by Rabid bunnies on Thu May 14, 2009 11:07 pm
There's another RISK site online, it's quite shabby looking, sometimes as little as only 4-5 people on it at a time and sometimes they're not even at their computer. This game is completely mouse-click based. You join a game, wait for others when they join the game starts, you have 60 seconds to do your move and it moves onto the next person.
The reason this site doesn't do good? People join, they don't get a good start or someone attacks them that they hoped wouldn't. They simply exit the game and join another leaving 2 or 3 players left in the game to play it out.
I really like that in "ConquerClub" you are forced to play your game out to completion. There isn't that temptation to try something radical in hopes of getting lucky without thought because you know that you are in the game till it ends so you might as well do everything you can to play the best game you can.
In games that you feel you can't win... you are not the only one playing. You join a game for a solid performance don't you? You want to have a good competitive match against an opponent with the outcome preferably being your victory. Your opponent wants the same thing. To be able to surrender because you feel you cannot win is to take a fast way out of what you consider to be an "annoying" commitment. You're not thinking about winning or competing anymore, you just want the game to end so that you can play in games where you are doing better.
To the player who has the temporary advantage, this could severely damage their experience as well. Games can go up and down and while you may join a game feeling extremely pessimistic after a single round, your opponent still wants a fresh, competitive stimulating game. It's one thing to feel that you're the underdog and can't win... it's another to just be able to end the game because you fall behind and on the mirror effect, as soon as your opponent takes an advantage, the game ends. Sure they'll get points but they are robbed of the experience of the fight.
A few examples to think about?
- You join a 1 vs 1 game on classic shapes... your opponent gets to move first and has Africa from the start. Maybe be begins to attack elsewhere, maybe he just makes Africa even more solid. You may deploy, try to break it and fail, how often do you believe people would just surrender?
- You are playing a game and your opponent has 50% of australia while you have 50% of South America, your opponent moves first taking Australia with success and you move second killing the first 3 but only succeeding to bring his final 3 down to a 2. You now have 1 on each of your South American territs and your opponent has australia's bonus to deploy on his remaining 2 which will give him 7 men to attack your 3. After round 2, your opponent now has australia and south america.
With this current game type, you would either continue trying to regain South america, you might try to break australia, you might try to set up some sort of extra assault. With the new surrender rule proposed, as soon as your opponent outmatches you in South America because of your failed attack to take it, you can (and many will) simply cut your losses, "leave the game" and join another game hoping to have a better start.
I believe in current games as is, you have the similar effect of the constant attacking. Someone tries to break a bonus, fails, becomes disheartened and just attacks anything and everything that they can leaving a string of 1s. Some non-motivated players will just build and build on 1 territ until they are killed off. But even at that... the player with the advantage still has to hunt for the win.
Jasmine.
:
