Why this game is a joke

[Condestável]

I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it.

First, you have less % of wins than I have, don't try to belittle others especially if you aren't better yourself .

Second, I only play one-on-one and I don't care for internet "sergents", generals and assorted fantasy ranks.

Third, you should spell better than I do, I'm not a native English speaker.

So because you have less than 50% win rate (45%) whilst only playing games with a 50% chance of winning (1v), you are better than me with my winrate higher than 12% win rate (44%) whilst not playing games smaller than six players generally.....

Stop the press, we have a genius in the house.

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

[Extreme Ways]

show

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

What about the quality of opponents?

[IcePack]

I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it.

First, you have less % of wins than I have, don't try to belittle others especially if you aren't better yourself .

Second, I only play one-on-one and I don't care for internet "sergents", generals and assorted fantasy ranks.

Third, you should spell better than I do, I'm not a native English speaker.

So because you have less than 50% win rate (45%) whilst only playing games with a 50% chance of winning (1v), you are better than me with my winrate higher than 12% win rate (44%) whilst not playing games smaller than six players generally.....

Stop the press, we have a genius in the house.

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

Whats unbelievable is that you think 45% win ratio is something important or makes you better than anyone else.

[Condestável]

show

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

What about the quality of opponents?

You gotta stop hating.

[Condestável]

I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it.

First, you have less % of wins than I have, don't try to belittle others especially if you aren't better yourself .

Second, I only play one-on-one and I don't care for internet "sergents", generals and assorted fantasy ranks.

Third, you should spell better than I do, I'm not a native English speaker.

So because you have less than 50% win rate (45%) whilst only playing games with a 50% chance of winning (1v), you are better than me with my winrate higher than 12% win rate (44%) whilst not playing games smaller than six players generally.....

Stop the press, we have a genius in the house.

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

Whats unbelievable is that you think 45% win ratio is something important or makes you better than anyone else.

No, what is unbelievable is that you get so entangled in this irrational clique of HTML captains, that you don't even care to check that it was the guy you are defending who attacked me out of nowhere, trolling the thread with "I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it."

And I replied what he deserved. Which triggered you and the rest of the clique even more. You'll cling to anything against the disrupter of the clique and their beloved game, with all its nonsense faults.

[riskllama]

con, in all seriousness, you bitch soo fuckin' much about the dice, etc. - why not just pack it in? honestly, dude...

[IcePack]

I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it.

First, you have less % of wins than I have, don't try to belittle others especially if you aren't better yourself .

Second, I only play one-on-one and I don't care for internet "sergents", generals and assorted fantasy ranks.

Third, you should spell better than I do, I'm not a native English speaker.

So because you have less than 50% win rate (45%) whilst only playing games with a 50% chance of winning (1v), you are better than me with my winrate higher than 12% win rate (44%) whilst not playing games smaller than six players generally.....

Stop the press, we have a genius in the house.

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

Whats unbelievable is that you think 45% win ratio is something important or makes you better than anyone else.

No, what is unbelievable is that you get so entangled in this irrational clique of HTML captains, that you don't even care to check that it was the guy you are defending who attacked me out of nowhere, trolling the thread with "I dont get how you are a sergent having been here since 2011. Well I lie, I do get it."

And I replied what he deserved. Which triggered you and the rest of the clique even more.

Oh, I knew it was the same guy. I think his comment about rank is just as silly as yours talking about win %'s. But he's also not the guy who constantly loses to the same guy and thinks phantom dice bonuses are out to get him and filling the forum with same crap over and over and over. But refuses to change anything, blames anyone but himself, and then continues to stay here playing even tho its "rigged".

[Condestável]

Oh, I knew it was the same guy. I think his comment about rank is just as silly as yours talking about win %'s. But he's also not the guy who constantly loses to the same guy and thinks phantom dice bonuses are out to get him and filling the forum with same crap over and over and over. But refuses to change anything, blames anyone but himself, and then continues to stay here playing even tho its "rigged".

I didn't complain about losing games. I'm about happy with my overall score.

