Conquer Club

I come in second place alot. Shouldn't you get some points for coming in second? Isn't someone who comes in 2nd all the time better than someone who comes in 6th all the time?

no

second places is in my opion the most dumb thing you can do... but they have invented terminator games...

This is from my first post on this site:

sully800 wrote:Also, I would like to vehemently disagree with the suggestion to reward 2nd place for good play. I understand that 2nd place may have played better than 6th, but Risk (well, CC) is a game of conquest and domination. It is not a matter of when you were defeated or how close you were to escape being dominated. In the end if you lose, you lose and I don't think anyone but the winner deserves a reward. If that system were to change, people would begin to play for second place when they realize they can't win. And if your goal is to get second place I think you undermine the entire purpose and strategy of the game, not to mention dragging out the result because this strategy would probably consist of stock piling armies and staying out of harms way with no ambition to win the game. I know some 2nd place finishers may have gotten unlucky or feel they played really well, but if the goal is to win and your strategy relies on that goal then people should not be rewarded if they don't win.

Sorry for the rant

ok. I'm new here, but here's another way to look at credit for second place:

This is a war game. No prisoners. 6th place to 2nd all are dead. Who is going to collect the reward? The reward in war for second place is to rest in peace.... to the victor go the spoils.

...and so far I'm undefeated. Now if I can just get through my first game:)

they should make it so you lose less points when u come 2nd

^Have you read any of what was written above?

(A) I am sure this has been proposed before. I am a n00b unfamiliar with this forum. I apologize for any inconvenience. I'll make it short, simple and sweet!

(B) I am talking about an "Equitable (Sin/Cos. whatever it is, I am not a geek ) Curve." The game-creator can turn on/off this Equitable Curve pro-rata scoring system. With this setting ON the winner DOES NOT take all at the end.

(C) The top 50% of the players WILL WIN points, the bottom 50% WILL LOOSE points. However, sometimes, depending on the settings, some players may neither win nor loose points.

(D) We need formulae. R3gh!? Well I humbly decline the credit for it. This is up to debate and ultimately decide by more seasoned players than I. But, for example, in a 8 players game:

i) At the end of the game each player contributes X points to a pool. This is a balancing move towards equality. X means that each player contributes (gambles) the same % (i.e. 5) of its score to a (gambling) pool ("Y").

ii) This Y, is then fractioned in 3 groups (winners/neutrals/losers):

1) + 6/10 of Y, <== They rule! (I mean, they will gain most of the points)
2) + 3/10 of Y,
3) + 1/10 of Y,
------Curve------
4) 0 of Y,
5) 0 of Y,
------Curve------
6) - 1/10 of Y,
7) - 3/10 of Y,
- 6/10 of Y. <== They suck! (I mean, they bear the brunt of the loss)

(E) RATIONALE:

i) In theory, I just don't like spending 3 weeks and then gain no points - IN FACT LOOSE POINTS - even when I was 2nd place and was the best player beaten by mistake (again, in theory).
ii) Its MORE FAIR, SPECIALLY since we retain the choice to play with it or not.
iii) It changes the dynamics of battle. You gamble a certain X for a +/- fraction of uncertain Y. But, unlike traditional games, your chances of winning AND (most importantly perhaps) NOT LOOSING will improve. It all depends how much of a fight you put up until your very end. AND even in team mode, the stakes and thus incentives, are clearer.
iv) With an equitable curve, even if I foresee I cannot win, I MUST nevertheless play for a better ranking.
v) People will think it twice before joining these games. Yet, if they want to, they may strategically choose to join these games. It makes sense, if you play it wisely.
vi) Why? If you are highly ranked you will gamble a lot. If you are not, you won't risk much. Now, what are the chances of winning? it STILL remains the main issue!!!!!
vii) Moreover, it will be hard for women to understand, because it makes sense, so we men will have an advantage.

Let me know what you think.

And if the idea gets implemented I demand, well, I would appreciate a paid account.

Word

This seems like a reasonable suggestion. I think it would help with the issue of people suiciding in order to reduce their point loss when they realize they aren't going to win.

Ya I think this is a good idea. What do you plan on saying for 3-7 player games?

well, AS I SAID, better seasoned players than I (i.e. like you) would have to discuss minor details of the formulae.

