Assured armies on first turn of games

[Conchobar]

One of the main points of the suggestion is to make 1v1 suck LESS

1v1s sucking slightly less would be a bonus.
But, this problem happens with team games also.

Here is a perfect and recent example in a an important clan game: Game 16469520

[Conchobar]

Well, Lucky Lucky Destiny.
Here is yet another example of a team game ruined by first player dropping a bonus. Game 16469522

This is in the very same Random League match between MD & FOED as the previous example above.
This kind of thing just isn't funny, it's infuriating and totally disheartening.
It's precisely the kind of thing that makes players stop playing and I would strongly suggest that something should be done to prevent it.

[Donelladan]

Someone starting with a bonus in bamboo jack quad, that's quite bad luck.

But I consider it a part of random. Like when you start on a super small map ( like luxembourg quad or triple) and you have a player of your team killed before round 1 is over. There is many maps like that in quad, we had it several time during the RL and the Random Cup with my clan as well.

I don't disagree with saying that it would be more fair to go on with this suggestion, but I don't think it's that important or necessary.
In normal clan war, people avoid maps that can have such a luck factor.

It's mainly a combination of maps and settings that make some map becoming very luck based, not the maps by themselves imo.

And even if it would be a bit better if no bonus could be drop on turn 1, there would still be some drop that are way better than other anyway.
I think we can live with it.

[JPlo64]

I don't disagree with saying that it would be more fair to go on with this suggestion, but I don't think it's that important or necessary.
In normal clan war, people avoid maps that can have such a luck factor.

Clan wars and team games are not the only things happening in CC. (even in Clan world we have random map games...)

It's mainly a combination of maps and settings that make some map becoming very luck based, not the maps by themselves imo.

huh? If you drop a bonus, doesn't really matter the setting... Some settings make a comeback more or less likely though.

And even if it would be a bit better if no bonus could be drop on turn 1, there would still be some drop that are way better than other anyway.
I think we can live with it.

OK.... and the grass is green, the sky is blue, and I am drunk
It is the case that, in MOST maps (even conquest maps) one drop will be better than the other. A truly "even" drop is quite rare.
Sorry Donell, but that is a VERY poor argument.
Let's say you had surgery and are prescribed painkillers to help alleviate(not eliminate) the pain. By your logic, since you will not eliminate the pain, there is no point in taking the painkillers.

Bottom line, I've yet to hear a downside to the suggestion...

[IcePack]

Luck is part of the game. Sometimes you get good luck, sometimes you get bad luck. If you wanna play chess or checkers and have everything perfect everytime, go play chess or checkers. Sometimes the element of luck (even bad luck!) is what makes games fun. I've been given a "bad drop" before, and part of the fun was trying to beat it.

[JPlo64]

Luck is part of the game. Sometimes you get good luck, sometimes you get bad luck. If you wanna play chess or checkers and have everything perfect everytime, go play chess or checkers. Sometimes the element of luck (even bad luck!) is what makes games fun. I've been given a "bad drop" before, and part of the fun was trying to beat it.

Again, there is no elimination of luck here...
Just trying to decrease the chance of a game being over before it starts. (PLEASE try to explain the appeal of a game being over before it starts for me!)
This rule change still has luck in drops, but forces the "lucky" player to at least Earn their bonus by successfully holding it for a round.
Actually, you kind of make an argument for this change...
"I've been given a "bad drop" before, and part of the fun was trying to beat it."
This does not change the drop, but it gives you a more fair chance to come back from a bad drop.
Also remember in some game types there is NO coming back from a bad drop (assuming your opponent is competent).

[Donelladan]

It's mainly a combination of maps and settings that make some map becoming very luck based, not the maps by themselves imo.

huh? If you drop a bonus, doesn't really matter the setting... Some settings make a comeback more or less likely though.
.

What I meant is, the setting ( number of player ) can make it more likely to have a bonus or not.
For example if you play 1vs1 in Eurasia there is a lot of chance someone get a bonus, but if you play 4vs4 in Eurasia, it's quite unlikely someone will get a bonus.


The downside of this suggestion is that you are changing the basic rules of the game for a minor problem.
I'd like to see a noob trying to understand why first turn his bonus didn't work.
And I'd like to repeat it, but it's a minor problem, based on what combination of maps and setting you play. I have 67 active game at the moment, and in none of them someone started with a bonus. Basically I only see this happening ( starting with a bonus) in 1vs1 game. In other kind of games it's just really rare ( except Pearl Harbor or D-Day maybe but this is part of the map).
Also I don't think it's a problem, I consider it's part of the game. Like who start, and who get better dice. I have game started with a bonus, sunny, my opponent said gg when he saw the drop, but I get the shittiest dice ever 3 times in a row, and my opponent still won the game. Who should complain ?
Like starting a doodle earth 4vs4 and eliminating one player of the opponent team turn 1.
The game will always be unbalanced anyway, changing drop on turn 1 is an unadapted wrong fix.
Most of the fix that want to make the game more balanced are wrong per se, because the bame is unbalanced.