I protested because I systematically had overall negative dice outcome against most premium members. And I posted all the data since 1-JAN-2015 which you chose to ignore.

Why do you try to stir shit up anyway?

Look. From your perspective you feel I'm stirring. From my POV, Conquer Club is dominated by, let's put it mildly, a hostile clique who celebrates its perceived success at a math game with personal remarks at whoever criticizes their source of pride. All the place is loaded with aggressive bragging crap and pseudo-military stuff often associated with 4chan internetism.

Instead of debating how to improve the game, what the clique does is trying to bash with offtopic remarks and Jizanthapus infantile style of hatred any OP who challenges the status quo. You love the place and your virtual achievments so much that you perceive any criticism to the game as an attack to your beloved world.

You don't even stop to think that it's imbecile to start a game with +5 units. And it's the second consecutive day I got this crap. I never had it in 400 games and I don't want it for myself to even out. If no one here admits that it's a grave fault, then you all deserve the game as it is.

[IcePack]

I didn't chose to ignore it, I posted counter points which you ignored. In fact many posted counter points but you picked and choose which ones you want to reply to because others you didn't have an answer for. But hey however you got to twist it to make yourself feel better.

I'm pretty sure we can all take criticism of the site, in fact most of us have our own critisms of whats going on. Its the ones that make no sense we respond to.
Has nothing to do with not wanting to debate how to improve the game (thats a common and regular topic around here) and the status quo is challenged all the time.

Perhaps, like your arms race games and "systematic dice fails" its in the approach and subject matter and how / what you are doing that you should reflect on. Because none of what you are doing (critiquing or challenging site related things) is unique to you or makes anyone target you more than anyone else. Its the words that you are choosing to type, and your silly points.

As far as what happened today (your +5 "bug") it happens. Get over it. I highly doubt you've "never" had it, but even if you hadn't it is part of the game. If you dont like it, dont pick stupid maps to play 1vs1 on like that where you risk having someone pick up bonuses and play things that will minimize your / others good or bad luck.

Oh, I knew it was the same guy. I think his comment about rank is just as silly as yours talking about win %'s. But he's also not the guy who constantly loses to the same guy and thinks phantom dice bonuses are out to get him and filling the forum with same crap over and over and over. But refuses to change anything, blames anyone but himself, and then continues to stay here playing even tho its "rigged".

I didn't complain about losing games. I'm about happy with my overall score.

I protested because I systematically had overall negative dice outcome against most premium members. And I posted all the data since 1-JAN-2015 which you chose to ignore.

Why do you try to stir shit up anyway?

Look. From your perspective you feel I'm stirring. From my POV, Conquer Club is dominated by, let's put it mildly, a hostile clique who celebrates its perceived success at a math game with personal remarks at whoever criticizes their source of pride. All the place is loaded with aggressive bragging crap and pseudo-military stuff often associated with 4chan internetism.

Instead of debating how to improve the game, what the clique does is trying to bash with offtopic remarks and Jizanthapus infantile style of hatred any OP who challenges the status quo. You love the place and your virtual achievments so much that you perceive any criticism to the game as an attack to your beloved world.

You don't even stop to think that it's imbecile to start a game with +5 units. And it's the second consecutive day I got this crap. I never had it in 400 games and I don't want it for myself to even out. If no one here admits that it's a grave fault, then you all deserve the game as it is.

[jdw35]

We need more threads like this to keep the site alive. I haven't had this kind of entertainment on here in a while

[Condestável]

Because none of what you are doing (critiquing or challenging site related things) is unique to you or makes anyone target you more than anyone else. Its the words that you are choosing to type, and your silly points.

To you I'm making silly points. To me you are making silly excuses.

As far as what happened today (your +5 "bug") it happens. Get over it. I highly doubt you've "never" had it, but even if you hadn't it is part of the game. If you dont like it, dont pick stupid maps to play 1vs1 on like that where you risk having someone pick up bonuses and play things that will minimize your / others good or bad luck.

You keep going arounds in circles, trying to justify the unjustifiable.

When I play one-on-one in real life, we don't allow anyone to start with more than 2 territories in South America or Australia.

