Conquer Club

This is a poll to test community reactions. If this suggestion were to be enacted, it would affect all games.

Do you think that the first player should only be allowed to deploy and fort, but not attack?

If you know people who do not frequent the forums, please show them this thread. For a change of this magnitude, we want as much input as possible.

I think there should be a limited amount of attacks for some of the same reasons you don't want someone attacking first- what if the second person lands a huge beneficial bonus you can't break?

So maybe a set percentage of attacks based on number of territories..?

DoomYoshi wrote:This is a poll to test community reactions. If this suggestion were to be enacted, it would affect all games.

Do you think that the first player should only be allowed to deploy and fort, but not attack?

If you know people who do not frequent the forums, please show them this thread. For a change of this magnitude, we want as much input as possible.

NO NEVER
tried it hate it gave huge advantage to guy that went second with good dice dont see any advantage by not attacking makes no sense what so ever.

codierose wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:This is a poll to test community reactions. If this suggestion were to be enacted, it would affect all games.

Do you think that the first player should only be allowed to deploy and fort, but not attack?

If you know people who do not frequent the forums, please show them this thread. For a change of this magnitude, we want as much input as possible.

NO NEVER
tried it hate it gave huge advantage to guy that went second with good dice dont see any advantage by not attacking makes no sense what so ever.

actually that adv is exactly what the first player has, without the benefit of the deploy. it's an excellent idea

Sounds good. Many games have played out this way anyhow.
I see no real advantage for Either player (never mind the dice).


YES!

P.S. First player should collect a card regardless?

Hi everyone,

I am coming out in support of this suggestion. I believe it to be a suggestion that has only has upside and no downside. It largely applies to 1v1, Poly and Team games... and theoretically could be implemented only for them. I think the effect is fairly minimal in other games, either way.

Why I support it is to make for a more even game.

Currently I can identify 6 separate advantages that Player 1 (or Team 1) has in a 1v1 scenario.

- Positional Advantage: The advantage of controlling the positional strategy for the game
- Continent Advantage: If Player 1 lands a bonus, they will get to keep it on the first turn, whereas any bonus Player 2 lands will be attacked
- Deploy Advantage: Player 1 may deploy more troops because they manage to reduce the other Players army count. On some maps this is very likely.
- Fort Advantage: The advantage of the first fort giving a better setup for round 2
- Card Advantage: The advantage of being a card ahead (in cards games)
- Fog Advantage: The advantage of hiding terits before opponents have seen the board in foggy games

If the rule is changed, instead of Player 1 getting all these advantages, they will be distributed as follows:

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

So it seems evident that this new rule would make more a more balanced Round 1, and reduce the likelihood of blowout games where 1 player has little chance before they even play.

FYI: this would also resolve a long standing issue in foggy clan games where one team has to wait 12 hours to move to get around the Fog Advantage above.

bigWham wrote:Hi everyone,

I am coming out in support of this suggestion. I believe it to be a suggestion that has only has upside and no downside. It largely applies to 1v1, Poly and Team games... and theoretically could be implemented only for them. I think the effect is fairly minimal in other games, either way.

Why I support it is to make for a more even game.

Currently I can identify 6 separate advantages that Player 1 (or Team 1) has in a 1v1 scenario.

- Positional Advantage: The advantage of controlling the positional strategy for the game
- Continent Advantage: If Player 1 lands a bonus, they will get to keep it on the first turn, whereas any bonus Player 2 lands will be attacked
- Deploy Advantage: Player 1 may deploy more troops because they manage to reduce the other Players army count. On some maps this is very likely.
- Fort Advantage: The advantage of the first fort giving a better setup for round 2
- Card Advantage: The advantage of being a card ahead (in cards games)
- Fog Advantage: The advantage of hiding terits before opponents have seen the board in foggy games

If the rule is changed, instead of Player 1 getting all these advantages, they will be distributed as follows:

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

So it seems evident that this new rule would make more a more balanced Round 1, and reduce the likelihood of blowout games where 1 player has little chance before they even play.

FYI: this would also resolve a long standing issue in foggy clan games where one team has to wait 12 hours to move to get around the Fog Advantage above.

Interesting stuff, although I don't agree with all your observations. Too much depends on maps, game type and settings.

I would certainly NOT support a "No First Player Attack" for all maps, game types and settings.

Lx

And why not make it optional?

BigBallinStalin wrote:




And why not make it optional?

It is generally felt that this option would split the player base too much. Imagine a settings-overkill where there are so many settings that most games don`t get killed. This won`t cause that, but it is a step in that direction.

