DirtyDishSoap wrote:PSU 86 wrote:But, this is not risk. Any argument that suggests that Risk does it a certain way, so therefore CC should also change the rules to be like Risk, is flawed.
CC is better in many ways than Risk. It is worse in a few ways.
CC is better because: no cheating on the troops - when you get ten troops to start your turn, the computer is the police who make sure you got ten. If you "LOSE TWO" the computer makes sure that two are taken off the board (instantaneously I might add!). Being drunk, or tired NEVER leads to counting mistakes on CC. Noticing that your opponent is not paying attention so you maybe take twelve to start your turn instead of ten NEVER happens in CC. The little counting mistakes that can always occur with Risk NEVER happen in CC thanks to the computer being the bean counter. Remember that a Risk board game takes hours to complete and all that extra time is from COUNTING troops and placing them on the board - something that is done rather quickly on CC.
CC is worse in only a few things: it is less sociable to play facing a computer than to play with other people your own age (we always played 4 player, 2 guys 2 girls... all aged in early to mid 20's). There is no doubt that this is an advantage for the board game Risk in my humble opinion.
The whole premise of CC is meant to emulate RISK. Obviously this isn't going to be a face to face game, but when the site was first founded, it captured the game as close as it can it. At the end of the day, CC is still meant to be RISK, with the addition of new ideas from the community. The problem we're currently facing here is that the site is old, over a decade, it has outdated coding, and with that, people take advantage of it, while others don't. The question I pose is: Do you think it's fair for someone to not take a card to create an advantage over others? Say that a player has a bonus, 4 cards, and has to break the other players bonus. The 4 cards he's currently holding would zombify/nuke his bonus. He can't let that happen because he doesn't want to put in the resources to reclaim it, or outright lose. So just run out the clock.
Probably not the best example, but the idea is that if something is creating an unfair advantage over others, it should be immediately be addressed rather than simply say "Well, that's just how it works".
PSU 86 wrote:CC will enjoy more success and profits if they keep the rules simple. A game or sport with complicated rules will eventually lead to less people being interested in it. Whatever the administrators decide, it should be one rule for all the different types of set ups (nuke, escalating, flat, etc.). Otherwise , it will get mind boggling to understand. CC has a good thing going. Dont bastardize it to make it more like the board game Risk.
The settings being changed to where you're forced to take a card rather than wait out the timer wouldn't complicated to understand. The most complicated thing about CC are the maps that are added. Take The Temple of Jinn for example. That map is a mess to look at for me, would never touch it unless I want to go blind.
PSU 86 wrote:Those of you who like to throw around the word "cheating"....I ask you: Was it cheating when your caveman ancestor evaded a predator in an unconventional manner? Before you answer, let me remind you that you would not be here had they been caught.
Thankfully, a website is not a life or death situation. Apples to Oranges.
Many analogys can be drawn between real life and games (and sports). Your "apples to oranges" cliche is being overused.
PSU 86 wrote:Is it cheating to put a childs college money in a college fund thereby evading taxes on the gains?
Apples to Oranges.
PSU 86 wrote:Is it cheating to start multiple businesses but first you LLC them giving yourself limited liability in a corporation? If one fails, you claim bankruptcy on that one only. When one of your businesses hits big, you keep all the profits (in your LLC which you control).
Apples to Oranges.
PSU 86 wrote:Life has always rewarded the person who can seek out and find the hidden opportunity. Dont make the mistake of thinking that EVERYONE who plays CC knows that they can let the clock run out and avoid getting a card which will keep him from nuking himself. Those of you who oppose people taking advantage of the loophole, let me tell you something that you probably already know: YOU can do it too. Dont EVER forget that you are only here on earth today because one or more of your ancestors "cheated" to stay alive to reproduce another day.
I personally prefer that our unique and wonderful game of CC should remain as it is with the timing out loophole the way it is. In my 20,000 or so games on here, I have done it probably only 3 times (all in speed games) but it is analogous to life in that it rewards someone who seeks and finds the hidden opportunity.
But whatever the administrators decide is fine by me. Lets just keep it simple.
Yes but society IE: Judges, administrators, etc. have repeatedly punished people for taking advantage of "hidden opportunity". Fraud for example, is heavily punished, which in a way, is cheating the system. Embezzlement is another one that is heavily punished. People, whether it be a minority or majority, will attempt to take advantage over others, there's no reason to believe that CC is the exception here. Congratulations that you don't do it, but that doesn't speak for everyone in CC who has done it or are still doing it to create that advantage.
.....
