Conquer Club

Hi

I'm fairly new to the site but I think a few very simple changes could make this game a LOT better/fairer.

1) Ensuring a more even drop. Surely it would be easy to program that each player only receive a certain number of terts per region. Players starting with region bonuses is unnecessarily unfair.
2) First turn advantage. 2 tournament rounds started for me today: 6 games. I have the 2nd turn in every single one. It should be fairly simple to ensure that each player goes 1st in at least 1 of the 3 games, or 2 of the 5 games etc. If you wanted to do something a little more tricky, the first turn advantage could be seeded on points: lower seed gets the advantage of going first 2/3 games for example.

I know that a lot of people also complain about the dice, I don't think this would be an easy fix. But as an aside, the Frankenstein nature of the dice can be a little unnerving, it produces some strong anxiety you never know if you're going to take 15 troops without losing a single one, or lose 8 troops take 1 troop. It is especially disheartening in speed games where auto rolling is a must. I am guessing it has been addressed over and over again here; and though I don't know very much about programming, I imagine programming the dice to be less erratic would be far more challenging than the simple suggested improvements I put earlier.

Anyway, I think the site is overrall really great, I know people say it hasn't changed in years, but it's all new to me and it seems like it took a lot of work to get this stage. And with a few minor tweaks it could be a lot better/fairer. Would be interested to know what other people think. Enjoy your day.

administrat0r wrote:1) Ensuring a more even drop. Surely it would be easy to program that each player only receive a certain number of terts per region. Players starting with region bonuses is unnecessarily unfair.

I'll presume you are talking about non-complex or "Classic"-ish style maps. I understand the concern here. However, if you changed this, the drops would not become random at that point. The drops would then need to become more streamlined, and ergo more complicated. But how do you control this for every single map? I assume this would be more intricate to develop than what you would initially think.

administrat0r wrote:2) First turn advantage. 2 tournament rounds started for me today: 6 games. I have the 2nd turn in every single one. It should be fairly simple to ensure that each player goes 1st in at least 1 of the 3 games, or 2 of the 5 games etc. If you wanted to do something a little more tricky, the first turn advantage could be seeded on points: lower seed gets the advantage of going first 2/3 games for example.

This has been discussed before, and this seems to be a known issue. Read this post here for more information/complaints about it.

administrat0r wrote:I know that a lot of people also complain about the dice, I don't think this would be an easy fix. But as an aside, the Frankenstein nature of the dice can be a little unnerving, it produces some strong anxiety you never know if you're going to take 15 troops without losing a single one, or lose 8 troops take 1 troop. It is especially disheartening in speed games where auto rolling is a must. I am guessing it has been addressed over and over again here; and though I don't know very much about programming, I imagine programming the dice to be less erratic would be far more challenging than the simple suggested improvements I put earlier.

I've stated this recently, but I agree the dice can be streaky. However, I think the general argument that is mostly made (not necessarily yours) should be focused more on the dice algorithm or the company CC uses for dice (whichever one is the case). Trying to replicate true random numbers like that of a dice roll can get very complicated even just trying to run something simple for just one person one computer, let alone on a server for thousands of people (maybe even millions if CC uses a company). Just my own personal opinion.

JD: thanks for your reply. And thanks for sharing the thread.

With the bonus regions on drop: yes it is the smaller maps that happens with, or sometimes the smaller regions in the larger maps when there are fewer players. I just feel like there could be an line of code that says "if regions=4, player can have no more than=3" or something like that. This bonus drop plus first turn is extra special.

I think a lot of the this site is well done, but these two areas feel sloppy. I was shocked at the response from the webmaster that was quoted in the other thread. These are big issues and honesty is the best policy when dealing with customers.

With the dice it's understandably logical that it would be difficult to program randomness. I don't really see that as a BIG issue, or an easy fix. Maybe the other suggestions ARE harder than I think they would be, but, having had an admittedly small experience of programming (making pong in basic years ago and html when i was a little older).. I still think that it the other things shouldn't be too hard to incorporate, and are actually some of the first things you would consider including when starting a project like this.

I mean.. how can you have a fair tournament when there is such a huge advantage on the first turn, and first turns are not equally distributed?

In the game of Risk, each player takes turns choosing 1 region at a time. Highest roll of the dice chooses first, and then it goes clockwise around the board. After all the regions are chosen, then each player takes turns placing their troops.

I call this true manual.

As each region is chosen one at a time, there is the opportunity to both eliminate this known bad drop problem, and ensure the absolute fairest game start possible!

