escalating...bit too random?

[Geoff_with_a_G]

i've never played escalating, but seems to me that with escalating cards your well-thought out strategy can get destroyed (with increasing frequency) by each set of cards cashed in...isn't it a bit random...do people who play the option just want a quick game and hope for luck on their side to cash in...there must be a point in escalating games where even though you could cash in your cards a stategy would be to hold off, let the next person (ans the next person etc) cash, take another territory on your next turn, and then cash bigger...seems a bit random to me

[hwhrhett]

there is ALOT of skill and strategy that goes into an escalating game, id reccomend reading this :

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28523

and it gets alot more in depth than that for some folks.

[Herakilla]

in my opinion there is less skill in escalating than in no cards because escalating you can plan one turn ahead and do well, if you get beaten down quickyl all you have to do is wander until the card sets get huge and you have big armies

no cards requires planning several turns ahead because you cant fall back on your cards to save you

[BaldAdonis]

if you get beaten down quickyl all you have to do is wander until the card sets get huge and you have big armies

If your opponents are any good at all, you won't get beaten down until you are killed, or if you are, the next player will kill you. No one will leave you alone like they would in no cards, where there's almost nothing to gain from killing you.

[TipTop]

Escalating does seem like a high luck game and a bit random in Public games because it is. In those games players don't know what they are doing and are handing the game to someone else.

Play escalating against good players who do know what they are doing and you will learn that it is a very skillful game.

[Herakilla]

escalating is almost all luck, i only use one strategy for it and it works very well

[RobinJ]

escalating is almost all luck, i only use one strategy for it and it works very well

You are contradicting yourself a lot. You say it is all luck but yet you have an effective strategy?

Personally, I think there is a lot of skill in escalating when it is played well. Just click that link a few posts up

[borox0]

Escalating brings in more skill. In stuff like flat rate it is luck eg. which set you get.

[The1exile]

escalating is almost all luck, i only use one strategy for it and it works very well

You are contradicting yourself a lot. You say it is all luck but yet you have an effective strategy?

Sure. Play unlucky people. Works like a charm.

[HelloImHarry]

Just remember, the point of the game is to conquer a whole bunch of territories. And whether you actually get them or not is decided by dice.
So I don't worry too much if someone gets a few more armies than I do because of their cards.

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

I once thought like the original poster. (Once = last week. )

I now think differently:

There are 4 things in Conquer Club that you could be lucky about:

1: Initial drop; lucky folks get 2-3 armies in or near Australia or South America or equivalent territories on other maps.

2: Dice; 'nuff said.

3: Cards

4: Newbie players pulling random crap.

5: Sequence; who gets to start may have an effect in some cases.

Now, with this in mind, you have to conclude that the MOST randomness, i.e. the biggest reliance on luck, is in Flat Rate games:

The initial drop matters a LOT, because if you're lucky you can quickly grab a small continent, ensuring you a proper seat for the duration of the game. Then there's MORE luck involved with the cards: If lucky you get a high-value set quickly.

In Escalating however, ALL SETS ARE VALUED THE SAME, so that's less luck involved because everyone is pretty much guaranteed a set of the same value by turn 4 or 5. Also with cards becoming VERY valuable VERY quickly, there's less benefit of having a continent... Like if bonuses of 15-20-30 armies are flying around left right and center, who CARES about a 2 or 3 army continent bonus courtesy of being holed up in Australia?

In No Cards games, luck is restricted to dice, but more so by the initial drop. In No cards games there's an UNBELIEVABLE advantage to getting even a small continent. 'The Drop' here I'd say determines if not the outcome then at least a good part of the game.

Of course certain factors can tweak the amount of luck involved, like doing an Assassin game on Google Earth depends more on luck than other types/maps, no matter what the cards-format.

[Piestar]

My limited experience here with escalating has been negative. Two games I was in a good situation at the end of the turn, and the next turn me and 4 other players are all dead.

