Conquer Club

lol, Sim's keeping an eye on his charges

hehe, on the contrary I only just came across this thread earlier and it looks like an interesting topic to which I might add my views. But it's middle of the night and I'd rather have a clear head, so I just popped a marker down so I neither lose it nor forget about it.

Free premium to the first person who gets the "Ultra Gold Nuclear Deploy Freestyle" Medal.

Something needs to be done about the suggestions part of this site. No changes that really affect gameplay positively are made, all we get is more gimmick settings like nuclear spoils...

I dont know how nuclear spoils were introduced before a standard rate card system. Nuclear spoils just makes smaller continents even more valuable (because large continents will get continuously nuked) and in a fog game requires no skill. What the site needs is a constant rate setting (6 for small maps, 8 for larger maps), or escalating with a cap (escalating is good until it gets too large that the game ends). Flat rate is based on luck, and no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

I would put in a suggestion but that part of the website doesnt work.

gho wrote:escalating with a cap (escalating is good until it gets too large that the game ends).

I've always been under the impression that was the entire point of escalating cards.

gho wrote:no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

My experience definitely differs.

gho wrote:I would put in a suggestion but that part of the website doesnt work.

It's certainly true that the suggestion will never get implemented this way.

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

My experience definitely differs.

Really, probably because your a freemium and cant be bothered wasting one of your spots on a game your unlikely to win. Next time you lose your battle for a continent in a no spoils game, just keep deploying your 3 troops on one of the territories in the 'asian' continent and ending your turn. Nobody will touch you because there is no point in a player wasting there troops on you while theyve got other opponents on the battlefield. If your lucky and the other players weaken each other, you might be able to swoop in on a small continent with your stack many turns later in the game. The chances of you pulling of a victory with this strategy is low, but if your premium a small chance is better than no chance.

gho wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

My experience definitely differs.

Really, probably because your a freemium and cant be bothered wasting one of your spots on a game your unlikely to win.

Don't let your presumptions get out of hand - I was premium for quite some time and regularly played 50+ games at a time.

gho wrote:Next time you lose your battle for a continent in a no spoils game, just keep deploying your 3 troops on one of the territories in the 'asian' continent and ending your turn. Nobody will touch you because there is no point in a player wasting there troops on you while theyve got other opponents on the battlefield. If your lucky and the other players weaken each other, you might be able to swoop in on a small continent with your stack many turns later in the game. The chances of you pulling of a victory with this strategy is low, but if your premium a small chance is better than no chance.

Most of the people I play with have no interest at all in playing such a boring game. In fact, I don't recall ANYONE trying that strategy other than in seriously dire straits.

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

My experience definitely differs.

Really, probably because your a freemium and cant be bothered wasting one of your spots on a game your unlikely to win.

Don't let your presumptions get out of hand - I was premium for quite some time and regularly played 50+ games at a time.

gho wrote:Next time you lose your battle for a continent in a no spoils game, just keep deploying your 3 troops on one of the territories in the 'asian' continent and ending your turn. Nobody will touch you because there is no point in a player wasting there troops on you while theyve got other opponents on the battlefield. If your lucky and the other players weaken each other, you might be able to swoop in on a small continent with your stack many turns later in the game. The chances of you pulling of a victory with this strategy is low, but if your premium a small chance is better than no chance.

Most of the people I play with have no interest at all in playing such a boring game. In fact, I don't recall ANYONE trying that strategy other than in seriously dire straits.

Actually, that is often the only strategy possible in a large no spoils game, and is arguably as strong as going for early position. In fact, the better players you play against, its more likely they will use this strategy. It is the poor or inexperienced that think they can attack 5 other people in a no spoils game and actually win. Its no mistake that the longest games in CC's history typically have some of the best players in them.

The reason is that instead of making bad moves, they make good ones, no matter what, and in a large no spoils game, the only winning move, is not to play.

But as you said before, you're a competition junkie...just not a winning junkie...but if you arent a winning junkie, there can be no competition. Which is fine, but you should probably refrain from giving advice on games, when clearly, you arent actually trying to win them, and instead are only having fun watching the games happen.

I don't mean this to be quite as harsh as it is, but since its some of the worst strategy commentary Ive seen in a while, it seemed prudent to point this out for anyone actually trying to win a game, and not just have fun dumping armies, attacking and losing most of them for fun...basically...for the true competition junkies.

AAFitz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

gho wrote:no spoils means nobody wants to waste their troops eliminating players.

My experience definitely differs.

