games. So far there is over 80% support for automatically awarding spoils at least for sequential games (and a large majority support implementing this for all game types). If the implementation is not too difficult, I'd recommend implementing it for sequential games now and spending more time considering whether it should be used in freestyle games.


Edit: I added this proposal as a compromise option at the end of the first post.

jetsetwilly wrote:I completely support eliminating the ability for a player to take his turn, capture or bombard a territory, then time out without being awards spoils. If a player times out on his turn, he will automatically be awarded any spoils he would have received if he ended his turn normally

my thoughts exactly.

spoils should be awarded when your turns ends, regardless of whether it was because the timer reached zero or you clicked the 'end turn' button.

I support this. I never liked that you can simply wait for the end of your turn to avoid getting a bonus. And I don't like the idea of making the rule different for different settings. The most convincing counterarguments that I see are as follows (with my counter-counterarguments)

First argument is that part of the dynamic of speed games is that you must finish your turn in time. I would be more swayed by this if I thought that how fast you can press buttons should outweigh the strategic nature of the game. However, I do not think that how quickly you can press 'e' 'e' should determine whether or not you get a spoil. I realize that much of speed games is how quickly you can make certain attacks, etc. I'm fine with that aspect because there's a little bit more strategy involved. But to me, there's little strategy element in whether you can end the turn at that fraction of a second to press the 'e' key enough times.

The other argument is that this adds complexity to the game, and I think that D4 Damager did a pretty good job of showing complexity existing on both sides of this debate.

So to me, as it seems with many others, this comes down to "how the game is supposed to be played." Granted, that's a very subjective standard, but it seems to me that the majority believe that the way the game is supposed to be played is that you get a card for conquering a territory.

Add to this, that I really dislike putting different rules/coding/settings on different types of games (e.g., speed v. casual; freestyle v. sequential). And add that this tactic wastes time in some games (as a player waits an hour for his turn to count down) and I'm pretty resolutely in the camp of awarding spoils anytime a territ is taken during a turn.

and the Instructions tab agrees with us.

You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region

yea, when running out of time you do not end the turn. You do not pess end turn and there is no 'end turn' written in the log. The turn is incompleted and the game moves on. So it is correct right now

mc05025 wrote:yea, when running out of time you do not end the turn. You do not pess end turn and there is no 'end turn' written in the log. The turn is incompleted and the game moves on. So it is correct right now

if my turn hasn't ended how come i can't continue to attack?

Yeah - players still have the option of depleting a region without taking it if they really dont want a card.

Why not, as well, automatic deferred troops if a player times out without having deployed ?

greenoaks wrote:

mc05025 wrote:yea, when running out of time you do not end the turn. You do not pess end turn and there is no 'end turn' written in the log. The turn is incompleted and the game moves on. So it is correct right now

if my turn hasn't ended how come i can't continue to attack?

There is no rule saying you can attack till you end your turn. You can attack till you press end assaults or run out of time. Thats why you can not attack anymore