I voted indifferent. I view this as one arbitrary version of fairness over another. I do not deny that the first player has an advantage. I also accept that everyone has an equal chance to be the first player.

This new option adds a nice strategic twist. It`s not what I am used to, but I am sure if I was used to it, I wouldn`t find it a terrible rule.

I'm in favour.

I agree with this:

DoomYoshi wrote:I do not deny that the first player has an advantage. I also accept that everyone has an equal chance to be the first player.

However, people's playing experience is largely subjective. Let's take a typical blowout situation where one player drops a bonus AND gets to go first so that he can make it virtually unbreakable. The second player who takes his turn and already knows he has lost before his first click has an extremely bad taste in his mouth. Meanwhile the first player who wins that same game has only a small amount of pleasure. He enjoys winning, but knowing it was mostly luck he derives only a small amount of pleasure from it.

The net amount of joy is negative in that scenario: a large bad feeling for one player, and a small good feeling for the other.

Compare it to a more balanced game, where no player has an advantage. The eventual winner takes a large amount of pleasure, knowing he won by his own strategy. The eventual loser might have only a small bad feeling. Nobody likes to lose, but a close, well-matched game is enjoyable until the end, and the pain of losing may be quite small after deducting the enjoyment of the mid-game.

The net amount of joy is positive in that scenario: a large good feeling for the winner versus a small bad feeling for the loser.

On utilitarian grounds, I believe that making games more evenly-balanced will increase the overall enjoyment that people get from the site.

bigWham wrote:Hi everyone,

I am coming out in support of this suggestion. I believe it to be a suggestion that has only has upside and no downside. It largely applies to 1v1, Poly and Team games... and theoretically could be implemented only for them. I think the effect is fairly minimal in other games, either way.

Why I support it is to make for a more even game.

Currently I can identify 6 separate advantages that Player 1 (or Team 1) has in a 1v1 scenario.

- Positional Advantage: The advantage of controlling the positional strategy for the game
- Continent Advantage: If Player 1 lands a bonus, they will get to keep it on the first turn, whereas any bonus Player 2 lands will be attacked
- Deploy Advantage: Player 1 may deploy more troops because they manage to reduce the other Players army count. On some maps this is very likely.
- Fort Advantage: The advantage of the first fort giving a better setup for round 2
- Card Advantage: The advantage of being a card ahead (in cards games)
- Fog Advantage: The advantage of hiding terits before opponents have seen the board in foggy games

If the rule is changed, instead of Player 1 getting all these advantages, they will be distributed as follows:

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

So it seems evident that this new rule would make more a more balanced Round 1, and reduce the likelihood of blowout games where 1 player has little chance before they even play.

FYI: this would also resolve a long standing issue in foggy clan games where one team has to wait 12 hours to move to get around the Fog Advantage above.

I must say that I am against this. For the type of game I play going first doesn't give one a major advantage (for example I am always perfectly comfortable going second). Secondly, 50% of the time we play first, 50% we play second.

Playing from second means one just has to adopt a different strategy in my experience, rather than it being a nightmarish scenario that ruins ones chances.

I could see this being useful on a map like 2.1/unlimited forts etc...but on my settings (where no one ever deploys more than 3 at the beginning) I wouldn't approve of the change at all.

Sorry guys, against this.
It only propogates the advantage of first assault onto player 2.

I am against this....as previously stated it gives the advantage to the 2nd player

cairnswk wrote:Sorry guys, against this.
It only propogates the advantage of first assault onto player 2.

Not exactly.

The idea is that it only shifts part of the advantage to player 2, thus making them more evenly balanced.

Check out BW's analysis in detail:

bigWham wrote:Currently I can identify 6 separate advantages that Player 1 (or Team 1) has in a 1v1 scenario.

- Positional Advantage: The advantage of controlling the positional strategy for the game
- Continent Advantage: If Player 1 lands a bonus, they will get to keep it on the first turn, whereas any bonus Player 2 lands will be attacked
- Deploy Advantage: Player 1 may deploy more troops because they manage to reduce the other Players army count. On some maps this is very likely.
- Fort Advantage: The advantage of the first fort giving a better setup for round 2
- Card Advantage: The advantage of being a card ahead (in cards games)
- Fog Advantage: The advantage of hiding terits before opponents have seen the board in foggy games

If the rule is changed, instead of Player 1 getting all these advantages, they will be distributed as follows:

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

So it seems evident that this new rule would make more a more balanced Round 1, and reduce the likelihood of blowout games where 1 player has little chance before they even play.

I also feel that all this rule change does is flip advantage to second person to go. This game is 75 percent luck anyways, so i feel keeping this rule the same would be the best option.

Dukasaur wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Sorry guys, against this.
It only propogates the advantage of first assault onto player 2.

Not exactly.

The idea is that it only shifts part of the advantage to player 2, thus making them more evenly balanced.

Check out BW's analysis in detail:

bigWham wrote:Currently I can identify 6 separate advantages that Player 1 (or Team 1) has in a 1v1 scenario.

- Positional Advantage: The advantage of controlling the positional strategy for the game
- Continent Advantage: If Player 1 lands a bonus, they will get to keep it on the first turn, whereas any bonus Player 2 lands will be attacked
- Deploy Advantage: Player 1 may deploy more troops because they manage to reduce the other Players army count. On some maps this is very likely.
- Fort Advantage: The advantage of the first fort giving a better setup for round 2
- Card Advantage: The advantage of being a card ahead (in cards games)
- Fog Advantage: The advantage of hiding terits before opponents have seen the board in foggy games

If the rule is changed, instead of Player 1 getting all these advantages, they will be distributed as follows:

- Positional Advantage: Player 1
- Continent Advantage: No Player
- Deploy Advantage: No Player
- Fort Advantage: Player 1
- Card Advantage: Player 2
- Fog Advantage: No Player
- Attackers Advantage: Player 2. this is an additional advantage that Player 2 gets being the only one allowed to attack in Round 1.

So it seems evident that this new rule would make more a more balanced Round 1, and reduce the likelihood of blowout games where 1 player has little chance before they even play.

That's not convincing. It depends largely on the settings and maps (as someone already said), plus what Mr C said (going 1st isn't always preferable on certain maps/settings).

It's not a good idea in general--but it would allay the tummy-rumblings of a few disgruntled 1v1 players who persist in playing certain maps and settings which grant greater advantages to the 1st player. Either let them deal with the consequences of their own choices or make the New Rule optional--as oppose to dragging everyone else down with them.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I would quit the site if this was put in affect for all games.

optional... ok.

I have never played a game of risk where the first person gets to just drop and reinforce, lame.

-griff

As the SoC teaches, it's best for everyone to only deploy and fort with no attacks in the first round of an escalating spoils game so those who follow that strategy won't be attacking the first round anyway regardless of whether they're first or last. So should the 1st player skip attacking the second round as well to further pass his advantage to the 2nd? And as far as the spoils advantage that was spoken of, what's the advantage of being the player who turns in first and only gets 4 troops? But of course they aren't all escalating games.

The amount of joy?! I get a hell of a lot of joy in being able to come from a crappy start, ie being the second player in a 1v1 game when the other player starts with outrageously good dice and takes half my troops before I even see the board, and making at least a good effort if not winning. Seeing that the game is lost before you even start?! If you think that way, then you're definitely going to need some outrageous luck to overcome your negative beliefs about your own ability. If you think you've already lost, you will in all likelihood fulfill your belief.

And that's the kind of wrong-headed thinking that get's people to come up with rule changes to try to overcome the inherent inequities of the game that are keeping them down. It ain't broke so please don't screw it up by trying to make it more you friendly. It's about competition and you will in all likelihood be first just about as often as the people who play about the same amount as you do so why screw up everyone's game because you just don't feel like you have sufficient advantage to win. I think it's a really foolish idea promoted by someone who has problems with their own confidence and perhaps their own abilities and feelings of self worth.

I don't mean to be cruel but I really think it's terrible idea put forth for all the wrong reasons. It most certainly will not make the game better, nor will it increase the number of paid players. In fact, I imagine it will have just the opposite effect. It will be far more likely to make players stop paying and even leave the site for more reasonable gaming.

Even MY innovations are generally not this unpopular....nicely done!

I'm strongly against this suggestion. 100%

im going with make it an option, some may find it fair, others like it they way it is, but dont make it required sweeping change, that will cause a huge monetary impact on your site...

So: I cant vote in the poll, i need a
" make it optional" then you got that vote from me.

I am also strongly against this idea. NO way in hell will this work as you think. Just leave it alone. It will only piss people off and make some leave. You need people coming not going.

Yes - change the rule
11
22%

No - Keep it as is
36
72%

Indifferent
3
6%


72% say no to this soo far... I think that is a fair number of people saying flat out no.