Really, probably because your a freemium and cant be bothered wasting one of your spots on a game your unlikely to win.

Don't let your presumptions get out of hand - I was premium for quite some time and regularly played 50+ games at a time.

gho wrote:Next time you lose your battle for a continent in a no spoils game, just keep deploying your 3 troops on one of the territories in the 'asian' continent and ending your turn. Nobody will touch you because there is no point in a player wasting there troops on you while theyve got other opponents on the battlefield. If your lucky and the other players weaken each other, you might be able to swoop in on a small continent with your stack many turns later in the game. The chances of you pulling of a victory with this strategy is low, but if your premium a small chance is better than no chance.

Most of the people I play with have no interest at all in playing such a boring game. In fact, I don't recall ANYONE trying that strategy other than in seriously dire straits.

Actually, it is often the only strategy possible in a large no spoils game, and is arguably as strong as going for early position.
In fact, the better players you play against, its more likely they will use this strategy. It is the poor or inexperienced that think they can attack 5 other people in a no spoils game and actually win. Its no mistake that the longest games in CC's history typically have some of the best players in them.

The reason is that instead of making bad moves, they make good ones, no matter what, and in a large no spoils game, the only winning move, is not to play.

But as you said before, you're a competition junkie...just not a winning junkie.

I'm not speaking of attacking 5 other people willy-nilly.

It seems to me that the proper strategy in a no-spoils game is to slowly and conservatively build toward a bonus (or multiples-of-3-armies). Once you have that advantage, you have the advantage...THAT'S when you really sit on your bonus and build, because you're going to outbuild everyone.

My winning percentage in 6-through-8 player no-spoils games (which is what I play most often) is 13.507% (62 wins out of 457 games). That's probably pretty close to at least average, I would say.

By the way, is there ANY easier way of calculating that than doing a game-finder search and going through it manually? Gads, what a pain in the butt.

Woodruff wrote:
I'm not speaking of attacking 5 other people willy-nilly.

It seems to me that the proper strategy in a no-spoils game is to slowly and conservatively build toward a bonus (or multiples-of-3-armies). Once you have that advantage, you have the advantage...THAT'S when you really sit on your bonus and build, because you're going to outbuild everyone.

My winning percentage in 6-through-8 player no-spoils games (which is what I play most often) is 13.507% (62 wins out of 457 games). That's probably pretty close to at least average, I would say.

By the way, is there ANY easier way of calculating that than doing a game-finder search and going through it manually? Gads, what a pain in the butt.

My entire point was that what seems to you to be the proper strategy, is not in fact the proper strategy, which is further backed up by your stats.

Actually, Ironically, and quite humorously, before posting that, I mapranked you on all of your games, and found that you won lower than youre expected rate of win in every category except 5 player.

No doubt you have one type of setting you seem to be able to win a little more than expected, but this hardly makes you an expert in my opinion, and I simply point this out, for people interested in actual strategy. The mere fact that you said youve never seen anyone do it, shows you simply dont play against the same caliber of players, because those, almost always use that strategy, and the better they are, the more often they do it.

AAFitz wrote:Actually, Ironically, and quite humorously, before posting that, I mapranked you on all of your games, and found that you lost lower than youre expected rate of win in every category except 5 player.

That's weird...I wonder why 5-player. Speaking of which...how did you map-rank that? I don't see that capability.

AAFitz wrote:No doubt you have one type of setting you seem to be able to win a little more than expected, but this hardly makes you an expert in my opinion, and I simply point this out, for people interested in actual strategy. The mere fact that you said youve never seen anyone do it, shows you simply dont play against the same caliber of players, because those, almost always use that strategy, and the better they are, the more often they do it.

It's true that I play almost exclusively public games, so that's probably why...many of the better players (certainly not all of them) tend to shy away from them, it seems.

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Actually, Ironically, and quite humorously, before posting that, I mapranked you on all of your games, and found that you lost lower than youre expected rate of win in every category except 5 player.

That's weird...I wonder why 5-player. Speaking of which...how did you map-rank that? I don't see that capability.

AAFitz wrote:No doubt you have one type of setting you seem to be able to win a little more than expected, but this hardly makes you an expert in my opinion, and I simply point this out, for people interested in actual strategy. The mere fact that you said youve never seen anyone do it, shows you simply dont play against the same caliber of players, because those, almost always use that strategy, and the better they are, the more often they do it.

It's true that I play almost exclusively public games, so that's probably why...many of the better players (certainly not all of them) tend to shy away from them, it seems.

