Conquer Club

eggrollonedolla wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

eggrollonedolla wrote:I think a solution like this would make everyone happy yes?

So naive...

But I like your solution. I would give it a thumbs up, like, or +1 if I could!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170398

only trying to turn a new leaf. everyone tells me to stop being so pessimistic and im getting tired of it so Im trying something new here. bare with me.

I did like the solution. I just think there will always be a few complainers, no matter what.

Mmmh. Overall though, I'm pretty pleased with Trench.


--Andy

Overall Andy, after all these years, i still think your hot dude!

Stay with it funk soul sister!

Staff Sergeant to you Sir

wow, i can't believe that nobody has ever thought of a resign button before!!! GROUND BREAKING@!!!! EARTH SHATTERING!!!! i wish i had thought of this!!! sign me up!!!-el Sarcastic negro

instead of ending the game, you could make the forfeit button available *ONLY* for cases where the other is dominating.

so if a player owns, say, 70% of all troops, the forfeit button becomes available, and only if both players agree then the game ends with a winner.

although that would be problematic in fog of war games, if you're really not sure how well everybody is doing, and one player has been stacking for lots of turns.

I think I need to try out some more non-escalating trench games next week...


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think I need to try out some more non-escalating trench games next week...


--Andy

Good luck, they'll last even longer!

-rd

I'm not so sure that 'clearly dominating' is so easy to decide.

I was down to something like 3 terits against two other people in this one and each of them had about half the board.......

Game 11073933

I'm glad I played the game out (obviously), if that button were available I probably would have used it.

L M S wrote:I'm not so sure that 'clearly dominating' is so easy to decide.

I was down to something like 3 terits against two other people in this one and each of them had about half the board.......

Game 11073933

I'm glad I played the game out (obviously), if that button were available I probably would have used it.

I think the clearly dominating thing pertains mostly to 1v1 games. For example if somebody playing trench has 75% of the troops has a bonus and a 1-2 region buffer zone around that bonus, it is pretty much game over- even in escalating. If the edge is set far enough so that you can even break them with good dice because you have to go through 3 1's then you have almost no chance at pulling out a comeback. In the game you listed, you had two other people that could have pretty much left you alone while trying to set the edge on each other allowing you to build up and fight back into the game. This is not the case for 1v1.

Crazyirishman wrote:

L M S wrote:I'm not so sure that 'clearly dominating' is so easy to decide.

I was down to something like 3 terits against two other people in this one and each of them had about half the board.......

Game 11073933

I'm glad I played the game out (obviously), if that button were available I probably would have used it.

I think the clearly dominating thing pertains mostly to 1v1 games. For example if somebody playing trench has 75% of the troops has a bonus and a 1-2 region buffer zone around that bonus, it is pretty much game over- even in escalating. If the edge is set far enough so that you can even break them with good dice because you have to go through 3 1's then you have almost no chance at pulling out a comeback. In the game you listed, you had two other people that could have pretty much left you alone while trying to set the edge on each other allowing you to build up and fight back into the game. This is not the case for 1v1.

excellent point.

Crazyirishman wrote:

L M S wrote:I'm not so sure that 'clearly dominating' is so easy to decide.

I was down to something like 3 terits against two other people in this one and each of them had about half the board.......

Game 11073933

I'm glad I played the game out (obviously), if that button were available I probably would have used it.

I think the clearly dominating thing pertains mostly to 1v1 games.

Not really. The mistake is the difference between clearly dominating and clearly dominated. LMS was clearly dominated but since two players each had about half the regions no one was clearly dominating. If one of the players had twice the regions the other two players combined had they would have been clearly dominating and the game would have ended differently.

Renee_W wrote:Not really. The mistake is the difference between clearly dominating and clearly dominated. LMS was clearly dominated but since two players each had about half the regions no one was clearly dominating. If one of the players had twice the regions the other two players combined had they would have been clearly dominating and the game would have ended differently.

It's a good point you make rendered invalid by your ugly butt. Every game I play against you, I clearly dominate. Is that why you've foed me?

The point I was making was that I was clearly dominated in the game...and had there been a button I might have resigned the game instead of playing it out. I know it was escalating and that is the only reason I was able to come back at all after being down to three singles. I am of course happy it turned out the way it did but I can see the idea being valid in no spoils games for sure.

And just to give a little more detail on that game, at one point Yellow was clearly dominating all of us thankfully, he n00bed it up so badly, he wasn't a factor at the end.

I think there is a between clearly dominating and being clearly dominated. In your example, no one was clearly dominating.