[OFFICIAL POLL]No First Player Attack

[Gweeedo]

I find it amazing that so many of you base your game on luck!

It's really not that surprising that anyone who signs up for a site where the primary combat mechanism is dice rolling should consider luck an important part of the game.

Not Surprised, just amazed...at some of the lifers here. Never figured players would want to keep it a game of dice?
Maybe an option is best...for those of us who enjoy playing Strategy games.

[TheMissionary]

My vote would be to not allow an attack in the first round, if the first player cannot attack.

[Artimis]

My vote would be to not allow an attack in the first round, if the first player cannot attack.

So disallowing attacks by both players in the first of the game is preferred? Just what is the point of having a 'round one' in the first place if no one can choose whether or not to attack? Might as well just abolish the entire 'first round' altogether, except that would make the 'second round' the new 'first round'.

It's not broken, don't fix it.

[macbone]

I voted "No" for this option.

Yes, the first player in 1v1 games has a decided advantage, and yes, this suggestion would shift that advantage somewhat. The first player, if they dropped a bonus, would get the troops for that bonus. However, if instead the second player dropped a bonus, Player 1 wouldn't be able to break the bonus.

All in all, this is probably a fairer rule than the current set-up.

But fundamentally, this rule alters the basic rules of Risk. I know we've moved past Risk with our parachute forts and nuclear spoils, but I'd like to see the basic Risk game preserved in some form. Many people who come here are looking for Risk online, and where possible, I'd like to see that basic model available.

In Axis & Allies, Russia, the starting country, only gets to deploy and doesn't attack yet. Did any of you ever play with this as a houserule?

[rhp 1]

OK, still haven't read the whole thread, but I'm a little surprised by the results here. I think there's a possibility that people aren't fully considering this suggestion. I would recommend that people go back and read BW's initial post on the matter.

Keeping in mind that this is only for 2-player or 2-team games, BW is completely correct about the effects of this proposed system and how they help to balance things out.

There is no question that first turn gets an advantage. There is no question that the proposed system reduces that advantage. There is a possibility that it could flip the advantage to the second player/team. However, there is no question that the second player/team's advantage would be smaller than the first player/team's advantage was prior to the change.

Considering that every player has an equal chance of being on the first or second team, there really should be hardly any "no" votes. The only downside to some players is that they now have to think differently about that first turn. I guess some people don't want to be bothered with that. I would think that the votes of people who have really thought about this suggestion would range from indifferent to in favor.

There is just no way to argue that this does not reduce the first turn advantage, which is completely random in whom it benefits. That means that it increases the impact of other factors in determining who wins the game. Some of these other factors are also random (cards, dice), but one of those factors is not: skill/gameplay.

Given that this suggestion unquestionably makes a player's skill more determinate in the outcome, I'm switching to in favor of this, although it sounds like this isn't going anywhere, which is a shame.

I don't agree with your logic here... there is a 50-50 chance that you go first... so over all your games, this should, in theory, equal out... and you argue from a point that first turn=win, which is clearly does not.. does first go have an advantage? sure... but so what... the next game you start, chances are, you'll go first... just play the game bro...

[TheMissionary]

My vote would be to not allow an attack in the first round, if the first player cannot attack.

So disallowing attacks by both players in the first of the game is preferred? Just what is the point of having a 'round one' in the first place if no one can choose whether or not to attack? Might as well just abolish the entire 'first round' altogether, except that would make the 'second round' the new 'first round'.

It's not broken, don't fix it.

I'm saying if there were to be no attacks by player 1, it should be of equal value to not allow any other player in the first round to play. This gives everyone the opportunity to gauge the board for 1 round.

I also agree that neither option is necessary. IF this is going to be implemented, it should be made fair for all players.

[Artimis]

I'm saying if there were to be no attacks by player 1, it should be of equal value to not allow any other player in the first round to play. This gives everyone the opportunity to gauge the board for 1 round.

I also agree that neither option is necessary. IF this is going to be implemented, it should be made fair for all players.

That's fine and all, but again I would ask, what is the point? Why have a round of enforced ceasefire?

Interesting as this debate is I think the poll has served its purpose.

[Gweeedo]

I voted "No" for this option.

But fundamentally, this rule alters the basic rules of Risk. I know we've moved past Risk with our parachute forts and nuclear spoils, but I'd like to see the basic Risk game preserved in some form. Many people who come here are looking for Risk online, and where possible, I'd like to see that basic model available.

Good point.

Many other sites a fellow can go to engage in a game of Risk.
How many games of risk can a person play before he gets bored.
Eventually the dice are going to piss people off, and they will disappear.
Conquer Club is Declining, and will continue to do so.

CC has some unique boards...many of which are not playable 1v1.
Same oll same oll...need some Change

[chang50]

I find it amazing that so many of you base your game on luck!

It's really not that surprising that anyone who signs up for a site where the primary combat mechanism is dice rolling should consider luck an important part of the game.

Not Surprised, just amazed...at some of the lifers here. Never figured players would want to keep it a game of dice?
Maybe an option is best...for those of us who enjoy playing Strategy games.

Such as,what options are there?With or without dice (if that's even doable),the better players will rise to the top and the weaker will remain near the bottom,with a sizable percentage blaming their bad luck instead of their weak play.