Also this suggestion is not the correct one concerning your problem. Because maybe 1 month after this suggestions is implemented, some people will still be complaining that it is possible to have a bonus droped turn 1, and even not collected turn 1, it makes the game unfair.

There is another suggestion that say the drop itself should be changed so that it is impossible to have a bonus turn 1. It is a way much better suggestion than this one.

[iAmCaffeine]

The only way to do this would be to make certain regions neutral I believe, which means they'd be neutral at the start of every game, which is kinda boring.

[IcePack]

Luck is part of the game. Sometimes you get good luck, sometimes you get bad luck. If you wanna play chess or checkers and have everything perfect everytime, go play chess or checkers. Sometimes the element of luck (even bad luck!) is what makes games fun. I've been given a "bad drop" before, and part of the fun was trying to beat it.

Again, there is no elimination of luck here...
Just trying to decrease the chance of a game being over before it starts. (PLEASE try to explain the appeal of a game being over before it starts for me!)
This rule change still has luck in drops, but forces the "lucky" player to at least Earn their bonus by successfully holding it for a round.
Actually, you kind of make an argument for this change...
"I've been given a "bad drop" before, and part of the fun was trying to beat it."
This does not change the drop, but it gives you a more fair chance to come back from a bad drop.
Also remember in some game types there is NO coming back from a bad drop (assuming your opponent is competent).

this is assuming it's over before it starts in every case, which just isn't accurate.
There's no control over who goes first, you might go first and break whatever bonus the lucky guy got.

I agree with don it's a minor issue and imo ruins the game if changed.

[Metsfanmax]

I agree with don it's a minor issue and imo ruins the game if changed.

It is hard to understand what you mean by it "ruining the game." It might change the nature of the game a bit, but where do you get "ruin" from?

[IcePack]

I agree with don it's a minor issue and imo ruins the game if changed.

It is hard to understand what you mean by it "ruining the game." It might change the nature of the game a bit, but where do you get "ruin" from?

It's true that there are significant advantages to starting with a bonus, but that's inherent in the luck-based nature of the game. You take away a significant part of the game if you take away that luck.

It seems we're pretty much in agreement here, and I agree w much of what was said in the past by others objecting to it.
It's not really a problem, it's part of the luck / random factor of the game.

As I said, removing that aspect imo ruins the game. Same with other changes like changing escalating, making it less and less recognizable from the original. To many of these small changes combined imo ruins it. The more it goes away from risk, the more risk fans will go looking elsewhere for what they want.

Not to say no changes can be made, but this imo should not be one of them.

[Metsfanmax]

I agree with don it's a minor issue and imo ruins the game if changed.

It is hard to understand what you mean by it "ruining the game." It might change the nature of the game a bit, but where do you get "ruin" from?

It's true that there are significant advantages to starting with a bonus, but that's inherent in the luck-based nature of the game. You take away a significant part of the game if you take away that luck.

It seems we're pretty much in agreement here

I said that nearly six years ago now. I don't still feel the same way now. I don't have a problem with the suggestion so much as the precedent it would set, that is, the precedent of removing the luck-based element of the game. I think that as a narrow consideration, fixing the first round bonus could be a good idea. However, I would only want to do it if I could be sure it wouldn't lead to other, deeper changes to the nature of the game.

As I said, removing that aspect imo ruins the game. Same with other changes like changing escalating, making it less and less recognizable from the original. To many of these small changes combined imo ruins it. The more it goes away from risk, the more risk fans will go looking elsewhere for what they want.

There is no substance for this claim. We got successful offering a hell of a lot more than simple Risk. I have no desire to revert the site so that we only offer a Risk clone; if you think we're in a decline now, just wait until we try that.

Also, the choice of escalating spoils is a pretty absurd example, given that we only changed it for a part of the game that in practice almost no over-the-board playing of Risk ever reached. Have you ever played Risk over the board and cashed a set yielding more than 100 troops?

[Dukasaur]

To me, the compelling argument against this suggestion is not whether it is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, but the fact that it essentially addresses the same issue as the non-attacking first turn proposal.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=197642

In that poll, one of the largest ever conducted, more than 65% of players who voted were opposed to a change. (And no, I was not one of the players opposed. I thought it was a good idea and was disappointed to see it go down in flames.)

This suggestion here, while somewhat different in structure, really addresses the same problem of first-turn advantage. I suspect if we took the trouble to do a mass poll, we would find equally strong resistance. With so many popular suggestions being ignored, it seems rather wasteful to invest effort in an unpopular one.

[IcePack]

I agree with don it's a minor issue and imo ruins the game if changed.

It is hard to understand what you mean by it "ruining the game." It might change the nature of the game a bit, but where do you get "ruin" from?

