Moderator: Clan Directors
Donelladan wrote:@joecoolfrog, you do play a lot of classic style risk ( sunny, escalating, and maps with no special feature), but you are kinda the exception in the clan world.
My point being we are way past the point where clan world can be considered close to real risk and allowing more trench or not isn't going to change that.
loutil wrote:Further, he did basically use it as an excuse as he claimed we did not agree to the change so we could "get an edge by restricting our choice of homes". Not sure how else to interpret that comment.
Finally...you guys lead off complaining about the dice. Both in games and here in this thread. When the dice turn in your favor you switch to complaining that we tried to gain some advantage over you by not allowing the rules to be changed. I would have expected better, but that is just the way I choose to see the world. When in doubt...be nice.
rockfist wrote::lol:
It'd take divine intervention for you to win.
But I understand, if you lie to yourself, long enough you may believe your own lie and since you have to believe you can do something in order to do it, I'd do the same in your position. But deep down, you know, its still a lie, even though you don't dare admit it.
Donelladan wrote:
@loutil
good to know dice turned in our favor, so we did have bad dice in the first set ?
And saying that you refused trench to get an edge by restrictring our choice of homes might sound like an excuse to lose the war to your ears, but to me it sounds like the pure truth.
Extreme Ways wrote:Don's argument takes into account time of starting and time of finishing. If you're playing me on poly, trench will take longer because regardless of win or loss, I will run my clock down because I usually dont want to see the game come up again. If you're playing someone that plays fast, the last X rounds will essentially be drop/end asap.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?
This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.
So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.
If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".
I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.
Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx
joecoolfrog wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?
This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.
So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.
If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".
I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.
Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx
This is the crucial point , people on the whole joined this site because they loved playing Risk. Membership has fallen greatly over the years and that im sure is partly because specialisation has taken the site far away from its original roots. Were I looking in for the first time today im sure I wouldn't recognise many of the games as RISK related , no doubt many newbies feel the same and simply dont bother coming back.
As they say , be carefull of what you wish for , it wont be much fun just playing amongst yourselves.
loutil wrote:You are entitled to any version of this story you want. But, we certainly had NO discussion in TOFU about restricting your choice to gain an advantage. The only discussion was about past issues ( which have been expressed enough ) and my direct assertion that trench games take longer to play. Not sure what proof you have that suggests otherwise? I researched my own games and discovered clear evidence that they take much longer to play.
Here is some of what I wrote in the discussion thread in the TOFU forum:
The idea that trench games do not take longer than non trench seems absurd to me. I did 2 checks on maps I frequently play. WWI Galip and Kings II. Both of which I have played often trench and non trench. Here is the data:
Galip trench games average 17 rounds per game. Non trench average only 10.8 rounds.
Kings II trench games average 19 rounds and non trench average 14 rounds.Extreme Ways wrote:Don's argument takes into account time of starting and time of finishing. If you're playing me on poly, trench will take longer because regardless of win or loss, I will run my clock down because I usually dont want to see the game come up again. If you're playing someone that plays fast, the last X rounds will essentially be drop/end asap.
Again, I find that absurd. My Galip clan games that are non trench take on average 19 days to complete. While I did not check all my clan trench Galip games, a large sample resulted in an average completion in 33 days.
loutil wrote: The only discussion was about past issues ( which have been expressed enough )
rockfist wrote:You guys sat about 116 times in that war. If we exclude people who went AWOL or went on vacation it does drop to about 97 times. I say about because I may be off slightly in my count. To me that is dragging a war out. To my way of thinking allowing you to play all trench games affords you the opportunity to drag things out even longer. I’ve stated earlier I should be 11-5 in trench games in wars against you so it’s my annoyance at how long you can make them take not fear of losing that makes me not want to play a whole bunch of trench against you.
betiko wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?
This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.
So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.
If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".
I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.
Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx
The original rule of the board game is with trench, just saying.
joecoolfrog wrote:Betiko
I believe that at its peak this site had around 18,000 participants , now its around 5,000 so it would seem that new members are thin on the ground. Now I have proposed that one of the main reasons might be that it no longer attracts RISK fans , which overwhelmingly were the original base.
You however seem to think that the specialisation and variety now in vogue is a boost for the site , so how would you explain the huge fall off in players over the years ?
Im not being confrontational , I would simply like some viewpoints.
Chariot of Fire wrote:betiko wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?
This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.
So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.
If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".
I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.
Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx
The original rule of the board game is with trench, just saying.
This isn't true. Just sayin' I've been playing the original board game for over 50 years.
And to Don - OK, cheers. I hadn't fully grasped that was what it was about.
rockfist wrote:If the rankings for the next tournament are being picked, not having the loss on your record so you get a higher seeding might be one reason.
Caymanmew wrote:rockfist wrote:If the rankings for the next tournament are being picked, not having the loss on your record so you get a higher seeding might be one reason.
Higher seeds don't matter much. Only the top 8 get seeded and everyone else is random. If your around this late into the competition you will be top 8.
To prove my point that seeds don't matter you guys got #1 seed and got us (ATL ranked 12th) S&M are 3rd seed and got VNM who are ranked 17th. LHDD are second seed and got RGV(19th) / ID(unranked).
IcePack wrote:Caymanmew wrote:rockfist wrote:If the rankings for the next tournament are being picked, not having the loss on your record so you get a higher seeding might be one reason.
Higher seeds don't matter much. Only the top 8 get seeded and everyone else is random. If your around this late into the competition you will be top 8.
To prove my point that seeds don't matter you guys got #1 seed and got us (ATL ranked 12th) S&M are 3rd seed and got VNM who are ranked 17th. LHDD are second seed and got RGV(19th) / ID(unranked).
It might not matter much on who you face in the first match up, but certainly the difference between 1,2,3,4 etc matters because it determines which clans you must go through and which side of the bracket you are on
Users browsing this forum: No registered users