It's already a big enough advantage when you are the first to play. 50% more units is poor game implementation, it's wrong and has nothing to do with a good Risk game. Period.

I've nothing else to add. It's not even remotely debatable.



If the majority here thinks it's ok, all I can say is that the NSDAP also rose to power with the people's vote. That doesn't make it right.

Good night CC clique side. I'll post the outcome of the joke when it's finished.

[IcePack]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

[Condestável]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

Is it advancing 1 or 2 at your discretion while attacking with 3 part of any Risk game? Advancing any number of armies is not part of Risk and completely alters the logic of the game. And it's not even optional. In Risk, if you attack with 2 you have to advance at least 2, if you attack with 3 you have to advance at least 3, do you understand this? There's no way to get a genuine Risk match in CC and you know I'm right.

A small deployment agreement on the other hand only eliminates aberrant setups. It's the same as forfeiting and playing a new game. People do that. Doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

[Arama86n]

/me hands OP a tissue

[IcePack]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

Is it advancing 1 or 2 at your discretion while attacking with 3 part of any Risk game? Advancing any number of armies is not part of Risk and completely alters the logic of the game. And it's not even optional. In Risk, if you attack with 2 you have to advance at least 2, if you attack with 3 you have to advance at least 3, do you understand this? There's no way to get a genuine Risk match in CC and you know I'm right.

A small deployment agreement on the other hand only eliminates aberrant setups. It's the same as forfeiting and playing a new game. People do that. Doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

Neither of the rules you mention are part of the game.

[Dukasaur]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

Is it advancing 1 or 2 at your discretion while attacking with 3 part of any Risk game? Advancing any number of armies is not part of Risk and completely alters the logic of the game. And it's not even optional. In Risk, if you attack with 2 you have to advance at least 2, if you attack with 3 you have to advance at least 3, do you understand this? There's no way to get a genuine Risk match in CC and you know I'm right.

A small deployment agreement on the other hand only eliminates aberrant setups. It's the same as forfeiting and playing a new game. People do that. Doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

Neither of the rules you mention are part of the game.

The underlined is part of the standard rules.

(Just being fair. Doesn't change the overall discussion.)

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

"not playing games smaller than six players generally..... " ?

From the 134 games you've played so far, 81 were one-on-one from which you won 39. Nine were 2x2 games from which you won 4.

My lowest was 1072, your lowest was 1040. You only played 17 games against 6 players or more! And you won 3 of those lottery games, which gave you almost 500 extra points.

Unbelievable shit people base their fucking arrogance on.

Cheers. I really couldnt be asked to look up my actual stats for a pointless argument, but this is really useful information and I really appreciate the time and energy you put into that.

[Donelladan]

Condestavel, you are not the only one asking for a change in the deployement rule to avoid bonus at first turn.
But you made it saying " the game is a joke" and start a complain in the wrong part of the forum.

If you want the game to be changed you need to go to the suggestions forum, and ask for a change.

Now when you play classic 1vs1, it is quite rare a bonus is obtained in the 1st turn, it happens of course, but it is rare.
If you start playing a huge map, for example Eurasia, then you have to expect people to have bonus. That's how the game currently is.
It is due to the map you are playing. There is other maps in which it is impossible to start with a bonus turn 1. For example Europe 1914, because each bonus area has at least one neutral regions, you can't play Europe 1914 and have a bonus first turn.
But anyway just like Eurasia, it is still unbalanced to play those game in 1vs1 because the first player will drop more troops based on number of regions only, take you some regions and the 2nd player will drop less. Which is why some maps here on CC are extremely unbalanced for playing 1vs1.
There is more than 200 maps on CC, some of them are kind of good for 1vs1 game, and some of them are very bad for 1vs1 game.

After that, it's up to you to decide which map you want to play.
Some people here love to play the luxembourg or the doodle map. Did you try them ? This is just pure luck map. It is very quick and some people like that.
Other people that prefer maps involving more strategy may decide to play maps like king's court II, in which both player will have the exact same drop on the first turn. But it's a totally non-classic map ( weird gameplay).