Not this fake manual that conquer club uses, whereby your regions are automatically chosen for you!. Automatically chosen is like the opposite of manual!

YukFoo wrote:In the game of Risk, each player takes turns choosing 1 region at a time. Highest roll of the dice chooses first, and then it goes clockwise around the board. After all the regions are chosen, then each player takes turns placing their troops.

I call this true manual.

As each region is chosen one at a time, there is the opportunity to both eliminate this known bad drop problem, and ensure the absolute fairest game start possible!

Not this fake manual that conquer club uses, whereby your regions are automatically chosen for you!. Automatically chosen is like the opposite of manual!

So you're suggestion is we have 'placement period' where each player has 24 hours to choose a single territ? It's going to take 2 years before the first turn is taken on Hive games.

No I said: "In the game of Risk". And then I explained how the game of risk works.

But yes! That sounds like a great idea! "Placement period" as you say.

Don't those hive games take like 17 years to finish anyways? What is an extra 2 years?

Wouldn't you rather play the entire 17 or 19 years with as fair of a start as possible right from the very beginning?

Rather than drag out a 17 year game only to lose because your opponent started the game 17 years prior with an advantage?

But for real, the "placement period" could be expedited in some manner. Maybe you choose 2 or 3 at a time, or maybe the placement period turns are less than 24 hours.

Whatever. I am sure it can be done. And it will get us closer to the game we are trying to mimic.

I wouldn't use an option where the game didn't start for weeks after everyone joined, and there isn't a good way to reduce the 24 window and have it remain fair to all timezones. This just seems like a non-issue to me.There is no good way to do that unless it's a speed game, which I assume is why it was never an option.

I'm much more sympathetic to the OP's complaint about tourney rounds starting without balance on who goes first, and with some maps being used in 1 v 1 games in tourneys. Maps like Pearl Harbor shouldn't be used in 1 v 1 tourneys unless they are poly. When a player can have 14+ drop on his first turn there isn't much point in even playing we might as well draw straws or flip a coin.

Everyone has dice averages of 3.5, sometimes those averages are more average than others, that is the bad thing.

mookiemcgee wrote:Maps like Pearl Harbor shouldn't be used in 1 v 1 tourneys unless they are poly. When a player can have 14+ drop on his first turn there isn't much point in even playing we might as well draw straws or flip a coin.

The answer to this is the same as the answer to all the problems of unbalanced drops, unbalanced starts, unbalanced dice, unbalanced cards: taking any one example in isolation it seems extremely unfair, but nobody plays just one game. If I play 100 1v1 games on Pearl Harbour, there will be games where the ridiculous drop favours my opponent, there will be times when it favours me, and there will be times when it will work out about equal. Set the good against the bad and they will probably roughly balance out, leaving the neutral ones to determine my long-term success rate.

YukFoo wrote:In the game of Risk, each player takes turns choosing 1 region at a time. Highest roll of the dice chooses first, and then it goes clockwise around the board. After all the regions are chosen, then each player takes turns placing their troops.

I call this true manual.

As each region is chosen one at a time, there is the opportunity to both eliminate this known bad drop problem, and ensure the absolute fairest game start possible!

Not this fake manual that conquer club uses, whereby your regions are automatically chosen for you!. Automatically chosen is like the opposite of manual!

Does the risk board game rule get region cards distributed to player face down then you start to place your troops? meaning you are not choosing which territ you placing your troops, if so the site Manual mode works the same with the difference playing standard or freestyle, if you chose the Freestyle manual sunny mode and all players decide to start together their turn then you have the exact same outcome as the board game, don’t you?
We never played in such a mode where player chose a territory, because who start first to chose can take advantage as well rather than getting randomly territories card.

Dukasaur wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:Maps like Pearl Harbor shouldn't be used in 1 v 1 tourneys unless they are poly. When a player can have 14+ drop on his first turn there isn't much point in even playing we might as well draw straws or flip a coin.

The answer to this is the same as the answer to all the problems of unbalanced drops, unbalanced starts, unbalanced dice, unbalanced cards: taking any one example in isolation it seems extremely unfair, but nobody plays just one game. If I play 100 1v1 games on Pearl Harbour, there will be games where the ridiculous drop favours my opponent, there will be times when it favours me, and there will be times when it will work out about equal. Set the good against the bad and they will probably roughly balance out, leaving the neutral ones to determine my long-term success rate.

