Conquer Club

What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

about the same amount of fun in communism i suppose.

Which is lots.

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Agreed. That's why no forts, no spoils are boring. And the people who insist that this is the highest skill level just lack the imagination to allow some 'risk' in their games. There is a different mind set, a different planning that goes into an esq, trench game, when the turn ins are in the hundreds or thousands. Playing with spoils means you always have a chance to get back in the game. It means you rarely have a sure thing until the last turn or two.

I don't think there is anything worse than a no spoils game, where everyone grabs a position by round 4 and sits for the round limit. That's why I started writing tournaments where round limit games are ties for the tourney. I am trying to flesh out a "Charge of the Light Brigade" scoring scenario for a tournament, where the one who "suicides" would score more points than the game winner.

How many people complain about boring and hide out in games where everyone plays like they do, because they might lose too many points. Screw the points, have fun. Play with some newbies. Play a map you don't know. Play settings you don't know. Play tournaments that aren't single elimination, one shot, boring exercises. Better yet write a tournament that bends the rules. CC has a scoring system that you can't change but as TO you can make any rules (almost) that you want. So if you want double score Tuesdays or Fisbin Fridays except in months ending in Y, go for it.

My two cents worth,

Silly

Silly Knig-it wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Agreed. That's why no forts, no spoils are boring. And the people who insist that this is the highest skill level just lack the imagination to allow some 'risk' in their games. There is a different mind set, a different planning that goes into an esq, trench game, when the turn ins are in the hundreds or thousands. Playing with spoils means you always have a chance to get back in the game. It means you rarely have a sure thing until the last turn or two.

I don't think there is anything worse than a no spoils game, where everyone grabs a position by round 4 and sits for the round limit. That's why I started writing tournaments where round limit games are ties for the tourney. I am trying to flesh out a "Charge of the Light Brigade" scoring scenario for a tournament, where the one who "suicides" would score more points than the game winner.

I love no spoils and consider myself a no spoils-player, but I have to admit that small and medium-sized classical maps are better suited for spoils-games(in team or poly anyway). Many special gameplay maps like Conquer Rome and King's Court II however are better in no spoils.

In my opinion:

• Many special gameplay maps(not all): better in no spoils
• small and medium sized classical maps: better in spoils
• large classical maps in multiplayer: good for everything except escalating
• large classical maps in poly/team: good with escalating and no spoils

Admittedly large classical maps in multiplayer escalating can turn into a hilarious game of hide and seek, especially eurasia.

Silly Knig-it wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Agreed. That's why no forts, no spoils are boring. And the people who insist that this is the highest skill level just lack the imagination to allow some 'risk' in their games. There is a different mind set, a different planning that goes into an esq, trench game, when the turn ins are in the hundreds or thousands. Playing with spoils means you always have a chance to get back in the game. It means you rarely have a sure thing until the last turn or two.

I don't think there is anything worse than a no spoils game, where everyone grabs a position by round 4 and sits for the round limit. That's why I started writing tournaments where round limit games are ties for the tourney. I am trying to flesh out a "Charge of the Light Brigade" scoring scenario for a tournament, where the one who "suicides" would score more points than the game winner.

How many people complain about boring and hide out in games where everyone plays like they do, because they might lose too many points. Screw the points, have fun. Play with some newbies. Play a map you don't know. Play settings you don't know. Play tournaments that aren't single elimination, one shot, boring exercises. Better yet write a tournament that bends the rules. CC has a scoring system that you can't change but as TO you can make any rules (almost) that you want. So if you want double score Tuesdays or Fisbin Fridays except in months ending in Y, go for it.

My two cents worth,

Silly

------I know I told you in our game to checkout my C & A case. Now you really should. I too, like going out like Custer. Kamikazing a Deadbeat in the name of Justice. Yelling, One Last Rebel Charge!!!!!! Beware though,the world is full of cry babies. Tourneys make me barf. But yours I might enjoy. As long as deadbeats are fair game. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

ConfederateSS wrote:

Silly Knig-it wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Agreed. That's why no forts, no spoils are boring. And the people who insist that this is the highest skill level just lack the imagination to allow some 'risk' in their games. There is a different mind set, a different planning that goes into an esq, trench game, when the turn ins are in the hundreds or thousands. Playing with spoils means you always have a chance to get back in the game. It means you rarely have a sure thing until the last turn or two.

I don't think there is anything worse than a no spoils game, where everyone grabs a position by round 4 and sits for the round limit. That's why I started writing tournaments where round limit games are ties for the tourney. I am trying to flesh out a "Charge of the Light Brigade" scoring scenario for a tournament, where the one who "suicides" would score more points than the game winner.

How many people complain about boring and hide out in games where everyone plays like they do, because they might lose too many points. Screw the points, have fun. Play with some newbies. Play a map you don't know. Play settings you don't know. Play tournaments that aren't single elimination, one shot, boring exercises. Better yet write a tournament that bends the rules. CC has a scoring system that you can't change but as TO you can make any rules (almost) that you want. So if you want double score Tuesdays or Fisbin Fridays except in months ending in Y, go for it.