Aedolaws wrote:In theory, I just don't like spending 3 weeks and then gain no points - IN FACT LOOSE POINTS - even when I was 2nd place and was the best player beaten by mistake (again, in theory).

No offense, but I don't agree with the concept that someone could take "2nd place" in Risk. It's a winner-take-all game (unless, of course you're playing the Terminator variation).

Just because you might be the last one to be knocked out by the winner doesn't necessarily mean that your play was better than others who were knocked out first. It may have been part of the winner's strategy to knock a stronger opponent out first. Know what I mean?

Bill, honestly, (1) you are right, I agree with you 99%. (2) I am a n00b, I haven't even played the terminator setting. I just thought the idea above could be a cool "extra" setting that "we" can all enjoy,"if" we choose to.

Could be another scoring option, like terminator, but definitely not the primary option. If you are 2nd you may as well be last. Particularly in an escalating game, the last to be eliminated is not necessarily the person who played "second best"... they are usually the person with the least cards/hardest to reach.

The kahn got right right

In more cases than not, if someone's going on an Escalating rampage and wins the game because of it, the strongest player is LAST. I have lost 3 games in the past week or so where I was the strongest player, and another person turned in a cardset, eliminated a player, turned in another, etc. etc. until the game ended. In general, a smart player will NOT eliminate the strongest person first, he'll eliminate the weak ones and with their combined strength knock out the strongest one.

In other words, the argument that 2nd place may not be the 2nd best player is often inaccurate.

The reason why I back this suggestion is because it is presented as an OPTION. People can choose to keep it winner-take-all, or give 2nd and 3rd a break. It doesn't change quad or triples games (1 team vs. 1 team), but it makes those bigger long-drawn-out losses less devastating to a person's score.

TaCk got it as well!

TaCktiX wrote:In other words, the argument that 2nd place may not be the 2nd best player is often inaccurate.

I disagree. It happens quite often that the weakest player is last eliminated, simply because they have cashed in at the wrong time and don't have the cards to compete, and are worthless to eliminate. I play 2 series of 21 (6 player escalating) games against the same groups of 5 people, (won 10 in each) and consistently eliminated the same two players last, because they would cash in with 3 or 4 cards to take a continent. They still lost, they were just the last loser. The last player eliminated is the worst player in some scenarios.

to the victor goes the spoils. if you are not victorious in battle, you get nothing.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to assert. But you r hot!!! Although I am sure thats not ur pick

this game is about conquering the world, or whatever map you are playing. if you are not the winner you are a loser. you should not be rewarded for losing.

no that is not me. you should check out this thread from the beginning
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34666&highlight=

as an option this would be a great feature and I think som the the higher ranks would not mind fighting the lower ranked player as much

mua ha ha ha. Not a chance. I read too much as it is.

greenoaks wrote:this game is about conquering the world, or whatever map you are playing. if you are not the winner you are a loser. you should not be rewarded for losing.

I think now I understand what you are trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that

(1) "This game" is about defeating all your opponents from the game, notwithstanding the map.

(2) To "win," and thus to be a "winner," means to defeat every other player. If you defeat every other player, it means every other player is a "looser."

(3) The "loosers" should not be "rewarded" for loosing. To "reward" means to exempt them from loosing points.

Now Linda, I have a few preliminary questions

[1] In statement #1, which game are you talking about? The Original board game Risk? The many versions families play at home? The Classic version here in CC without any weird settings? Or any CC weird map with several settings; i.e. something completely unknown to those who played Risk when it first when on the market?

[2] In statement #2 you place heavy reliance on the terms "winner/looser," yet EVEN ASSUMING for the sake of argument that you are right, how does this change the fact that in a pro-rata scoring system, one player ("your winner") WILL DEFEAT every other player ("your loosers"?

[3] Now, you last statement is probably the best one. YES, you are right. It is hard to argue that white is black. It can be done, but it would take sophistry. I can only tell you that this setting is simply that, a setting, and players can choose to play with it or not. That is, to put it in simpler terms. The answer to the question whether the glass is half empty or half full is always: YES!

Anyways, as I said in my original post, I don;t expect women to "get it"

I agree with adjusting the scoring system. In an 8 player game second place seems like quite an accomplishment. It would feel better to increase your score rather than lowering it after a long intense battle.