And now you know why. Not only do public games include players that dont understand how to play, but they so truly believe in those strategies as to go out an profess them to be true. But many of the long games Ive been in have also been public games. The private ones however, with the best no spoils players on the site however, often go for months, years...or...in one or two cases, are still going.

As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games. Your win rates were all below expected win rates. On 5 player which youd expect to win 20%, you won 21%. And again, this was only presented to counter your strategy advice, which statistically, shouldnt be expected to work. Admittedly however, I did not use just no spoils. Ill go through and make sure you arent a no spoils savant, and that its just spoils that throw you off your game.

And as it turns out It didnt change much, on 5 player no spoils you jumped up to 27%, 7% higher than expected, but on 6, 7, and 8 player no spoils games you still ended up at 13%(17%), 10%(14%), 8%(12.5%) the expected in (). This did include terminator and assassin games as well, but in general shows that your no spoils strategy is not working for you. As an experienced no spoils player and CC player, you typically lose more than statistically expected, which can only mean the strategy is not as sound as you think it is, and that you really, should not be arguing strategy on these settings.

AAFitz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Actually, Ironically, and quite humorously, before posting that, I mapranked you on all of your games, and found that you lost lower than youre expected rate of win in every category except 5 player.

That's weird...I wonder why 5-player. Speaking of which...how did you map-rank that? I don't see that capability.

AAFitz wrote:No doubt you have one type of setting you seem to be able to win a little more than expected, but this hardly makes you an expert in my opinion, and I simply point this out, for people interested in actual strategy. The mere fact that you said youve never seen anyone do it, shows you simply dont play against the same caliber of players, because those, almost always use that strategy, and the better they are, the more often they do it.

It's true that I play almost exclusively public games, so that's probably why...many of the better players (certainly not all of them) tend to shy away from them, it seems.

And now you know why. Not only do public games include players that dont understand how to play, but they so truly believe in those strategies as to go out an profess them to be true. But many of the long games Ive been in have also been public games. The private ones however, with the best no spoils players on the site however, often go for months, years...or...in one or two cases, are still going.

As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games.

That's what I'm asking...HOW did you do that. I don't see an option within map-rank for the various player-number mapranking. What am I overlooking?

AAFitz wrote:Ill go through and make sure you arent a no spoils savant, and that its just spoils that throw you off your game.

Based on my rank, I suspect I'm not much of a savant at anything. <laughing> Although my relative rank is healthy, which I'm fairly proud of.

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Actually, Ironically, and quite humorously, before posting that, I mapranked you on all of your games, and found that you lost lower than youre expected rate of win in every category except 5 player.

That's weird...I wonder why 5-player. Speaking of which...how did you map-rank that? I don't see that capability.

AAFitz wrote:No doubt you have one type of setting you seem to be able to win a little more than expected, but this hardly makes you an expert in my opinion, and I simply point this out, for people interested in actual strategy. The mere fact that you said youve never seen anyone do it, shows you simply dont play against the same caliber of players, because those, almost always use that strategy, and the better they are, the more often they do it.

It's true that I play almost exclusively public games, so that's probably why...many of the better players (certainly not all of them) tend to shy away from them, it seems.

And now you know why. Not only do public games include players that dont understand how to play, but they so truly believe in those strategies as to go out an profess them to be true. But many of the long games Ive been in have also been public games. The private ones however, with the best no spoils players on the site however, often go for months, years...or...in one or two cases, are still going.

As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games.

That's what I'm asking...HOW did you do that. I don't see an option within map-rank for the various player-number mapranking. What am I overlooking?

AAFitz wrote:Ill go through and make sure you arent a no spoils savant, and that its just spoils that throw you off your game.

Based on my rank, I suspect I'm not much of a savant at anything. <laughing> Although my relative rank is healthy, which I'm fairly proud of.

The problem with relative rank, is that the more you lose, the higher it goes. But rank means nothing. It itself is a relative number. However, the win rates are not, and if one is losing more than they should in nearly every single category, it might be time to reconsider their strategy, especially if they tout themselves as a competition junkie or as in this case, are offering strategic advice, and even going so far as to countering someone else's.

I myself offer strategic advice, but usually only on those settings I actually win on, but more precisely, excel on..which are few....

ps, ill pm you with the map rank info

AAFitz wrote:The problem with relative rank, is that the more you lose, the higher it goes.