My two cents worth,

Silly

------I know I told you in our game to checkout my C & A case. Now you really should. I too, like going out like Custer. Kamikazing a Deadbeat in the name of Justice. Yelling, One Last Rebel Charge!!!!!! Beware though,the world is full of cry babies. Tourneys make me barf. But yours I might enjoy. As long as deadbeats are fair game. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

A lost cause?

------I know I told you in our game to checkout my C & A case. Now you really should. I too, like going out like Custer. Kamikazing a Deadbeat in the name of Justice. Yelling, One Last Rebel Charge!!!!!! Beware though,the world is full of cry babies. Tourneys make me barf. But yours I might enjoy. As long as deadbeats are fair game. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

These are war games. And yet we seem to ignore the warrior cultures where allowing time to run out and accepting a loss would be to be totally without honor. The first one that comes to mind is the Japanese. Why did the US have so much trouble digging them off of islands in the Pacific during the the second World War? Because they could not conceive of surrender. Not in their vocabulary. No matter the odds. But then we twist cultures to fit "our" conceptions of what would be the "right" thing. Again to use WWII as an example, we executed the Japanese who tortured Americans during the war. And 50+ years later we call those things "enhanced interrogation techniques" and we applaud their use.

Is it suicide, if you go for the 1% chance at a victory? Or is it heroism? and we write epic poems about it. Followers of American football, all want their team to throw the "Hail Mary" pass, and the occasional time it succeeds they jump for joy and talk about how wonderful it was. So why is a "Hail Mary" play in CC wrong? Yes, I may take away your victory in my attempt, but if rational playing and logic is your touchstone, should you not have taken me into account?

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Lots really.

Is it the balanced chances or the rational players (or both!) that ruin your fun?

Most games start with balanced chances though? I like chess and football, those games start fairly level.

I agree with all of this but i have been criticized before by some of my speeder friends for starting random games no spoils because i'm letting the dice win the game and not strategy. I save strategy for the clan games. Sometimes I just wanna roll the dice and I don't care if I'm playing a cook on classic!

Hell we fell in love with the game as kids rolling the dice anyway

Ltrain wrote:I agree with all of this but i have been criticized before by some of my speeder friends for starting random games no spoils because i'm letting the dice win the game and not strategy. I save strategy for the clan games. Sometimes I just wanna roll the dice and I don't care if I'm playing a cook on classic!

There is generally more skill in no spoils than in cards.

Fewnix wrote:Which is lots.

I would like to follow up on my proposition that there is lots of fun in communism, as there is lots of fun in a game where all players are rational and have a fair chance to win.

I come to this view as someone who is tired of dealing with irrrational people and an unfair society. Once in a while, not all the time, but every now and then, I really enjoy dealing with rational people having fun, playing a game for fun,


IT"S JUST A GAME.

GUYS and GALS

COMRADES/MATES

JUST A GAME


Merry Xmas
and a hippy New year
Few

DoomYoshi wrote:What's the fun in a game where all the players are rational or have a balanced chance at winning?

Tell it to Magnus Carlsen

DoomYoshi wrote:I forgot I started this thread. I still have more fun on the forums, where none of the players are rational.

I can see that.

What I also see is segregation in the games. High ranking players only playing each other, cause they fear losing too many points. Or, they use team play to farm lower ranks on particular maps.

I have only played one team game with another low rank player and we beat the other two high ranking teams. During the game, the other two teams were crying, yelling and accusing each other of bad decisions. I did found this quite entertaining.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I forgot I started this thread. I still have more fun on the forums, where none of the players are rational.

I can see that.

What I also see is segregation in the games. High ranking players only playing each other, cause they fear losing too many points. Or, they use team play to farm lower ranks on particular maps.

I have only played one team game with another low rank player and we beat the other two high ranking teams. During the game, the other two teams were crying, yelling and accusing each other of bad decisions. I did found this quite entertaining.

Try playing tournaments. Most tournament players don't give a damn whether they play against low ranks or high ranks.
Most high rankers with that rotten mentality don't join tournaments.

waauw wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I forgot I started this thread. I still have more fun on the forums, where none of the players are rational.

I can see that.

What I also see is segregation in the games. High ranking players only playing each other, cause they fear losing too many points. Or, they use team play to farm lower ranks on particular maps.

I have only played one team game with another low rank player and we beat the other two high ranking teams. During the game, the other two teams were crying, yelling and accusing each other of bad decisions. I did found this quite entertaining.

Try playing tournaments. Most tournament players don't give a damn whether they play against low ranks or high ranks.
Most high rankers with that rotten mentality don't join tournaments.

Once I get premium I will.

I can see that.

What I also see is segregation in the games. High ranking players only playing each other, cause they fear losing too many points. Or, they use team play to farm lower ranks on particular maps.

I have only played one team game with another low rank player and we beat the other two high ranking teams. During the game, the other two teams were crying, yelling and accusing each other of bad decisions. I did found this quite entertaining.

