Moderator: Community Team
Donelladan wrote:berlin1945 wrote:I don't agree at all. In flat rate and escalating, comebacks are possible. But in no spoils? You're absolutely done if you fail in the first three rounds. Luck has the heaviest hand in no spoils.
If you fail to take cards in the first 3 rounds in a flat rate game you will lose. No come back possible because your opponent will have a extra troops from the cards ( same for escalating, where missing just one card can means game over).
Btw, following your argument come back are possible in flat rate and escalating if you are... lucky with the cards and your opponent isn't.
Also, don't play 1vs1, then all the luck factor is basically gone. That's why people complain so much about luck on CC imho. Too many people playing 1vs1.
In multiplayer games, luck is rarely a key factor ( except when you miss an elimination in escalating multiplayer).
jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
berlin1945 wrote:jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.
berlin1945 wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.
Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.
Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.
Ok, so you are saying that a site which charges about 500 people roughly $30/year and likely has a gross revenue before expenses of $15,000/year... also has advanced enough programming/algos/ai to determine who will win before the game starts, but also adapts to recognize how hard someone is trying.
Very Interesting Theory! The odds are probably higher that the earth is flat, but I think both ideas have roughly the same merit.
berlin1945 wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.
Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.
Ok, so you are saying that a site which charges about 500 people roughly $30/year and likely has a gross revenue before expenses of $15,000/year... also has advanced enough programming/algos/ai to determine who will win before the game starts, but also adapts to recognize how hard someone is trying.
Very Interesting Theory! The odds are probably higher that the earth is flat, but I think both ideas have roughly the same merit.
Again, not. what. i'm. saying. It's easy to suicide. Nothing can stop you from that. But the game can stop you from winning. You play your strategy, but it's irrelevant, because the other player has been chosen. You might tread water, even compete, but you'll never get over the high wall of the chosen player. It's just not happening.
Mind you, I have WON this way, and I am still complaining about it. It's disgusting.
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:jwagenet wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.
Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.
This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.
berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?
Dukasaur wrote:
The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.
Dukasaur wrote:berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?
It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.
Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.
The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.
The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.
berlin1945 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?
It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.
Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.
The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.
The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.
If you care so much, then cobble some funds together and buy it back. The game is moribund. The community is shrinking and dying.
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
mookiemcgee wrote:berlin1945 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?
It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.
Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.
The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.
The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.
If you care so much, then cobble some funds together and buy it back. The game is moribund. The community is shrinking and dying.
Maybe you can buy it and change the code so you are the pre-determined winner in more games.
YukFoo wrote:Anyone want to make an offer on this website? I can be the money man, but I do not know the first thing about coding...
As long as I can ban caffeine, I will not get buyer's remorse for the impulse purchase.
IcePack wrote:8626
Davie.K wrote:IcePack wrote:8626
Yep,I've been keeping an eye on this...the last week or so the drop has slowed down.....it's still dropping but at a much more gentle pace...I guess we'll keep dropping now a few a day for the next month or so and then we'll be back to the numbers pre-covid more or less.
Davie.K wrote:Yep,I can see that happening as you say it will.....I think it was down to 5,200ish wasn't it just before it happened
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users