That's true enough, and I understand that. By the same token, you know as well as I do that it's not at all uncommon for it be...well, we'll just say pathetic...for a healthy group of individuals here. And I'm not referring to those whose rank is simply that high (I understand the math involved there).

And I'm still not seeing this below...and I'm REALLY curious.

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games.

That's what I'm asking...HOW did you do that. I don't see an option within map-rank for the various player-number mapranking. What am I overlooking?

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:The problem with relative rank, is that the more you lose, the higher it goes.

That's true enough, and I understand that. By the same token, you know as well as I do that it's not at all uncommon for it be...well, we'll just say pathetic...for a healthy group of individuals here. And I'm not referring to those whose rank is simply that high (I understand the math involved there).

And I'm still not seeing this below...and I'm REALLY curious.

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games.

That's what I'm asking...HOW did you do that. I don't see an option within map-rank for the various player-number mapranking. What am I overlooking?

Sent in pm, but basically install map rank GL, go to game finder, and check the box of whatever settings you wish to research.

AAFitz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:The problem with relative rank, is that the more you lose, the higher it goes.

That's true enough, and I understand that. By the same token, you know as well as I do that it's not at all uncommon for it be...well, we'll just say pathetic...for a healthy group of individuals here. And I'm not referring to those whose rank is simply that high (I understand the math involved there).

And I'm still not seeing this below...and I'm REALLY curious.

Woodruff wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
As far as mapranking, I did your 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 player games.

That's what I'm asking...HOW did you do that. I don't see an option within map-rank for the various player-number mapranking. What am I overlooking?

Sent in pm, but basically install map rank GL, go to game finder, and check the box of whatever settings you wish to research.

I've never noticed it in the GameFinder before. I thought the only means of mapranking was via the left-hand panel (where it shows the version and such). Amazing I could have overlooked that. Thanks!

Oh...sorry for the derailment, folks...wasn't intentional, I promise. Carry on with the bitching now.

In escalating games, I really hate it when people suicide on another stack simply to take a "bonus region". In a lot of escalating classic games, SOMEONE will ALWAYS try to take South America or Oceania and then simply defend it.

With escalating, i dont mind it with 2-5 players, but with 6-8 players i find it a bit ridiculous. If everyone knows how to play the game, the first half a dozen or so turns will be just moves to get cards. But because there are so many players it kinda forces people to play badly. What I mean is that with large escalating games its all about timing, you have to get your set at the right time to be able to knock everyone out and win. But what you see is that a player may be a few sets too early to sweep the board, and because they realise that theyre probably not going to get another turn (because one of the next 7 players will sweep the board) they go early anyway and try to luck themselves into victory, but end up short causing angst to the other players because they handed the next player victory.

gho wrote:With escalating, i dont mind it with 2-5 players, but with 6-8 players i find it a bit ridiculous. If everyone knows how to play the game, the first half a dozen or so turns will be just moves to get cards. But because there are so many players it kinda forces people to play badly. What I mean is that with large escalating games its all about timing, you have to get your set at the right time to be able to knock everyone out and win. But what you see is that a player may be a few sets too early to sweep the board, and because they realise that theyre probably not going to get another turn (because one of the next 7 players will sweep the board) they go early anyway and try to luck themselves into victory, but end up short causing angst to the other players because they handed the next player victory.

Terminator in 6-8 players would be more beneficial if you find yourself on the short end of this consistently... May still have the same trouble winning the game, but the risk of trying a board sweep and only getting 1 or 2 elims can still keep your rank relatively up... Just thought id input that...

great post

i'll touch upon one of your points

in tournaments involving teams there should be an 8 team minimum. there's been too many small tournaments specifically designed to move people up the tournament victory standings

gannable wrote:great post

i'll touch upon one of your points

in tournaments involving teams there should be an 8 team minimum. there's been too many small tournaments specifically designed to move people up the tournament victory standings

Welcome to 5 months ago.

gannable wrote:great post

i'll touch upon one of your points

in tournaments involving teams there should be an 8 team minimum. there's been too many small tournaments specifically designed to move people up the tournament victory standings

quoted for truth and clarity.

Georgerx7di wrote:

gannable wrote:great post

i'll touch upon one of your points

in tournaments involving teams there should be an 8 team minimum. there's been too many small tournaments specifically designed to move people up the tournament victory standings

quoted for truth and clarity.

you guys realize this is already a rule...

Just stopping by to pay my respects....excellent use of the c-bomb, trap!

Also, I owe you an e-mail re: non cc stuff...what is your gmail address?