[GO] No Dice Games

[The Neon Peon]

Personally, I would only use the type of roll where you win one per loss if I was breaking a continent bonus, but even then, I still would probably want to try to get at something a little better than a loss for every guy I kill. (Lets face it, one kill for a death is not that good a roll since the attacker rolls more dice) However this would seriously improve complaining about dice since when a person loses a 16 v 9, they can only blame themselves for not using the one-kill-one-lose attack option and playing it safe. In that situation of 16 v 9, I would definately not have used it, but I could only blame myself for the rolls, not dice.

[tylergregg404]

im not really into the idea, i think that one of the exciting/main reasons the site is so fun is the unpredictability of the game.

[Snorri1234]

This suggestion is just silly. One of the few things that was in every boardgame and on every risk-site are the dice.

I mean, feel free to play this at home or make a new site, but it just seems silly to put it as an option.


And even if it was an option, it certainly shouldn't be ranked as actual games.

[Joodoo]

This suggestion is just silly. One of the few things that was in every boardgame and on every risk-site are the dice.

I mean, feel free to play this at home or make a new site, but it just seems silly to put it as an option.


And even if it was an option, it certainly shouldn't be ranked as actual games.

well it obviously does eliminate the "risk" part of CC, and even with no dice, who wins is still heavily dependent on drop...
but it installs more strategy/tactics into the game...

[serata]

That this gives a fair first turn is simply not true, depending on initial drop. The entire game would be decided on two factors instead of many... Initial drop and first turn. Imagine you have Western Au, New Guinea and China. First turn you can take all of australia AND siam and still have no singles. That's not to mention fortifications, which most likely you could make because you'd merely have to have a territory bordering china. The other player will not be able to come back from a first turn loss like that, because the other person will just be pumping an unstoppable number of armies from AU second turn.

The dice, if the game is played infinately, will Always favor the attacker in situations of > 5v3. With this set up, I don't even need to worry about losing a 4v3, which heavily favors the first turn attacker. With the optional set up, the first turn player gets an even greater advantage, because he has more options available to him. And let's face it, 3v10 is not going to happen, unless you're lucky enough to win the lottery. No one should ever choose to do a 20v30 unless it's a total last resort.

[Paddy The Cat]

i gotta say im not for it but what the hell do i know-i just think the whole point of risk is having the potential to come back with some lucky rolls when death is staring you in the face, or, as much as it sucks, losing at rediclous odds and being scammed out of points

this should be tested too.. on paper it will look solid, but the whole gameplay of risk revolves around rolling dice, and if you remove the dice, then the entire structure of the game might collapse, and the apocalypse will descend on the earth

[Paddy The Cat]

PS!

also just thought of this one, it might seem rediculous but run with me here for a bit...

some people start playing these games, and do so with great success
pretty soon we have a whole batch of new high ranked players that are dominant in this game type, maybe on specialty maps or what-have-you.

pretty soon, the rest of the high ranked players that think this idea is foolish are forced to play these games just to get rid of the competitive edge the others are having, and soon reclaim the top of the leaderboard, and then they ease back and start playing REAL risk, not some completely different game (which is what you get if you take the dice away)

but when they return back to real risk, the ones playing no dice games rise back to the top, so again the high ranks are forced to play against them and beat them down to stay at the top

pretty soon, you would see a virtual extinction of dice games from the site, because everyone would have to play them or accept being a cook (which many many players would never do) - then, 5 years from now lack gets rid of all dice games cause they have almost no use, and the birth of a completely new game is formed in which half the players love the game, and half hate it but just play to stay competitive, but eventually they get sick of it and leave to another risk website and, with half his business gone lack goes out of business and has to go to the streets to survive, where he becomes the best thug rapper ever

hehe ok i got a little bit sily at the end there, but im dead serious about that post, seriously

take it to a new website, NOT conquerclub

[Kemmler]

yeah

do not do this suggestion

it makes no sense and could destroy the site.

kemm

[e_i_pi]

