Conquer Club

2012-12-16 03:24:44 - Game has been initialized
2012-12-16 03:24:59 - _sabotage_ received 2 troops for holding Utrecht

In the above copy/paste, it says that I received a bonus for "holding" Utrecht.

I did not "hold" Utrecht, it was gifted me by the drop. In the past, I suggested that a first round bonus not be given as it leaves the game purely to the drop, people made counter suggestions and the idea was ignored/abandoned.

Suggestions: Please change the wording when a bonus is given in the first round from:

2012-12-16 03:24:44 - Game has been initialized
2012-12-16 03:24:59 - _sabotage_ received 2 troops for holding Utrecht

to:

2012-12-16 03:24:44 - Game has been initialized
2012-12-16 03:24:59 - _sabotage_ received 2 troops for having Utrecht

This will at least be accurate, if not actually addressing the problem.

I really don't think it's worth the time to figure out how to change this for just the first round.

There's also an argument to be made for the present system. Presumably, before your "war" started, you already had the troops stationed there; they weren't just paratroopers dropped in when the game started.

Instead of just changing the wording, how about changing it so you can't drop a bonus?

Reply to Gillipig: I've tried, it's failed. Just played a game that lasted 4 rounds and felt sorry for the other guy and this is my second attempt to point out the flaw of the system.

To Metsfan: I guess, from your username in itself, you would like to have an underdog from the get go. On the other hand, there is no truth in saying it has been held, when no action has occurred apart from joining the game. As someone who has played thousands of 1-1s, I do realize that the players are completely at the mercy of the site and can't really do anything about this. On the other hand, oh yes we should not bring this up, forgive me, I'm just a freemium and will go to my corner.

All maps made now and for the last few years do no have this problem as game play boys will not allow it to happen. As for the older maps, some things can be changed but it is up to the original map maker.

Why change the wording from holding to having? You hold territs, you can never have them. Make no sense to change the wording and would seem like a bit of work on a thing no one would ever notice and if they did, would never care about.

koontz1973 wrote:All maps made now and for the last few years do no have this problem as game play boys will not allow it to happen. As for the older maps, some things can be changed but it is up to the original map maker.

Why change the wording from holding to having? You hold territs, you can never have them. Make no sense to change the wording and would seem like a bit of work on a thing no one would ever notice and if they did, would never care about.

I know this but I was thinking cc could go in and "force change" some of the maps where it's a big problem. I'm sure a willing "editor" could be found.

Koontz, like I said, I have brought this up as a suggestion before, to drop bonuses in the first round. I was bringing it up as a wording change just to draw attention to it again. I don't think that anything will come of it and that is why I have chosen to be a freemium: suggestions are ignored by the site managers.

1-1s are solely based on luck. Changing the wording will do nothing to change this.

_sabotage_ wrote:Koontz, like I said, I have brought this up as a suggestion before, to drop bonuses in the first round. I was bringing it up as a wording change just to draw attention to it again. I don't think that anything will come of it and that is why I have chosen to be a freemium: suggestions are ignored by the site managers.

1-1s are solely based on luck. Changing the wording will do nothing to change this.

If you feel 1v1s are solely luck based, you should check out the foundry then and put some thoughts into the maps being made. Yes some of the earlier maps can be bad for 1v1 and have a lot of the luck element in them, but by no means does this take away from the map. Change can come (look below), suggest the change and if you gain enough support for this, then it can happen.

gillipig wrote:I know this but I was thinking cc could go in and "force change" some of the maps where it's a big problem. I'm sure a willing "editor" could be found.

No, you cannot force a change. Change has to come about by consensus. Dust bowl was recently changed because of a discussion between players and the foundry staff. I did the new xml for that one. cairnswk, has changed a few of his maps recently to accommodate players wishes.

but you are holding the region.

the wording doesn't indicate how you came to be holding it, therefore no change is required.

koontz1973 wrote:

gillipig wrote:I know this but I was thinking cc could go in and "force change" some of the maps where it's a big problem. I'm sure a willing "editor" could be found.

No, you cannot force a change. Change has to come about by consensus. Dust bowl was recently changed because of a discussion between players and the foundry staff. I did the new xml for that one. cairnswk, has changed a few of his maps recently to accommodate players wishes.

Well obviously we "can", but you don't think we "should". At least that's what I assume you mean.

_sabotage_ wrote:
1-1s are solely based on luck.

lol no wonder i suck at 1v1 now i know thanks

As stated a few times in the thread, the wording is unrelated to the problem you feel needs to be addressed. If you would like to discuss that, feel free to start a new thread. I'm archiving this one.

greenoaks wrote:but you are holding the region.

the wording doesn't indicate how you came to be holding it, therefore no change is required.

+1.