Perhaps an option where the escalation is based on the number of sets you personally have turned in, instead of everybody? That would slow down the race to 100 armies, anyway.

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

My limited experience here with escalating has been negative. Two games I was in a good situation at the end of the turn, and the next turn me and 4 other players are all dead.

Correction: you were *NOT* in a good position. The issue is your definition of 'Good' which is NOT THE SAME as being in a 'Good' position in a no-cards or flat-rate game.

* HOLDING CONTINENTS MEANS DIDDLY *.

Just, *DONT* waste effort on getting them. Spend effort in getting away from other (newbie) players squabbling over continents. Spend effort on building up in 3 different places in strategic locations, spread out on the map. Spend effort on getting easy cards, and building up armies near where the weakened players are.

Then, the moment comes when it's all over in one or two turns.. At the right time, cash cards and "kill-the-weakest-player-who's-sitting-on-4-5 cards". Cash those cards mid-turn, then on to the next, cash his cards (for escalating value), then over to the next.

Often the player who THOUGHT HE WAS in a 'good' position is the one who cashed cards at 4 or 6 value in order to control a continent.. Well, the only "benefit" to that is being killed last.

Perhaps an option where the escalation is based on the number of sets you personally have turned in, instead of everybody? That would slow down the race to 100 armies, anyway.

I don't think the format is broken. Your strategy is broken.

(And again, I thought exactly like you last week. (I'm a fast learner, instant 'expert. ))[/quote]

[Piestar]

Wow, you're rude.

If that's the game you want to play, fine, but it doesn't sound any fun to me.

I guess I'm just old school, and not LEET enough for this place. I'd rather lose a game that was fun, then win a game like that.

[Piestar]

I don't think the format is broken. Your strategy is broken.

I'm not sure why this mindset prevail, but you're not the first person to assume a new idea that might be fun, means I am saying, as you put it, 'the format is broken'.

I am simply suggesting an idea for a variant that might be interesting to people who like a different kind of game then the one you've become the instant master of.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

[Aerial Attack]

Piestar,

I think Emperor was just a bit over the top. I don't think Emperor was trying to be rude. If you look at the actual advice given, it is fairly sound. He was just stating that you are currently playing escalating games with a non-escalating mind set. Ultimately, this will not be successful in escalating games. Hopefully, you can adjust or will find a series of settings (i.e. flat, unlimited, sequential, assassin) to your individual liking.

I believe you made a post in the suggestions forum about this. Alas, it has already been discussed and rejected (I answered that thread).

I realize that when players first begin, they like to think their method of playing is sound. And, usually it is. Then, suddenly somebody does something you didn't expect. You may not even like what they've done. You might even feel exploited (some of the formats have more niches to exploit than others). This is valid initial reaction. Alas, eventually you either need to "suck it up, cupcake" and deal with this new strategy OR find a different series of settings (or different people to play against).

[Piestar]

I followed the threads you offered AA, but neither seemed to 'discuss' the idea.

Much like the 'broken format' mindset, they were offered up as either/or propositions.

I'm not trying to 'suggest change', or fix anything, I'm suggesting that might be simple ways to offer new and interesting games, each with their own strategic solutions.

Obviously I am going to be more careful in my game options. Playing RISK with it's original rules was obviously not the preperation for the Escalating games that I thought it was, so I am experimenting with other options, and maps, looking for a mix I enjoy as much as you enjoy your favorites.

I'm just not certain why my suggestions are so commonly responded to by defensive comments, or outright antagonists fervor.

It's a game, geez...

With that in mind, does the ignore function work in the forums? I hope so...

[Genghis Khan CA]

I hope you dont take offence Piestar, but escalating cards are the original rules of risk, standard/sequential/escalating/chained are the rules used in the Risk Tournament of Champions that happened recently.