I've done some preliminary mathematical analysis of this suggestion. In a nutshell, I'm a bit worried. It doesn't look balanced at all. People complain about the dice, and that seems to be the main argument for this suggestion.
Well, the dice give you many chances - the drop gives you one.
It looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first IMO. I'll keep looking into it, but I'm not very optimistic that this is going to be a good change

Here's some observations that were not outlined in the original post:

• Arduously boring build games will be more common.
• Choke points, such as Siam/Indo on Classic, or about 50% of the terrs on Caribbean and Philippines will horribly imbalance a map.
• Predicitability will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game without any reasonable recourse from the other team.
• Starting with a continent such as Australia on Classic or Africa on Doodle will guarantee a win. Not make it highly likely - guarantee.
• Games will go on for much longer and increase server load.
• There will be no less dice threads, there will just be more no-dice threads.
• Maps that have "on-the-edge" starting values (such as 12 terrs each on quads Waterloo, 12 terrs each on 1v1 Australia) will favour the first player/team far too much.
• Bombardment will be vastly different, changing the character of many maps, thereby imbalancing those maps (remember, maps go through a long and analytical process in the forge before they're unleashed).

[cicero]

Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .

[e_i_pi]

Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .

Sorry Cic, I was making an assumption that removing the dice to reduce the luck factor would also involve removing the cards (ie - No Cards games) to completely remove the luck factor. I should have clarified that originally.

In fact I think a no-dice Flat Rate game would be very fun. It'd be akin to poker, gambling on what cards you have in your hands, and trying to guess what your opponent has, and whether they're defending a territory for card-value or if it's a strategic move.

Imagine an escalating game though... what would be the point of getting your fifth card? Honestly... if there is no luck involved, why would anyone cash-in. The first 3 or so cash-ins would be suicide. An Esc game with good players would turn into a *yawn* build game. Build games are the bane of this site - I have been stuck in 2 for about a month now. I am so glad I'm premium so I don't have to worry about game count.

But getting back to that escalating point - in order to get a set, you pretty much need 4 cards on average. To attain 4 cards, you're most likely going to have to take out 4 territories of (say for arguments sake) 2 armies each on average. That's 8 armies you have to take out for first cash-in. Why would you attack? Your relative weakness would be compounded by the more players in the game. Think of it this way - you play an 8 player game, everyone starts with 24 armies, you take out a 3-terr to begin. That means you have 21 armies, 1 opponent has 21 armies, 6 opponents have 24 armies. Why would you put yourself in that situation? It's what is generally termed 'suicide' on this site. Weakening yourself and another player thereby augmenting the strength of all other opponents. I can see a whole lot of bad coming from this suggestion...

[FabledIntegral]

Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .

Sorry Cic, I was making an assumption that removing the dice to reduce the luck factor would also involve removing the cards (ie - No Cards games) to completely remove the luck factor. I should have clarified that originally.

In fact I think a no-dice Flat Rate game would be very fun. It'd be akin to poker, gambling on what cards you have in your hands, and trying to guess what your opponent has, and whether they're defending a territory for card-value or if it's a strategic move.

Imagine an escalating game though... what would be the point of getting your fifth card? Honestly... if there is no luck involved, why would anyone cash-in. The first 3 or so cash-ins would be suicide. An Esc game with good players would turn into a *yawn* build game. Build games are the bane of this site - I have been stuck in 2 for about a month now. I am so glad I'm premium so I don't have to worry about game count.

But getting back to that escalating point - in order to get a set, you pretty much need 4 cards on average. To attain 4 cards, you're most likely going to have to take out 4 territories of (say for arguments sake) 2 armies each on average. That's 8 armies you have to take out for first cash-in. Why would you attack? Your relative weakness would be compounded by the more players in the game. Think of it this way - you play an 8 player game, everyone starts with 24 armies, you take out a 3-terr to begin. That means you have 21 armies, 1 opponent has 21 armies, 6 opponents have 24 armies. Why would you put yourself in that situation? It's what is generally termed 'suicide' on this site. Weakening yourself and another player thereby augmenting the strength of all other opponents. I can see a whole lot of bad coming from this suggestion...

