Conquer Club

I would play it with both. In all honesty, I would probably switch almost exclusively to this setting for casual games.

You know it honestly shocks me when people argue and vote against having additional option available to play. Sorry had to randomly insert that after reading some posts and looking at the vote.

Fazeem wrote:You know it honestly shocks me when people argue and vote against having additional option available to play. Sorry had to randomly insert that after reading some posts and looking at the vote.

too many options makes games hard to fill as it spreads us too thin. only the best should be implemented.

not only is this suggestion an awesome game changing, strategy changing option, it doubles our maps without doubling them.

I support this completely. It opens up a complete new experience as trench did when introduced to the site. I think it's quite simple for those people who don't like it then don't play it like greenoaks said it's an option for new gameplay. Although I imagine that everyone who is against it would have a change of heart once a conquest medal is introduced

I like it and I'd play it

greenoaks wrote:

Fazeem wrote:You know it honestly shocks me when people argue and vote against having additional option available to play. Sorry had to randomly insert that after reading some posts and looking at the vote.

too many options makes games hard to fill as it spreads us too thin. only the best should be implemented.

not only is this suggestion an awesome game changing, strategy changing option, it doubles our maps without doubling them.

I disagree with he 1st part and agree with the 2nd. The more options the more people are likely to play and join games as it is the stagnation on the site that I feel kills it here. I have both a friend and younger sibling who just do not play here anymore as they do not like creating games and get tired of the same 50 games with the same crap options plus both rather play me in person so as to not have to wait for others to finish a game. But I do agree that this feature would create a whole new playing field and make some maps more enjoyable to many of us who avoid them currently. I am a firm believer in let the people choose and not be limited in their options lol.

this idea needs some site feedback Please?

Have you taken into consideration dice... If you start with 1 and only 1, dice might shaft you. I know on maps like AOR and Kings Court, bad dice in the first few rounds leaves you behind.

Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Have you taken into consideration dice... If you start with 1 and only 1, dice might shaft you. I know on maps like AOR and Kings Court, bad dice in the first few rounds leaves you behind.

those 2 maps already are Conquest maps and are some of the most popular maps played.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

greenoaks wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

I think what he's trying to say is, this could happen on almost any map. And 1v1 on Doodle, you can't be eliminated turn 1 (Well, barring a cook getting perfect dice as he suicides each roll). With this setting, it could happen turn 1 on 90% of CC maps. Not saying the percentages are high, but it's bound to happen as more players are in the game.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

I think what he's trying to say is, this could happen on almost any map. And 1v1 on Doodle, you can't be eliminated turn 1 (Well, barring a cook getting perfect dice as he suicides each roll). With this setting, it could happen turn 1 on 90% of CC maps. Not saying the percentages are high, but it's bound to happen as more players are in the game.

Thank you for the correct interpretation.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

I think what he's trying to say is, this could happen on almost any map. And 1v1 on Doodle, you can't be eliminated turn 1 (Well, barring a cook getting perfect dice as he suicides each roll). With this setting, it could happen turn 1 on 90% of CC maps. Not saying the percentages are high, but it's bound to happen as more players are in the game.

i was aware of the point he was making - it has already been discussed.

as i kindly pointed out we already have that situation with Doodle Earth and it is VERY popular. people join those games knowing full well being eliminated before they take their first turn is a possibility.

what we'd like to do is bring the Realms or Feudal game-style to all maps (even though a R1 elimination is a possibility). the way we currently play maps will change. this change will breathe new life into all of those maps.

greenoaks wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

I think what he's trying to say is, this could happen on almost any map. And 1v1 on Doodle, you can't be eliminated turn 1 (Well, barring a cook getting perfect dice as he suicides each roll). With this setting, it could happen turn 1 on 90% of CC maps. Not saying the percentages are high, but it's bound to happen as more players are in the game.

i was aware of the point he was making - it has already been discussed.

as i kindly pointed out we already have that situation with Doodle Earth and it is VERY popular. people join those games knowing full well being eliminated before they take their first turn is a possibility.

what we'd like to do is bring the Realms or Feudal game-style to all maps (even though a R1 elimination is a possibility). the way we currently play maps will change. this change will breathe new life into all of those maps.

Bravisimo well said.

greenoaks wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Also, what if you get dropped next to your opponent? He goes first. The person would just attack you to eliminate you, game over. Where is the fun in that?

if you are unsure of whether this would be fun, run a search on Doodle Earth

I think what he's trying to say is, this could happen on almost any map. And 1v1 on Doodle, you can't be eliminated turn 1 (Well, barring a cook getting perfect dice as he suicides each roll). With this setting, it could happen turn 1 on 90% of CC maps. Not saying the percentages are high, but it's bound to happen as more players are in the game.

i was aware of the point he was making - it has already been discussed.

as i kindly pointed out we already have that situation with Doodle Earth and it is VERY popular. people join those games knowing full well being eliminated before they take their first turn is a possibility.

what we'd like to do is bring the Realms or Feudal game-style to all maps (even though a R1 elimination is a possibility). the way we currently play maps will change. this change will breathe new life into all of those maps.

Why would you want to take away from the actual game itself though...

I think I'm gonna try this with my dad as we both play risk.. And see how it plays out.

NoSurvivors wrote:I think I'm gonna try this with my dad as we both play risk.. And see how it plays out.

as great as it might be to play it at home, here we can do so with FoW.

has anyone played the Poker map with fog? you know the enemy is out there but you don't know where. imagine that uncertainty on every map.

greenoaks wrote:

NoSurvivors wrote:I think I'm gonna try this with my dad as we both play risk.. And see how it plays out.

as great as it might be to play it at home, here we can do so with FoW.

has anyone played the Poker map with fog? you know the enemy is out there but you don't know where. imagine that uncertainty on every map.

Is there any other way to play that map? It is a fun game. Except there are only a few different spots they can be and if they have a bonus you can narrow it down pretty quickly.

I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

i don't understand your concern. it is 1 territory.

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

Fazeem wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

I actually voted yes. I didn't know 2 lines is considered an "emotional rant". But I was a Suggestions Mod for 2-3 years, and to be honest, I was getting tired of everyone using the reasoning "If you don't like the option, don't play it". I still am annoyed with it being used as a reason to implement something.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

I actually voted yes. I didn't know 2 lines is considered an "emotional rant". But I was a Suggestions Mod for 2-3 years, and to be honest, I was getting tired of everyone using the reasoning "If you don't like the option, don't play it". I still am annoyed with it being used as a reason to implement something.

it is not the amount of lines rather the words they are composed of that makes it a emotional rant but I guess the term outburst would be more accurate given your admissions here my point still remains if you do not like it do not play it. I skip over assassin and trench games because I do not like that game play. I do not believe they should be removed from the line up because I do not play them I like the idea they are there diversifying the choices I have and every blue moon I might play one of them(usually by accident of laziness). More choice is better and unless the idea is outrageously hard to implement,destroys the game play or is just plain stupid all Ideas should be judged and actualized based on what they contribute to the site and or game. But that is just my school of thought I am a half full type person trying to fill the glass the rest of the way.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

Spot on.

I'd also like to add we have limited resources to implement new options.