The thing is, maybe you are right and the developer could have designed the game in a way that nobody drop a bonus first turn.
They didn't and they won't, that's a very old debate, if you look for this suggestion in the forum using research function you'll see it has been proposed a long time ago and never accepted.
But on the other hand, the variety of maps and settings should allow you to find games that suit you more.
Arm race that you like for example, it's also impossible to start with a bonus on turn 1 because all of them start neutral. It also involve a lot of luck though.
But as I told you before, 1vs1 is always more luck than strategy.

[Arama86n]

What Donelladan said.

[Extreme Ways]

Wow Con, what a class act. Quoting me in another topic and responding here, because other topic is closed. My comment over there made sense, here not so much.

[xroads]

Hey Look

A freemium just joined my game and may have won before I went. I want to protest the better dice freemiums are getting. I think owners give them better dice, so they will win more and upgrade to premium membership.

2016-03-17 07:29:53 - Turu2001 has a score of 1866.
2016-03-17 07:29:53 - Turu2001 has won 1 Conquer Clover
2016-03-17 07:30:07 - Turu2001 received 3 troops for 6 regions
2016-03-17 07:30:10 - Turu2001 deployed 3 troops on ?
2016-03-17 07:30:12 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from xroads
2016-03-17 07:30:14 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:19 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:24 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:29 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:47 - Turu2001 reinforced ? with 1 troops from ?
2016-03-17 07:30:47 - Turu2001 ended the turn and got spoils

[Arama86n]

Hey Look

A freemium just joined my game and may have won before I went. I want to protest the better dice freemiums are getting. I think owners give them better dice, so they will win more and upgrade to premium membership.

2016-03-17 07:29:53 - Turu2001 has a score of 1866.
2016-03-17 07:29:53 - Turu2001 has won 1 Conquer Clover
2016-03-17 07:30:07 - Turu2001 received 3 troops for 6 regions
2016-03-17 07:30:10 - Turu2001 deployed 3 troops on ?
2016-03-17 07:30:12 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from xroads
2016-03-17 07:30:14 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:19 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:24 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:29 - Turu2001 assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from neutral player
2016-03-17 07:30:47 - Turu2001 reinforced ? with 1 troops from ?
2016-03-17 07:30:47 - Turu2001 ended the turn and got spoils

You gotta feed those defensive dice more broccoli man... getting pushed around there.
For every problem there is a solution. And that solution is always broccoli.

[IcePack]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

Is it advancing 1 or 2 at your discretion while attacking with 3 part of any Risk game? Advancing any number of armies is not part of Risk and completely alters the logic of the game. And it's not even optional. In Risk, if you attack with 2 you have to advance at least 2, if you attack with 3 you have to advance at least 3, do you understand this? There's no way to get a genuine Risk match in CC and you know I'm right.

A small deployment agreement on the other hand only eliminates aberrant setups. It's the same as forfeiting and playing a new game. People do that. Doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

Neither of the rules you mention are part of the game.

The underlined is part of the standard rules.

(Just being fair. Doesn't change the overall discussion.)

You misunderstand me. Neither are apart of THE GAME. This game. CC. The one we are all here to play. CC is not risk.

[xroads]

"You and your friend dont allow anyone to take more then 2 territories in SA / Australia"

Great. Thats not part of the game though.

Is it advancing 1 or 2 at your discretion while attacking with 3 part of any Risk game? Advancing any number of armies is not part of Risk and completely alters the logic of the game. And it's not even optional. In Risk, if you attack with 2 you have to advance at least 2, if you attack with 3 you have to advance at least 3, do you understand this? There's no way to get a genuine Risk match in CC and you know I'm right.

From right on the front page

Conquer Club is not associated with RISK online in any way. Copyright © 2006-2016 by Big Wham LLC

[xroads]

What bothers me the most is someone who is playing a game 100% for free whines this much.

He doesnt pay one thin dime to ever play, yet whines non stop.

This is like getting free lunch at work every day, and then whining because there isnt enough variety. You are still getting it for free.

STFU and learn how to play