You don't really understand the strategic value of having 4 armies on the field before the opponent can make a move? Do you realize that you could, in a 1v1 as you describe, use a cash in to eliminate an opponent from one side of the map, thus making him possibly fight a two front war to your single (because he can no longer deploy on that one side) front war? Thus you only have to fortify a limited number of chokepoints to your opponent who has to fortify both sides lest he lose territories and thus get a lower territory count and thus a lower deployment, which in no dice games would be utterly devastating. Especially if those 4 armies would allow you to reduce your opponents territories enough so that they get 1 less army for deployment, thus only creating a single army difference... where you've fortified all your armies from one front to the other, and could maintain an army advantage.

That's how I see it at least, and that's the advantage of cashing first in a regular game . Although I could be wrong... it would be highly dependent on the circumstance anyways.

[crazycoders]

This would be great... I approve this idea...

Although the problem about having the advantage of deploying first is somewhat problematic. I think that this kind of game should only be played in freestyle mode since the fastest to deploy then would have the advantage. In sequential it could pose a problem and become an option that kills it's own popularity because of the unfair advantage sequential gaming works.

[Snorri1234]

This would be great... I approve this idea...

Although the problem about having the advantage of deploying first is somewhat problematic. I think that this kind of game should only be played in freestyle mode since the fastest to deploy then would have the advantage. In sequential it could pose a problem and become an option that kills it's own popularity because of the unfair advantage sequential gaming works.

So wait, you think that removing the problem means letting the one with the fastest connection win?



Basically it's just a bad idea since the compensating factor, i.e. the dice, would go away so you're left with first turn/deployment advantage. The dice are random for a reason, so that any advantage from first turn or your deployment is less of an advantage.


I don't know a game without any random factor playing that has random deployment which isn't equal. Seriously, equal deployment is what is key to playing a tactfull game.

[crazycoders]

Never said anything about fastest connexion, said something about dedication to the game, some peeps are on CC 8h/day.

PS, since i didnt want to hijack this thread, i created a new thread about suggestions to randomize the game a bit even in a no dice game. See it here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59150

[hiddendragon]

dice already ready are an option...can throw one drop at a time or can auto-dice and do all at once...

[Paddy The Cat]

people who voted good idea = 90 percent noobs

people who voted bad idea = accomplished stategists



DO NOT DO THIS

please think it through so many players come to this thread after bad rolls pouting and want to get rid of it because they believe removing dice will magically make them good or something idk

the original founders of risk knew what they were doing, they found a perfect middle ground between luck and skill

its not gambling and its not chess

its perfect ^_^

[BaldAdonis]

DO NOT DO THIS

I don't think anyone believes this will actually happen here. It's not Risk without dice. At least the other options are somewhat like the game (play at the same time; kill a specific person; play as a team). This is more like checkers to chess: it's on the same board, but it doesn't belong in the same class.

[FabledIntegral]

I really disagree with people who always think the original makers make everything best....

Whether its the board game RISK or the Constitution of the USA....

[Paddy The Cat]

i dont think original makers always make it best.. but i think a vast majority of the time the original makers make it better than some random dude on a risk website..

its a different game without dice, its not risk anymore

[drake_259]

i dont think original makers always make it best.. but i think a vast majority of the time the original makers make it better than some random dude on a risk website..

its a different game without dice, its not risk anymore

Copyright © 2006 by Salamander Software.
RISK is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. Conquer Club is not associated with RISK or Hasbro in any way.


its' never been risk

lol

[e_i_pi]

I really disagree with people who always think the original makers make everything best....

Whether its the board game RISK or the Constitution of the USA....

Wow. Somebody compared a hobby to a national Constitution. That takes balls

[Sohail88]

i hate dice who cares about the risk aspect of the game unless ur somekind of gambler ive lost like 5 games in one day just because of bad dice

[smwhitey]

[quote="Fruitcake"]
...More lifelike as the largest force always wins the battle, .../quote]

that is not lifelike by any stretch of the imagination. The United States Marine Corps is the smallest military branch in America, but they win wars based on fire and manuever, strategy, and the toughest training. those are the facts, look them up. Semper Fi.

[quiidado]

this sounds retarded... basically the game is decided by the random placement of territories in the beginning of the game...