[Gweeedo]

I was mainly pointing out that many players have stated that they love this game and do not want to change it because it is all about luck and that is why it should remain the same...no change.

Most all games have dice. This game is all dice. This is a game of dice.
The power of the dice can be subdued.

What you say is true for the most part.
Some people are born lucky...others are simply bad at the dice games. What is the use putting thought into a game (knowing you have done a superb job) just to be beat with the dice.

This game gives a person a false sense of victory. You can be great at risk (cuz you is Lucky) but suck at Strategy games.

[chang50]

I was mainly pointing out that many players have stated that they love this game and do not want to change it because it is all about luck and that is why it should remain the same...no change.

Most all games have dice. This game is all dice. This is a game of dice.
The power of the dice can be subdued.

What you say is true for the most part.
Some people are born lucky...others are simply bad at the dice games. What is the use putting thought into a game (knowing you have done a superb job) just to be beat with the dice.

This game gives a person a false sense of victory. You can be great at risk (cuz you is Lucky) but suck at Strategy games.

I've noticed that those who think they are unlucky are usually tactically weaker than they think they are.Over time we all get roughly the same luck,the better players just use it better..

[Gweeedo]

Quote:Over time we all get roughly the same luck.

I can see how a person would understand this to be the case.
Not true.
But even if it was, who wants to play (put that kind of time) 5000 games.

[chang50]

Quote:Over time we all get roughly the same luck.

I can see how a person would understand this to be the case.
Not true.
But even if it was, who wants to play (put that kind of time) 5000 games.

The dice stats show it to be mathematically true,and plenty of players find the time to play 5k games

[Bruceswar]

Quote:Over time we all get roughly the same luck.

I can see how a person would understand this to be the case.
Not true.
But even if it was, who wants to play (put that kind of time) 5000 games.

Your logic is sooo flawed. The original risk was all about dice and some strategy. Same thing as on CC. Get with the times already.

[Artimis]

Gweeedo, there will always be random chance in a game, the luck of the drop, the luck of the dice. If you don't like random chance in a game then you should probably pursue a site that plays Diplomacy online(NOTE: I probably shouldn't be advertising other games, but in mitigation, CC's ad banners are doing that already. )

Honestly, we don't need this to be made compulsory in all games, it's not about *liking luck in our games*, it's about playing agame that we enjoy with some aspects that are more enjoyable than others. Luck is an integral part of the game, otherwise you'd end up with a kind of chess game where the drop determines the moves that must be made to secure victory. Basically the game would already be decided from the start.

Now I'm glad that the administration on this site ask the players for their opinions on game changes like this. So that they can gauge trends before implementing a change that could backfire, like this one for instance!

It's not easy though, especially when you consider that asking 10 CC players what they think should be changed on this site to improve the game will result in 11 different answers!

[Gweeedo]

I agree. Risk is Risk. Good game for what it is.
Anybody is able to play. No matter what state of mind you are in.

Not really a game to be taken seriously.

I was simply surprised that so many players, wanting to keep it a game of total luck...not wanting to limit the dice (or luck) factor in this game.
I am good either way.
If the opportunity comes up...my vote is for Change.

I play to have fun. Not because risk is a awesome strategy game, that one can consider himself to be a great tactician.
If a guy wants a game of risk, he can find multiple sites for a good game of risk.
No matter what CC does it will always be Risk! Changing a few (or many) things will not change that fact.
Limiting the dice (not just dice, luck) is a good thing! making CC (risk) A game that takes a bit more thought.
Might even be considered a good Strategy game...not just for fun.

I am all for change...bored with the game of risk. Why is CC in decline? I do not think it is because of the changes it has made to the game...think it is the game itself.

[Phatscotty]

sounds interesting (indifferent) I get the overkill aspect, but this would be a pretty big change. I get Wham's points too, I have lost many a game upon the first sight of it, but I've won a lot as well.

Wish it could be optional anyways, I'd deal with the extra settings bracket no problem.

[_sabotage_]

I suggested a change a while back, no first round bonus as the bonus has not been either won or held. As to this, no real way to make it fair, someone's going to go first eventually.

[Serbia]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

[BoganGod]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

I voted NO, do I get an invite as well?

[t4mcr53s2]

I actually like the new proposal , and only worry about lost membership...

1)it solves the fog rule in 1 vs 1 as the first player drops but cant conquer.
2) the first attacker in 1 vs 1 now starts with troop equality , not superiority, and the defender has influenced what regions are most likely contested
3) IN MY EXPERIENCE, PLAYER 1 USUALLY GOES FIRST, SO NOW OUR 1 VSW 1 FARMERS MAY HAVE SOME TACTICAL DISADVATAGE RATHER THAN HOME MAP AND FIRST DEPLOY AND FIRST ATTACK ..oops accidental caps

4) in multiplayer game less important but again the last player to attack is also doing so when they at least have dropped more than their predecessors

[Serbia]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

WHERE IS MY INVITE you're welcome dude I HAVEN'T GOT MY INVITE YET

Bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

WHERE IS MY INVITE you're welcome dude I HAVEN'T GOT MY INVITE YET

Bollocks.

You have just been disqualified. You no longer meet the standard of the Cool Kids Club.

[Phatscotty]

So what's the deal. Lot of people complaining when THIS happens???

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13534271