[CC2] 2nd Annual Conqueror's Cup!!

by **Dako** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:37 pm

It surely was. But we lost more points than games :D.

And it's ok, no offense taken.

by **Georgerx7di** on Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:16 am

Lol, the last 5 clans to sign up kort, tsm, low, ia, and thota. I guess we were all sitting around trying to make up our minds, and see if everyone else was playing maybe : P

This thread should probably get a sticky btw.

by **reptile** on Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:51 pm

that is pretty hilarious

by **Georgerx7di** on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:56 pm

So are we seeded 4 here? It looks like if we were to play well, we would actually meet thota in the semi-finals, and tofu and kort have a chance for a rematch themselves. This cup could end up being fun. Could face LOW in the quarter finals. Starting to feel like there are a lot of good clans out there these days. We could end up playing 3 really good clans if we were to have a shot at winning this thing.

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:07 am

And looks like TOFU will face the same clans if no upsets will happen.

by **jpeter15** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:24 am

Definitely no easy path to the finals for any clan.

by **Georgerx7di** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:44 pm

Question. Why can't we play manual and nuclear yet? Both settings have been around long enough for people to learn them, what are we waiting for? Freestyle is different because it imposes on your free time (real life, outside of cc), but nuke and manual have only been ruled out thus far because they were new. I think they've been around long enough now that we can start allowing them in clan wars.

by **LFAW** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:55 pm

Georgerx7di wrote:Question. Why can't we play manual and nuclear yet? Both settings have been around long enough for people to learn them, what are we waiting for? Freestyle is different because it imposes on your free time (real life, outside of cc), but nuke and manual have only been ruled out thus far because they were new. I think they've been around long enough now that we can start allowing them in clan wars.

Seconded, Manual and Nuke are both nice settings

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:00 pm

Yes, nuke should be allowed. As for manual, sorry, but too much luck there for me.

by **shocked439** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:08 pm

Dako wrote:Yes, nuke should be allowed. As for manual, sorry, but too much luck there for me.

I'll agree to nuke when they do something to players that never end their turn so they don't take a spoil

by **Rodion** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:29 pm

shocked439 wrote:
Dako wrote:Yes, nuke should be allowed. As for manual, sorry, but too much luck there for me.

I'll agree to nuke when they do something to players that never end their turn so they don't take a spoil

Not allowing people to run out of time when they assaulted/bombarded in a nuclear game is easy: you just make a rule and punish those who don't follow it. It wouldn't be unprecedented to use exterior rules to solve possible in-game problems (see 12-hour fog rule). Another option is to simply accept that as a possible strategy.

About manual, I agree with Dako. A manual game in a large map could end in round 1 (I mean, round 2) after someone's huge stack used all its attacking advantage on the opponent's stack.

Maybe a way of salvaging manual games is to, again, create a rule and enforce it. Maybe limit round 1 stacks? Something like "no stack can be bigger than 6" (arbitrary number I picked, could be tweaked). That could only work in sunny games, of course.

by **Rodion** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Rodion wrote:
shocked439 wrote:
Dako wrote:Yes, nuke should be allowed. As for manual, sorry, but too much luck there for me.

I'll agree to nuke when they do something to players that never end their turn so they don't take a spoil

Not allowing people to run out of time when they assaulted/bombarded in a nuclear game is easy: you just make a rule and punish those who don't follow it. It wouldn't be unprecedented to use exterior rules to solve possible in-game problems (see 12-hour fog rule). Another option is to simply accept that as a possible strategy.

About manual, I agree with Dako. A manual game in a large map could end in round 1 (I mean, round 2) after someone's huge stack used all its attacking advantage on the opponent's stack.

Maybe a way of salvaging manual games is to, again, create a rule and enforce it. Maybe limit round 1 stacks? Something like "no stack can be bigger than 6" (arbitrary number I picked, could be tweaked). That could only work in sunny games, of course.

That would need to be followed by a 12-hour sunny rule (other team checking if there really aren't stacks bigger than the defined number).

by **LFAW** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:33 pm

Why not make it a rule where if you don't take a spoil (i.e. don't end turn) you and your team must copy and paste all cards into chat?

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:38 pm

More rules - harder to manage the tournament. Make it easy.

Skipping a card is a strategy - many people use it in escalating games as well (and it is not considered a bad sportsmanship). Nukes are just a bit special and people are not used to them now. But I do not see the problem with skipping cards.

by **jrh_cardinal** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:10 pm

Dako wrote:More rules - harder to manage the tournament. Make it easy.

Skipping a card is a strategy - many people use it in escalating games as well (and it is not considered a bad sportsmanship). Nukes are just a bit special and people are not used to them now. But I do not see the problem with skipping cards.

he's not concerned with skipping cards, taking or not taking a territory is a choice. The problem is taking a territory, or more, then not ending your turn. You don't get a card (can really help especially in nukes), plus you can take territories for your own teams advantage, taking a bonus, breaking the other teams bonus, or lowering their deploy.