It's true that there are significant advantages to starting with a bonus, but that's inherent in the luck-based nature of the game. You take away a significant part of the game if you take away that luck.

It seems we're pretty much in agreement here

I said that nearly six years ago now. I don't still feel the same way now. I don't have a problem with the suggestion so much as the precedent it would set, that is, the precedent of removing the luck-based element of the game. I think that as a narrow consideration, fixing the first round bonus could be a good idea. However, I would only want to do it if I could be sure it wouldn't lead to other, deeper changes to the nature of the game.

As I said, removing that aspect imo ruins the game. Same with other changes like changing escalating, making it less and less recognizable from the original. To many of these small changes combined imo ruins it. The more it goes away from risk, the more risk fans will go looking elsewhere for what they want.

There is no substance for this claim. We got successful offering a hell of a lot more than simple Risk. I have no desire to revert the site so that we only offer a Risk clone; if you think we're in a decline now, just wait until we try that.

Also, the choice of escalating spoils is a pretty absurd example, given that we only changed it for a part of the game that in practice almost no over-the-board playing of Risk ever reached. Have you ever played Risk over the board and cashed a set yielding more than 100 troops?

I understand it was 6 years ago, but these are your first posts now disagreeing with what you previously said. I can't read your mind, I can only quote what you've actually said in the past.

I understand we offer "more than risk" but still the "core" of this game is offering something that is Risk like and something that Risk fans would enjoy.
I never said we needed to revert back to a Risk Clone. So I'm not sure where youre getting that. What I said was these minor changes taking it further and further away make it less and less recognizable as a "risk" type game, and it would need to be something significant, and really beneficial to convince me to go further away from the original concept of both Risk, and CC.

As duka pointed out, there have been multiple suggestions similar to this and the one he pointed to had pretty strong opposition to it.

[Metsfanmax]

I understand we offer "more than risk" but still the "core" of this game is offering something that is Risk like and something that Risk fans would enjoy.

In classic Risk, the initial territories are not chosen randomly. This particular part of the game never had much to do with luck, other than the die roll for who selects territories first (except for some two-player variants*). Players choose the territories strategically, one at a time. Consequently a competent player would never allow the situation to arise where the opponent started with a bonus territory (unless of course they had sufficient positional compensation elsewhere). Yet on CC we have the case where players are spuriously punished for things they would never do in the real game. Leaving it as is, is an insult to true Risk players. The least we can do is to compensate for this egregious difference by ensuring that the absurd consequences of this randomized procedure are minimized. Indeed, in my perspective, that is part of making it more like the original. (In the same vein, I advocated a long time ago that we should have a mode that allowed for intentional territory selection, but whoever was the administrator at the time didn't have much interest in it.)

*The existence of some variants that allow random territory selection does not fundamentally change the issue; the point made above still gives the lie to the claim that the initial drop is an intrinsically luck-based part of the game.

[JPlo64]

To me, the compelling argument against this suggestion is not whether it is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, but the fact that it essentially addresses the same issue as the non-attacking first turn proposal.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=197642

In that poll, one of the largest ever conducted, more than 65% of players who voted were opposed to a change. (And no, I was not one of the players opposed. I thought it was a good idea and was disappointed to see it go down in flames.)

This suggestion here, while somewhat different in structure, really addresses the same problem of first-turn advantage. I suspect if we took the trouble to do a mass poll, we would find equally strong resistance. With so many popular suggestions being ignored, it seems rather wasteful to invest effort in an unpopular one.

I find there to be a significant difference between the 2 suggestions.
In my unhumble opinion, limiting attacking in rd 1 is a more significant restriction than this one, and it does even less to even the playing field. Thus, it's worse.

[owenshooter]

To me, the compelling argument against this suggestion is not whether it is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, but the fact that it essentially addresses the same issue as the non-attacking first turn proposal.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=197642

In that poll, one of the largest ever conducted, more than 65% of players who voted were opposed to a change. (And no, I was not one of the players opposed. I thought it was a good idea and was disappointed to see it go down in flames.)

This suggestion here, while somewhat different in structure, really addresses the same problem of first-turn advantage. I suspect if we took the trouble to do a mass poll, we would find equally strong resistance. With so many popular suggestions being ignored, it seems rather wasteful to invest effort in an unpopular one.

276 members voting in a poll is not a very staggering number...-Jésus noir

[Dukasaur]

276 members voting in a poll is not a very staggering number...-Jésus noir

It is for CC. Most forum polls I've seen have less than twenty votes, total. 276 is probably the second-largest vote I've ever seen here. The only poll bigger was the GCCM and that required a MAMMOTH effort by many people to get to that level of input.

[Lord_Bremen]

What about offering it as an option when creating a new game? Have a checkbox which hard-codes three deploy to everyone on Turn 1.

This way, those who want to reduce luck can do so, and those who don't can keep playing as normal.

[IcePack]

Every option we add, somewhere a box of kittens die.
#savethekittenz