Might be true for a handful of players, definitely not for the majority of high rankers. That a high rank player has different game preference than you doesn't mean he is farming or afraid of losing points. It only mean he likes to play smthg else.
There is many top players that prefer to play team game exclusively, it doesn't mean they used it to farm low rank, it only means they prefer team play. How is that hard to understand ? There is also players with low rank that prefer team games, you don't go around saying they're farming other players
Yeah, true, if you play 1vs1 game on classic, you can't reach a high score.
Let high ranker have their fun, have yours. There is no such segregation.

Also, what segregation can you see? High ranker are only ~200 players, we're 8200, how can 200 guys make a segregation ?

Donelladan wrote:

I can see that.

What I also see is segregation in the games. High ranking players only playing each other, cause they fear losing too many points. Or, they use team play to farm lower ranks on particular maps.

I have only played one team game with another low rank player and we beat the other two high ranking teams. During the game, the other two teams were crying, yelling and accusing each other of bad decisions. I did found this quite entertaining.

Might be true for a handful of players, definitely not for the majority of high rankers. That a high rank player has different game preference than you doesn't mean he is farming or afraid of losing points. It only mean he likes to play smthg else.
There is many top players that prefer to play team game exclusively, it doesn't mean they used it to farm low rank, it only means they prefer team play. How is that hard to understand ? There is also players with low rank that prefer team games, you don't go around saying they're farming other players
Yeah, true, if you play 1vs1 game on classic, you can't reach a high score.
Let high ranker have their fun, have yours. There is no such segregation.

Also, what segregation can you see? High ranker are only ~200 players, we're 8200, how can 200 guys make a segregation ?

Not sure why you are taking this as a serious attack on you? Did check out your games though and it appears you predominately play high ranking players and avoid playing low ranking players.

Thank you for proving my argument.

Bernie, in order to be the man, you have to beat the man.

Once you reach a certain level, it is completely understandable for high ranks to want to play other high ranks. Why wouldnt they want to play against other players who have reached the level of competition that they have reached? Sure it is possible for a low rank to beat a high rank, but low ranks arent entitled to an opportunity to play a high rank if the high rank doesnt want to. Its like saying that a 4-12 football team should be allowed to play in the playoffs because they are just as capable of upsetting a good team.

Some high ranks dont mind playing low ranks, but most do. So what?

Bernie Sanders wrote:Not sure why you are taking this as a serious attack on you? Did check out your games though and it appears you predominately play high ranking players and avoid playing low ranking players.

Thank you for proving my argument.

You're attacking high ranking players, so yes, I feel concerned, not that I feel that you were attacking me directly.
And actually I don't see how you can say I am predominately playing high ranking players, except if you consider high ranking players to be everyone above your rank maybe ?
I could prove you wrong in a matter of minutes, but I don't care and I am not the subject.
I only think that what you were saying in your previous post is total bullshit, it's smthg I've read before on the forum, and I feel like when someone is saying smthg so completely wrong, it might be interesting to let them know that it's wrong.

Anyway, how ranking players not playing people like you ( not really happening but doesn't matter) is an issue ? High ranking players represent less than 5% of CC population.

Donelladan wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:Not sure why you are taking this as a serious attack on you? Did check out your games though and it appears you predominately play high ranking players and avoid playing low ranking players.

Thank you for proving my argument.

You're attacking high ranking players, so yes, I feel concerned, not that I feel that you were attacking me directly.
And actually I don't see how you can say I am predominately playing high ranking players, except if you consider high ranking players to be everyone above your rank maybe ?
I could prove you wrong in a matter of minutes, but I don't care and I am not the subject.
I only think that what you were saying in your previous post is total bullshit, it's smthg I've read before on the forum, and I feel like when someone is saying smthg so completely wrong, it might be interesting to let them know that it's wrong.

Anyway, how ranking players not playing people like you ( not really happening but doesn't matter) is an issue ? High ranking players represent less than 5% of CC population.

Relax, not attacking, but pointing to what I see on the games played here. Bullshit or not, the reality is in front of us.

It's your privilege to play who you want and I'm not arguing that.

jmyork82 wrote:Bernie, in order to be the man, you have to beat the man.

Once you reach a certain level, it is completely understandable for high ranks to want to play other high ranks. Why wouldnt they want to play against other players who have reached the level of competition that they have reached? Sure it is possible for a low rank to beat a high rank, but low ranks arent entitled to an opportunity to play a high rank if the high rank doesnt want to. Its like saying that a 4-12 football team should be allowed to play in the playoffs because they are just as capable of upsetting a good team.

Some high ranks dont mind playing low ranks, but most do. So what?

Its like saying that a 4-12 football team should be allowed to play in the playoffs because they are just as capable of upsetting a good team.


We are not talking playoffs here, just regular games.

If this was football, everyone would have to play the best, good and bad teams.

Not telling CC to order all high ranking players to play all ranks. Relax, you high ranking players, really, relax. Seems like some of the high ranking players have a hair trigger....

jmyork82 wrote:Bernie, in order to be the man, you have to beat the man.

why does everything have to be about the black jesus in these forums?! and let's not give BERNIE ideas about whipping me!!



the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir