Conquer Cup I

[comic boy]

Well assuming that you are really clever and know all about escalating strategy, then entering pretty much any contest where the majority of the other contestants are so obviously morons, would actually up your chances of winning, making it less of a lottery.

I mean, assuming people pay too much attention to map bonuses, a defensive setup strategy should be even more efficient in setting you up to make a bid at exactly the right time. Again, assuming that you are really clever.

Nice - 1st game.. Second eliminated.. Thanks MR Private!!

Did you really expect anything else, this tournament was always going to be a total lottery because the majority taking part dont know basic escalating strategy.

Nice to know you had a look at how JammyJames was suicided ( twice ) before struggling to inject a note of sarcasm into your post

[denominator]

Just a thought for future editions of this tourney, would it not be better to make each of the games a more level playing field by pooling players of equal/similar rank in each of the games? It means there would be less disparity in both terms of ability and points won/lost, plus less likelihood of a noob ruining a game for a seasoned esc player. Whichever player from the lesser ranks makes it through the first few rounds is obviously worth his salt and is worthy of playing with the higher ranks (so this pooling of players need only apply to the first two rounds, say).

Another (indirect) benefit of adopting this system is it prevents the possibility of abusing the system through the creation of multis in the hope one of them gets entered in the same game as the established player. For a mere $5 per entry I'm sure it may have entered someone's mind to nip round the corner to every establishment with internet and greatly enhance his (established account's) odds of winning the grand prize.

As a reformed criminal I tend to spot these things immedately

I agree that there is high incentive for creating multiple accounts and throwing $5 at this in so far as the shot at winning the iPod. And while that is against the rules, the spirit of the no-multi rule is so that you don't play against yourself, which is highly unlikely at this point.

That being said, I think much is being said about the so-called n00bs ruining the game for so-called seasoned players. RISK, and by association, ConquerClub has many different strategies, all of which can be successful, of which some are more consistently successful and others less consistently. The mark of a great player (which I certainly do not claim to be), in my opinion, is the ability to recognize when the common strategy (which I have read others refer to, in this thread, as "basic escalating strategy") is not going to work and to apply a different strategy.

Being able to recognize how your opponents are playing leads to far greater chances of success than simply playing the basic escalating strategy and hoping everyone else does. Everyone has a right to play the game however they see fit, so complaining that you lost because another player didn't play "properly" is pathetic.

[drunkmonkey]

Being able to recognize how your opponents are playing leads to far greater chances of success than simply playing the basic escalating strategy and hoping everyone else does. Everyone has a right to play the game however they see fit, so complaining that you lost because another player didn't play "properly" is pathetic.

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

[denominator]

Being able to recognize how your opponents are playing leads to far greater chances of success than simply playing the basic escalating strategy and hoping everyone else does. Everyone has a right to play the game however they see fit, so complaining that you lost because another player didn't play "properly" is pathetic.

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Like I said, that's part of the game. Player A has almost certainly made moves towards gaining Africa, or whatever bonus it is he is trying to obtain earlier in the game, and my guess is that Players B, C, and D have recognized that and moved their troops out of his way.

In every 5 player game, there are going to be 4 losers, and we all know this. There is no right strategy for ConquerClub, simply more effective and less effective ones. Assuming that Player A's score is not zero, then we can safely assume that he has had some success and that his strategy is at least somewhat effective, regardless of how you view it.

[Dako]

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Predicting what noobs are likely to do is part of the skill. Dont' palce your troops in a continent that noob is trying to hold just to be eliminated and prove that he is a noob. Use it, know that he will take other plaeyrs out of this continent and gun for them knowing he will help you to get some of their terrs. Start from Asia, NA, Europe and keep your stacks there.

[spiesr]

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Predicting what noobs are likely to do is part of the skill. Dont' palce your troops in a continent that noob is trying to hold just to be eliminated and prove that he is a noob. Use it, know that he will take other plaeyrs out of this continent and gun for them knowing he will help you to get some of their terrs. Start from Asia, NA, Europe and keep your stacks there.

But in the example given, Players C & D may have done just that, but then lost due to the combined mistakes of Players A & E. They may have seen Player A's mistake coming, but simply not been in a position where there were any winning moves they could make.

[denominator]

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Predicting what noobs are likely to do is part of the skill. Dont' palce your troops in a continent that noob is trying to hold just to be eliminated and prove that he is a noob. Use it, know that he will take other plaeyrs out of this continent and gun for them knowing he will help you to get some of their terrs. Start from Asia, NA, Europe and keep your stacks there.

But in the example given, Players C & D may have done just that, but then lost due to the combined mistakes of Players A & E. They may have seen Player A's mistake coming, but simply not been in a position where there were any winning moves they could make.

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

[drunkmonkey]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

[spiesr]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

My point wasn't so much about what strategy was correct, rather than to point out that it is possible to lose this type of game through no major fault of your own. I accept that to be the nature of the game. However, I think that it illustrates why single elimination rounds with these settings is not the ideal setup for a paid tournament.

[AndyDufresne]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

My point wasn't so much about what strategy was correct, rather than to point out that it is possible to lose this type of game through no major fault of your own. I accept that to be the nature of the game. However, I think that it illustrates why single elimination rounds with these settings is not the ideal setup for a paid tournament.

We agree. Conquer Cup II will have multiple games per round I think, so if you manage to take a bad beat in one game, you still have some other games which can allow you to advance!


--Andy

[Rodion]

You should make a Cup for 2-sided team games (none of that 2v2v2 or 2v2v2v2 crap), either doubles, triples or quads.

[sherkaner]

Any tournament would be possible I guess, but 1v1 and 5 games per round (and increasing in later rounds) would be nice too.
Though with 1024 players you'd have 10 rounds in stead of 4.

[lostatlimbo]

I'd consider participating in future cups if they were 1v1 tourneys. I have enough frustration joining free games full of inexperienced players.

Amen to that!

[denominator]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

Ultimately, I agree with you. The strategy in the example has a very low-percentage chance of victory, and I would agree that it is a poor play regardless of the rank of the player.

What I'm getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of bitching (for lack of a better word) by the so-called "seasoned" players about losses due to plays of the so-called "n00bs". It's not so much how good or bad the strategy is or isn't, but rather the critiquing of it by the losing players that is bugging me.

[drunkmonkey]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

Ultimately, I agree with you. The strategy in the example has a very low-percentage chance of victory, and I would agree that it is a poor play regardless of the rank of the player.

What I'm getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of bitching (for lack of a better word) by the so-called "seasoned" players about losses due to plays of the so-called "n00bs". It's not so much how good or bad the strategy is or isn't, but rather the critiquing of it by the losing players that is bugging me.

I guess I saw the discussion in this thread not as bitching by losing players, but as reasons why more "seasoned" players didn't join the tourney in the first place.

[Bones2484]

Well. I lost when a freemium cadet with 2 games played thought it would be best to protect a +2 bonus and took out two of my big stacks. Needless to say, he and I were the first two killed.

Even though I had a feeling it would happen, it's enough for me to guarantee that I will not sign up for any future incarnation of Conquer Cup with the current setup.

[Vandal88]

You guys that walk around calling people noobs because they don't play thousands of games at the same time should stop complaining. I only joined CC a few weeks ago but I have been playing risk for over 20 years and I love the game. A game of risk should be fun and I personally enjoy seeking out a continent for a small bonus and proding my opponents borders until the cashes eventually end the game. I have resorted to your so called "escalating strategy" in certain scenerios but to use that as a sole strategy must get redundant and lame. Anyone can stack all their men on one territory and only attacks weak territories that surround them for a card until the cash reaches freakin' 80 or whatever, but that takes no strategy and actually makes the game boring. The game should be about maneuvering and shifting alliances, which comes about best when each player focuses on one or two key regions or continents. Not about creating "stacks". I find the Conquer Cup tournament very boring and disappointing because their are so many supposed "masters at escalating strategy" who have lost focus of the game and ruin it for those of us are here to enjoy ourselves. I got a new term, "stackers", and I won't be using it to describe someone in a positive manner.

[Chariot of Fire]

You guys that walk around calling people noobs because they don't play thousands of games at the same time should stop complaining. I only joined CC a few weeks ago but I have been playing risk for over 20 years and I love the game. A game of risk should be fun and I personally enjoy seeking out a continent for a small bonus and proding my opponents borders until the cashes eventually end the game. I have resorted to your so called "escalating strategy" in certain scenerios but to use that as a sole strategy must get redundant and lame. Anyone can stack all their men on one territory and only attacks weak territories that surround them for a card until the cash reaches freakin' 80 or whatever, but that takes no strategy and actually makes the game boring. The game should be about maneuvering and shifting alliances, which comes about best when each player focuses on one or two key regions or continents. Not about creating "stacks". I find the Conquer Cup tournament very boring and disappointing because their are so many supposed "masters at escalating strategy" who have lost focus of the game and ruin it for those of us are here to enjoy ourselves. I got a new term, "stackers", and I won't be using it to describe someone in a positive manner.

Your definition of a 'stacker' (as you've publicly complained about in Game 10038531) is rather misguided. Pink has a presence in five of the six continents - essential to stand a decent chance of eliminating a player whilst also remaining safe himself - while you yourself are confined and vulnerable, as is blue. If anyone was stacking it was you (on Dubai) which has cost you your troops in NA and in all likelihood any chance of winning the game.

You'll find the best (i.e. most successful) players are those who don't create stacks, by your definition, but who ensure they retain a good spread across the board. Who is harder to kill - the player with 6 x 4s spread over six continents or the player with 24 troops covering all six territories in Africa for a measly bonus (measly relative to the value of trades come Round 6)?

As equally important as personal growth in esc games is the protection of other players to prevent them being eliminated by a 3rd party. What's frustrating to a lot of seasoned players is to see their 'safe' 3 or 4 get whacked by someone hell-bent on taking a bonus. In my experience a bonus on the Classic map has never contributed to a win (not when there are four or more players).

This game (CC) can never really compare to playing the board game because it lacks the dynamic of ongoing conversation between the protagonists (you're one of the few, looking at your game chat, who actively seeks to make truces in esc games). Noobs also make mistakes that can cost games, e.g. believing they can attack St.Petersburg from Belarus on the Europe map

[kchalot]

I have a bug on the game 10038531 Round 6.
I change my cards, and didn't receive the +2 bonus on two territories (I changed already now because of this 2 bonus ! )
Please tell me, what to do .
Thanks, Kch

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not sure what you mean. Game Log:


2011-11-10 22:48:31 - kchalot got bonus of 2 troops added to Lagos
2011-11-10 22:48:31 - kchalot got bonus of 2 troops added to Beijing
...
2011-11-10 22:51:00 - kchalot reinforced Dakar with 2 troops from Lagos

If you didn't get the 2 troops how did you reinforce from Lagos?

[IR1SH ACE]

sweet....made it threw the first round....Game 9979977

big thanks to all the players in that game for playing a good game with no stupid play....

[QoH]

Your definition of a 'stacker' (as you've publicly complained about in Game 10038531) is rather misguided. Pink has a presence in five of the six continents - essential to stand a decent chance of eliminating a player whilst also remaining safe himself - while you yourself are confined and vulnerable, as is blue. If anyone was stacking it was you (on Dubai) which has cost you your troops in NA and in all likelihood any chance of winning the game.

You'll find the best (i.e. most successful) players are those who don't create stacks, by your definition, but who ensure they retain a good spread across the board. Who is harder to kill - the player with 6 x 4s spread over six continents or the player with 24 troops covering all six territories in Africa for a measly bonus (measly relative to the value of trades come Round 6)?

As equally important as personal growth in esc games is the protection of other players to prevent them being eliminated by a 3rd party. What's frustrating to a lot of seasoned players is to see their 'safe' 3 or 4 get whacked by someone hell-bent on taking a bonus. In my experience a bonus on the Classic map has never contributed to a win (not when there are four or more players).

This game (CC) can never really compare to playing the board game because it lacks the dynamic of ongoing conversation between the protagonists (you're one of the few, looking at your game chat, who actively seeks to make truces in esc games). Noobs also make mistakes that can cost games, e.g. believing they can attack St.Petersburg from Belarus on the Europe map

Great post CoF. Very good.

[Incandenza]

Great post CoF. Very good.

Concur. And considerably more polite and profanity-free than mine would have been.

[jackal31]

apparently we seasoned vets "stackers" are playing a new kind of Risk then.

CoF, we've been doing it wrong this whole time!

[s3xt0y]

epic dice fail for the loss kinda frustrating...player who sat there and did nothing all game won, when the round before their last cash they had 3 troops...