Conquer Club

ender516 wrote: What exactly is meant here by "initial army placement"?

There's a suggestion for it somewhere in S&B's.

The original versions of Risk had players alternate selecting their starting territories, rather than deal out cards like the newer versions have (and which CC mimics by random placements) - although deal-cards-for-initial-placements was an option in those games. In 24-hour games, using turns to place armies would make games longer, but also takes out a little of the "luck of the draw" of the random-drop version.

Kotaro wrote:For the next big update, I'd like to not lag for 12 minutes trying to bombard on Waterloo.

get decent internet

sully800 wrote:I picked 3 and they were by far the 3 least popular. And where's adjacent attacks?? haha

Also, for those of you who suggested 10 or 12 player games - I don't expect those will ever happen, because finding adequate colors would be way too hard. Coming up with 9 suitable colors that most people can easily differentiate was hard enough, but 11 or 13 total colors is too many. We'd all be playing with color codes on

and surely if colours are the only thing stopping this...bit silly

Timminz wrote:

rabbiton wrote:

Timminz wrote:

sully800 wrote:And where's adjacent attacks?? haha

Yeah. And 'No Forts'?

But seriously. 1v1 team games. Hands-down the best, new, strategic option available, and it's a natural extension from what is already available.

1v1 team games. easily the best idea i've heard for the site for a long time.

I know! Right?

Team games without having to worry about miscommunication, or disagreements amongst team mates.

1v1 games that rely much more heavily on strategy that the current version.

What's not to love?

I await the arrival!

sully800 wrote:We'd all be playing with color codes on

In 8 player, I play with color code anyway. For some reason, when Silver and Green are adjacent, it's sometimes hard for me to tell them apart.

Would really love to see:

XML change so that starting positions can be set according to number of players (would really help enable really interesting gameplay for new maps - often compromises to gameplay take place due to making allowances to cover all game types - this would be a great solution).

I agree with the medal for winning the clan league.

Also, diamond and platinum medals - especially for cross-map (e.g. 90 & 120 maps ranked).

Game Labels Visible on Private Games and game creators not automatically entered - this would make the job of creating private tournament games (such as Clan games) so much easier (currently a proper headache lol).

More 'Contests' (what happened to them?) - it seemed to be a one-weekend-only affair where various players got a medal for being on-line that weekend (more-or-less).

Woodruff wrote:I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)

I concur.

One example would be to average the individual ratings for each person, rather than having the new rating supercede all previous ratings that person has given (then the overal rating would be an overall average, exactly like now).


This would go a long way to fixing people's gripes on the ratings, without a huge hassle (I believe).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)

I concur.

One example would be to average the individual ratings for each person, rather than having the new rating supercede all previous ratings that person has given (then the overal rating would be an overall average, exactly like now).


This would go a long way to fixing people's gripes on the ratings, without a huge hassle (I believe).

I think Lack is looking first for a bigger update than a couple of smaller ones---since over the last few months most of his updates have been small. It's a cycle.


--Andy

the double turn loophole, is simple to fix, just dont play freestyle, silly update, battle royales or initial deployment would be the best... but looking at an earlier page, i think 1 vs 1 team games would be an awesome feature. but still with double the points, makes it a bigger risk that way.

AndyDufresne wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)

I concur.

One example would be to average the individual ratings for each person, rather than having the new rating supercede all previous ratings that person has given (then the overal rating would be an overall average, exactly like now).


This would go a long way to fixing people's gripes on the ratings, without a huge hassle (I believe).

I think Lack is looking first for a bigger update than a couple of smaller ones---since over the last few months most of his updates have been small. It's a cycle.


--Andy

I remember reading a post about 2 months ago about a huge update but I think the only new thing I saw was the ability to send invites out to players. So are we asking for feedback about the big update or is this in addition to the big update still to come ?

I for one , would like to see some sort of chat like gmail or facebook, where you can instantly start a chat with any player that is online... It would be nice not to have to pm people for the chatroom, and having to constantly switch windows to talk...

Just an idea, it would be much more efficient that way...

Woodruff wrote:
I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)
I concur.

Well if you ask me,i will go to order how sugestion has accepted in to-do list.If you have sugestion from 2006 years,then it will be normal to implement all sugestion from 2006 years,and then to move in 2007 years sugestion. If you think that some ideas from to-do list now its not need ,then you need to remove some very old sugestion,or to work in to hes new development.
present situation in to-do list
Gameplay
2006-8
2007-2
2008-1
2009-0
--------------
community&site
2006-4
2007-0
2008-2
2009-1
---------------------
still have big number of sugestion who is from 2006 years.
Note-i see that random map is still in to-do list but i belive that this is implemented in .right?

I think initial army placement would be bad for the site. Once you do that things become pretty scientific and there becomes such a thing as an optimal army placement, optimal progression, etc. I understand that initial army placement would not replace random drops but it's still really not necessary.

The best way to fix freestyle would be to ban the clickable maps script altogether. The next best things are making it available to everyone and eliminating double turns. Regardless, any of these measures would probably bring many otherwise tactically inept noobs back to low-rank reality.

I am not even sure if this is possible but I would like the ability for a player upon initiating their turn to trade a set amount of armies for lifting the fog for just that turn....it might be a percentage of armies being received that turn such as 50%. Just a thought.

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=17885

Just go through that golden thread

I wouldn't pick any of the 5 up there as the next. Auto attack limits would be nice for std. esc. games. Both for defender and attacker. (i.e. you should be able to set the limit for how many you will go down to, or how many your opponent will go down to before it stops). I saw andy post this one somewhere, so i know its on the list. Map groupings could be good too. Also, would be nice to extend the time limit on game invites. If your friends not on for 24 hours, you might get stuck with anybody for a partner.

Since so many people have BOB, etc, I would like to see some of those features encorporated directly into CC. Right now, those who have the ability to use BOB get a distinct advantage in some games (particularly freestyle). Since the coding is there, I would guess integrating it should not be that difficult?

As a minimum, I would like to see how many territories people have, maybe down at the bottom, without having to page through the log and count.

It would be nice to get a list of those territories you have lost since your last turn, too... particularly in fog.

All of this information is available already, this would just mean those of us without the add-ons have it more readily (without counting).

AndyDufresne wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)

I concur.

One example would be to average the individual ratings for each person, rather than having the new rating supercede all previous ratings that person has given (then the overal rating would be an overall average, exactly like now).


This would go a long way to fixing people's gripes on the ratings, without a huge hassle (I believe).

I think Lack is looking first for a bigger update than a couple of smaller ones---since over the last few months most of his updates have been small. It's a cycle.
--Andy

Cycle, my behind...we've got things that have been on the to-do list for more than three years. That's not a cycle, it's a wheel...spinning endlessly and getting nowhere.

1v1 Team games!

Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

How about a system that moderators are elected by a panel that is composed of fair and honest players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

notyou2 wrote:How about a system that moderators are elected by a panel that is composed of fair and honest players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

But who would decide who is

notyou2 wrote:fair and honest

or the

notyou2 wrote:players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

Another panel to chose the panel
Sorry but probably wouldn't work. There would be bias involved in picking the panel...

Ugly_Moose wrote:Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

I agree with this idea. On another site similar to this one(except much worse) players lose extra points if they deadbeat a game

Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

BOB...

kratos644 wrote:

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

BOB...

Well, seems like many of BOB's features should've been folded into the site long ago.