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:26 pm

I know, I am talking about the same. I was also taking territories myself in escalating but timeouted the turn because I was low on troops and could not afford to get another card - my opponent would have double cashed on me.

I am so sorry to use the term "skipping a card", I mean attacking and timeouting the turn in my previous post.

by **MudPuppy** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:00 pm

While not illegal, timing out to avoid taking a card in nukes is poor sportsmanship. If you take the territory, then take the card. Timing out is just taking advantage of an unintended loophole.

No reason to alter Chuuuuck's stated rules at this point. Both manual and nuclear should be excluded for this tourney.

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:22 pm

What about escalating card timing out? Poor sportsmanship as well?

Whatever your answer is, it might be a loophole, but it exists and is known to people. If you do not use it - it is your decision.

by **MudPuppy** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:53 pm

Sure, either way it's still taking advantage of a loophole. I have no problem with my choice to take an unwanted card in a nuke game even when it can technically be avoided. Similarly, I choose to wait before taking a first turn in foggy games to allow time for my opponent to see the board. Sure, a potential strategic advantage is lost by those choices but I feel it is the right way to play: my own unwritten rules. I do hope these loopholes are closed at some point as I feel they lessen the quality of the game. Until that time, I'm content to play at a disadvantage to those who feel these loopholes are valid strategies.

by **Dako** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:58 pm

12h fog rule is not the same. It doesn't give you a strategic advantage - it gives you a plain advantage to see the map first and hide your moves from the opponent. Well, it is strategic, but not of the same quality.

by **shocked439** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:25 pm

Dako wrote:12h fog rule is not the same. It doesn't give you a strategic advantage - it gives you a plain advantage to see the map first and hide your moves from the opponent. Well, it is strategic, but not of the same quality.

it's a courtesy to your opponent. Not taking a spoil is poor sportsmanship you agree to play with spoils and know that in taking a territory you have earned the right to take a spoil. In the situation you provided i can see why would you do it in escalating but it puts you at a disadvantage and that is great in nuclear, taking a spoil puts you at a disadvantage since it's already a crap shoot as to what you're going to blow up.

Dako wrote:Yes, nuke should be allowed. As for manual, sorry, but too much luck there for me.

How is a nuke any less luck? you hope you don't blow up your own bonuses or if it's a map like middle ages your own palace. Nuke is ridiculously luck based.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:38 pm

I'd agree to nuke cards being allowed, but wouldn't want to see manual (or restrict manual to Hive - now there's an idea to speed up that game). We have to consider the fact this tourney is open to all clans who have played two challenges (and those challenges don't allow manual) so we'd end up in a situation where a less-experienced clan is going to get steamrollered by one who knows how to best adopt the manual format.

As for nuke, although I seldom play it I believe it's possibly the card game that calls for the greatest finesse. Also (unlike esc) it often doesn't matter if you land two pairs - a problem I have with esc and the luck that that involves. If you own territories for cards you hold you can either stack on them (and obviously not trade) or leave them weak for the oppo to hit. It's actually a very thought-provoking format and deserves consideration.

As for timing out......I think it's fair strategy and not poor sportsmanship. The player doing it is sacrificing a card so is obviously not gaining an advantage - he simply doesn't want to have to trade his cards on the next turn. Who says you have to win a card? Any attempt to try and introduce a rule disallowing timeouts is bound to end in controversy ("The site went down", "My server went down", "My Mum made me go to bed", "I was attacked by a dog" etc). You have to bear in mind the poor sod who deliberately times out has obviously been dealt a crap hand of cards, so why punish him more by disallowing the one tactic that might keep him in the game? I'm fine with timing out. If an opponent does it then it tells me a heck of a lot about the cards he has in his hand.

by **trapyoung** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:41 pm

If you time out, you not only miss a card, but lose a fort. Forts are sometimes just as (if not more) important than a card

by **denominator** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:02 pm

trapyoung wrote:If you time out, you not only miss a card, but lose a fort. Forts are sometimes just as (if not more) important than a card

Assuming it's Chained or Adjacent fortifications.

I agree that manual needs to stay out - CC already has a bias towards a first turn advantage and manual deployments exacerbate that issue.

Nuclear spoils, on the other hand, have been out long enough now that every clan should have enough players with enough experience to play a nuclear spoils game without getting steamrolled. I find that in singles games they are largely based on luck (Middle Ages with nuclear spoils is sheer luck), but in teams games they require a great amount of finesse and awareness not only of your own spoils but your teammate's spoils. Missing a spoil in nuclear is a viable strategy, just as it is in escalating. It's something that everyone is/should be aware of, and using it or not is personal choice (see: MudPuppy).

That being said, I wouldn't support any changes to the current rules for CC2 - it's something to consider for future clan wars and/or CC3.