So you're stating that the reason why fairness shouldn't be built into the code is that it "probably" works out to be fair in the end? (As opposed to just making a tweak in the code to absolutely ensure fairness)

This argument doesn't make any sense to me: my point is: build fairness into the framework, rather than hoping that "it all works out in the end". Because if I have to play 100, or 1,000 or 10,000 games to wait for everything to "even out" that doesn't really help much in a tournament does it? lol And in case why do that in the first place?

Hooch wrote:Everyone has dice averages of 3.5, sometimes those averages are more average than others, that is the bad thing.

Dice is definitely a separate topic but this is a bit of an issue too. As I hinted at before it is more than a little unnerving when you press auto and you have no idea if your 27 troops will take this 1 tert or not.. and you look down the rolls after and you find the defensive dice rolled 500 5s and 6s in a row because it's trying to get to 3.5.. The dice mechanics are out of my sphere of knowledge, I might look into tho.. but I think a convo about the dice is a can of worms.. feel like I need to do some research before commenting.

Mad777 wrote:Does the risk board game rule get region cards distributed to player face down then you start to place your troops?

No. You pick and choose your territories. Generally, you try to pick enough spots for a bonus, but then your opponent has the chance to pick territories to prevent you from getting a bonus because he can see what you are choosing, and vice versa.

It is the ONLY way to make the drop fair.

I generally just like to do things the proper way right from the beginning because I don't like wasting time and screwing around and doing things the wrong or stupid way. I guess I can never have a career in government. And playing an entire game to the end, when the drop off the beginning was shit, is the wrong way to do things. Sure it evens out, you get as many shit drops for as many good drops as you get, but that isn't fun, or random!

Mad777 wrote:

YukFoo wrote:In the game of Risk, each player takes turns choosing 1 region at a time. Highest roll of the dice chooses first, and then it goes clockwise around the board. After all the regions are chosen, then each player takes turns placing their troops.

I call this true manual.

As each region is chosen one at a time, there is the opportunity to both eliminate this known bad drop problem, and ensure the absolute fairest game start possible!

Not this fake manual that conquer club uses, whereby your regions are automatically chosen for you!. Automatically chosen is like the opposite of manual!

Does the risk board game rule get region cards distributed to player face down then you start to place your troops? meaning you are not choosing which territ you placing your troops, if so the site Manual mode works the same with the difference playing standard or freestyle, if you chose the Freestyle manual sunny mode and all players decide to start together their turn then you have the exact same outcome as the board game, don’t you?
We never played in such a mode where player chose a territory, because who start first to chose can take advantage as well rather than getting randomly territories card.

------------Thank You Kindly Madd....YES!!!...I have always played...YOU deal out the Risk cards after removing the 2 wild cards.......2 players...each player gets 21 cards, 3 players...each player gets 14 cards...6 players...Each player gets 7 cards...4 players...pl.1 and 2 get 11 cards and 3 and 4 get 10 cards....5 players...Player 1 and 2 get 9 cards ,players 3,4,5 get 8 cards...///Or you can make the extra cards neutral ...THAT IS THE OTHER WAY TERR...ARE HANDED OUT...That Foo...forgot to mention:)... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Dukasaur wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:Maps like Pearl Harbor shouldn't be used in 1 v 1 tourneys unless they are poly. When a player can have 14+ drop on his first turn there isn't much point in even playing we might as well draw straws or flip a coin.

The answer to this is the same as the answer to all the problems of unbalanced drops, unbalanced starts, unbalanced dice, unbalanced cards: taking any one example in isolation it seems extremely unfair, but nobody plays just one game. If I play 100 1v1 games on Pearl Harbour, there will be games where the ridiculous drop favours my opponent, there will be times when it favours me, and there will be times when it will work out about equal. Set the good against the bad and they will probably roughly balance out, leaving the neutral ones to determine my long-term success rate.

My complaint was about it's use in tournaments (particularly auto ones like the Olympics), the law of averages never has a chance to play out in 3 or 5 game set. It's an easily avoidable problem since the maps are chosen by a human in advance of the start of a tournament. I fully acknowledge over 100's of games things even out... but that doesn't mean it was a good, fair, or intelligent choice of a map in a 1 v 1 tourney with 3 games per round. The outcome becomes akin to flipping a coin because it doesn't matter how well you play it just matters how many games you are randomly selected to go first in.

If we play 100 1v1 games on pearl harbor and we each win 50, but the person going first in any of the games wins 100% of the time, then why would I choose to play 100 games with you? the game ceases to be entertaining when the outcome is nearly certain before it starts. Most of the time it is ok, but on some maps + settings there aren't any 'neutral games to decide the outcome'. Doesn't take any programing to change this, just intelligent choices by humans when creating tournaments.