You have only played a few games on this site, I know when I first started escalating freaked me out as I'd only played flat rate with friends before. But after gaining some experience I quickly formed the opinion that escalating singles is the most skilful and fun game type available, once I'd worked out how you play it properly.

I think if you give it a chance, observe how good players of this game type play and learn it properly, you will soon find it totally fun and addictive. There is a lot of skill involved in positioning yourself on the board and in numbers of cards.

Keep persevering, it's worth it, trust me - there is no more thrilling feeling on CC than running through 5 players in one turn!

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

Piestar, I'm sorry if I appeared rude. In hindsight my post may have had a misplaced gloat of superiority about it, as I had just finished a brilliant Escalating win just before posting that. (And to be honest, that win was mostly due to other players not playing with an 'Escalating mindset', to borrow Aerial's phrase.

So I apologize for being rude, I was actually wanting to help but in doing so it was perhaps a bit over the top. I do stand by the things I said about how to play / not play an escalating game, but I do withdraw slagging off your game idea; it seems as valid an option as any.

Cheers,
Empy

[Elwar]

Its all about the order you get sets in. A game with all skilled players just decreases the skill needed (because skill can't help).

[billy07]

escalating is all about strategy firstly keeping urself hard to take out and planning for the next cash to take out some1 else. Flat rate and no cards are basic with far more luck involved.

[TipTop]

Those that dismiss escalating as a mostly luck based game probably don't understand the strategies behind it. I don't think it is being offensive to point this out.

In 6 player escalating games map bonuses don't matter much at all as card bonuses quickly become worth far more. The less players that take part at the start of an escalating game, the more important map bonuses become at the start as it takes longer for the high card bonuses to kick in. But at the end of the day your map bonuses (if you have any) will shrink in importance as the game goes on and they should be used to improve your positions across the whole map while weakening others.

Those that just want to take and hold a map bonus and fortify it whilst losing territs elsewhere are playing a flat/no card strategy and will probably lose in an escalating game because they just aren't putting themselves in a good position to take a player out when the opportunity arises and they are probably not blocking anyone else from doing the same.

*This a response to the original post. The subsequent discussion about new game types should be in a new thread preferably in the suggestions forum

[insomniacdude]

Meh. I'm not saying taht escalating games require no strategy, it's just such a different strategy that I'm used to playing. I hate escalating games BECAUSE of the required strategy. I can't wrap my head around it

At least I have the intelligence to avoid them. If people don't like escalating, then don't play. Simple as that.

[Piestar]

I'm in the same camp as InsomniacDude. I have nothing against Escalating, except for the fact that I don't want to participate in them myself.

That people enjoy them is great, I simply feel I have the right not too play in them, and am slowly switching over to games with rulesets more in keeping with what I enjoy. I get the feeling others don't feel I should have that right, and that's why I feel defensive.

As to the similarity between Escalating and the original Rule set, that is irrelevant to my concern, because our House rules capped turn ins, and stopped steam rolling specifically because neither my friends nor I found the Escalating style of game very enjoyable.

Obviously some people here agree with me, otherwise this topic would not exist.

What I would like to understand, is why people who do like the lightning-fast style of play get so riled up when people suggest they want to play a slower style of game. Can anyone explain why people who don't want to play a slower style of game seem to spend so much time in topics obviously started to discuss said slower style games? I'm really curious...

P.S. Emperor of da North - apology accepted. Thanks... let's start fresh.

[Robinette]

What I would like to understand, is why people who do like the lightning-fast style of play get so riled up when people suggest they want to play a slower style of game. Can anyone explain why people who don't want to play a slower style of game seem to spend so much time in topics obviously started to discuss said slower style games? I'm really curious...

I for one don't care if you like escalating or not, heck, you could prefer knitting and i'd be fine with it... But it is difficult to overlook the appeal of the lightning-fast style of play when compared to the other formats... Let me illustrate it this way...

Lightning-fast style of play (aka: escalating)




The other ways to play (aka: flat rate, no cards)


PS... no offense intended