Moderator: Community Team
josko.ri wrote:In the game where i used this loophole i wrote this:
josko.ri: "In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement"
Evil Semp wrote:Shannon Apple wrote:Evil Semp wrote:
One you start your turn you have 1 hour. The wait would be a litttttlllleeee shorter.
I honestly don't know where I put my brain these days. Yes, that makes sense.
After reading all the posts in this thread it can turn your brain into mush. I just wish I could use that excuse.
Extreme Ways wrote:A majority of the skilled players in freestyle brs used this strategy, me included (though I like to think I only used it when I knew the opposition would too).
Extreme Ways wrote:The consequences are quite different, and I would not consider the loopholes to be the same at all. Imo this is illustrated by the fix for one but not for the other too.
josko.ri wrote:It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.
it's not possible to not take a card when playing "real" risk game
Donelladan wrote:Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?
And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)josko.ri wrote:It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.
saxitoxin wrote:deaths among the unvaccinated are higher.
Donelladan wrote:Extreme Ways wrote:A majority of the skilled players in freestyle brs used this strategy, me included (though I like to think I only used it when I knew the opposition would too).
I disagree with that statement. Some players, skilled or not were using it. I've never seen a majority of player using it. There is no statistics on this therefore this is pretty much impossible to state any facts. But to my recollection it was never a majority of people using it.
Extreme Ways wrote:The consequences are quite different, and I would not consider the loopholes to be the same at all. Imo this is illustrated by the fix for one but not for the other too.
Ok the consequences are "different" because it's different spoils. But the loophole is exactly the same, there is only one loophole, it's running out of time to avoid taking a card. That it is escalating, flat, nuke, zombie, it's still running out of time to avoid taking a card.
If you think running out time to avoid taking a card is a loophole, because it's not possible to not take a card when playing "real" risk game, then it's a loophole regardless of the spoils you're using. And it's the same loophole.
Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?
And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)josko.ri wrote:It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.
Normal rules of Risk, from which CC is copied, state that if you successfully attack someone during your turn, you will get a card. But sometimes, people who don't want a card will successfully attack, but then let their time run out so that they don't get one. This is usually in nuclear or zombie, but once in a whlle in escalating also.
iAmCaffeine wrote:ive got a good stat
90% of the posts in this thread are not worth reading, and about 70% of those posts are made by people who aren't worth reading, 98.5% of the time
you're welcome
Donelladan wrote:Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?
And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)josko.ri wrote:It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.
Donelladan wrote:2017-11-10 18:45:56 - josko.ri: I consider running out of time as additional strategy element which may or may not be used
2017-11-10 18:47:07 - josko.ri: I know not everyone agrees but that is just my opinion. In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement
josko.ri wrote:
Also, Don and every other underminers, I see you are still active searching for evidence to undermine me. Couldnt you find a single 1v1 or team game where I used this strategy to throw it directly to my face? I have played 80% of my games ever (more than 14.400) in escalating 1v1 or team mode so it shouldnt be a problem to you to find one game where I used this strategy, if such game exists. Of course you could not find because I am not such cheap player to use this kind of unsportmanship strategy.
Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not
Nut Shot Scott wrote:Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not
Everyone does have the choice, as is evidenced by your entire complaint. You had the choice, you chose to take a card. They had the choice, they chose not to take a card. There. Done. Argument over. Glad you agree.
mookiemcgee wrote:InB4 - "I only meant it was a valid strategy in a specific context and not this context"
josko.ri wrote:Nut Shot Scott wrote:Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not
Everyone does have the choice, as is evidenced by your entire complaint. You had the choice, you chose to take a card. They had the choice, they chose not to take a card. There. Done. Argument over. Glad you agree.
Funny how you do not even quote my full sentence which says "... by the site feature." So, if it is done by the site feature then it is all correct and i support it. But currently there is not a site feature for it but rather a loophole, therefore it is unsportmanship behaviour to use the loophole.
josko.ri wrote: To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.
Donelladan wrote:josko.ri wrote: To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.
Seriously, do you expect anyone to believe that ? That's not what the topic where you responded is about and you never suggested that.
You're just making up stuff up on the spot.
I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.
shoop76 wrote:josko.ri wrote:It seems that 10/47 people who voted thinks this is poor sportmanship which is 21%. It is quite a big number of % for something that can be decider in some games. Obviously, 21% of CC users would have never used this unsportmanship behaviour even if they have chance which make them disadvantaged over 79% of CC users who does not see problems in using this kind of strategy.
My team will anyway beat Fyrdraca team in the series of 9 sets so the win that they achieved on this shameful way will anyway be phyrric. Hopefully this shameful way of winning makes Fydraca and his company of friends happy and fullfilled
When they did not use such shameful strategy, in group phase of the championships tournament, my team kicked their asses with 6-0 victory, which shows enough how much are strategic differences between our teams. With such strategic inferiority, it is no wonder that they thought of different ways for achieving their win which are on the borderline of good sportmanship.
Honestly, Josko, I think it would be higher, but I am sure that there all people that voted against you just to be against you. Just for the record, I am one of the 21% who believe it is poor sportsmanship and 1 of the people who do not have anything against you.
Silly Knig-it wrote:shoop76 wrote:josko.ri wrote:It seems that 10/47 people who voted thinks this is poor sportmanship which is 21%. It is quite a big number of % for something that can be decider in some games. Obviously, 21% of CC users would have never used this unsportmanship behaviour even if they have chance which make them disadvantaged over 79% of CC users who does not see problems in using this kind of strategy.
My team will anyway beat Fyrdraca team in the series of 9 sets so the win that they achieved on this shameful way will anyway be phyrric. Hopefully this shameful way of winning makes Fydraca and his company of friends happy and fullfilled
When they did not use such shameful strategy, in group phase of the championships tournament, my team kicked their asses with 6-0 victory, which shows enough how much are strategic differences between our teams. With such strategic inferiority, it is no wonder that they thought of different ways for achieving their win which are on the borderline of good sportmanship.
Honestly, Josko, I think it would be higher, but I am sure that there all people that voted against you just to be against you. Just for the record, I am one of the 21% who believe it is poor sportsmanship and 1 of the people who do not have anything against you.
I very much respect Josko. Both as a player, for what he as achomplished; and as a human being for the respectful and kind way he approaches people. I just don't agree with him in this situation.
Donelladan wrote:josko.ri wrote:I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.
This is what i meant when i told quotes that you mentioned in past. But my suggestion was not accepted. If my suggestion was accepted then i would have the sameopportunity to use this strategy as Fyrdraca team had.
josko.ri wrote:Donelladan wrote:josko.ri wrote: To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.
Seriously, do you expect anyone to believe that ? That's not what the topic where you responded is about and you never suggested that.
You're just making up stuff up on the spot.
I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.
This is what i meant when i told quotes that you mentioned in past. But my suggestion was not accepted. If my suggestion was accepted then i would have the sameopportunity to use this strategy as Fyrdraca team had.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users