Conquer Club

My CC membership lapses this month and I have decided not to renew because there is still too much chatting and deal-making going on in the games instead of playing CC. It's unfair, basically permitted (encouraged?) cheating by management, and it ruins the game for me. If CC did not allow this, kept the game purely strategic instead of allowing collusion, I would happily renew. With this element involved, it's just not a game I'm any longer interested in playing.

Diplomacy is strategy. Even without chat, gunboat diplomacy is still strategy.

find the right people to play then there is no issue

General Quigley wrote:My CC membership lapses this month and I have decided not to renew because ...

Have you turned off the automatic subscription renewal?

Diplomacy is part of the game. However, it also depends on who you play games with. I noticed once I rose to Major that single player games with 3 or more randoms usually ended up in the highest ranking players being taken out first. Not everyone would do this, but it felt awful when it happened. There was no secret diplomacy, just a silent understanding between people who constantly did this. I personally don't really like the diplomacy aspect of the game myself, so I don't play games that allow it. I just don't have a sly personality, so I just can't get with it and kinda felt bad about agreeing to a truce against someone else, so rarely did it. Lots of backstabbing, whining, cursing out and nonsense goes on there.

Have you considered 2-player polymorphic? It allows you to play team games as single player. If you only play against one person, there is no room for diplomacy.

Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

swimmerdude99 wrote:Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

Yes, playing escalating also solves the diplomacy part. No diplomacy necessary to win.

Shannon Apple wrote:Diplomacy is part of the game. However, it also depends on who you play games with. I noticed once I rose to Major that single player games with 3 or more randoms usually ended up in the highest ranking players being taken out first. Not everyone would do this, but it felt awful when it happened. There was no secret diplomacy, just a silent understanding between people who constantly did this. I personally don't really like the diplomacy aspect of the game myself, so I don't play games that allow it. I just don't have a sly personality, so I just can't get with it and kinda felt bad about agreeing to a truce against someone else, so rarely did it. Lots of backstabbing, whining, cursing out and nonsense goes on there.

While this is true, it's often easy enough to direct the hivemind of other players to attack someone else if they're strong. People dont necessarily 'target' the top players (except in terminator), it's just that there's slightly more focus on you combined with the perceived randomness of the moves made. People play really fucking dumb and it's unpredictable, so by using chat you are able to influence their behaviour.

large-scale ffa no spoils needs some early luck and a lot of psychology/diplomacy to go even, it's easier when you play it freestyle.

swimmerdude99 wrote:Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

I don't like those game types. Idiots can be and are taught how to play those with success because the strategy is so simple. As for people playing Risk and talking to form teams at the table, maybe in YOUR trailer....

i normally like playing games with more than a couple of players
so for me i find it really boring if no one talks in the chat, and theres always one or two ppl that just plod along ignoring chat, its like that guy at the party that just stares at his phone
i quite enjoy cutting deals and playing sides, nothing like a little bit of drama to get really invested in the game, otherwise win or lose it feels a bit soulless
just my 2 cents

General Quigley wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

I don't like those game types. Idiots can be and are taught how to play those with success because the strategy is so simple. As for people playing Risk and talking to form teams at the table, maybe in YOUR trailer....

There's no need to be rude and abusive. Folk are trying to help with positive suggestions.

General Quigley wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

I don't like those game types. Idiots can be and are taught how to play those with success because the strategy is so simple. As for people playing Risk and talking to form teams at the table, maybe in YOUR trailer....

Wow... I know with everything going on in the world right now, tempers might be a little higher due to being fed up, but there really was no need to attack someone in such a way. That was downright mean.

If you think team or polymorphic games require no skill, you clearly haven't played enough of them. Your venting of your frustrations isn't going to suddenly stop people from doing legal diplomacy in games. It's been this way for as long as I remember.

Geez, the first game I ever played here was against 3 other people I knew from a forum. We were having a laugh, but when I was winning, they were like "Smite Shannon, she's gonna kick us off her island." I ultimately lost. It was fun because we were all friends having a laugh. Against strangers, it's different because it's all in text. Tensions run high and people get mad at each other. Some people love that kinda drama, I personally don't. . Okay, you're leaving and all, but surely you would have learned to counter that kind of thing with your own diplomacy by now, if those are the only settings that you play.

I don't know which forum you guys are read, but suggesting someone is living in a trailer is pretty bland and banal for what's said here haha. For all we know Swimmer might be laughing his ass off at this comment. Maybe Quigley lives in a trailer and is just prone to assuming most others do too?

Q, why don't you join a clan and play some team games? There is very good player quality, and no chance of bad players teaming up against good players. Most Clans probably have room for a freemium player to add to a few games, it might change your view of the site. I almost left around 2015/16 but decided someone asked me to join their clan and it totally upped my enjoyment levels of CC

-------------Don't worry ,you will always get a Happy Birthday...Here or not...You should stay...don't let'em run you off your land... ...You're a Great Player...and MAY THE 4th BE WITH YOU... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Your reply has made me aware why you don't like the diplomatic aspect of the game

mookiemcgee wrote:I don't know which forum you guys are read, but suggesting someone is living in a trailer is pretty bland and banal for what's said here haha. For all we know Swimmer might be laughing his ass off at this comment. Maybe Quigley lives in a trailer and is just prone to assuming most others do too?

Maybe Keefie does not want to upset those here that don't live in something fancy like a trailer.

General Quigley wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Looking at your game history, you play game types in which this is the BASE needed thing to do. Remember playing risk at the table? Do you remember how people talked to each other? You are playing game types that don't lend to just sitting and watching people win. The point is to work your political and gameplay. Try games like escalating, poly, or team games if you don't want people teaming up or working together. What you ask for is counter to the game of risk unless you play those gametypes.

I don't like those game types. Idiots can be and are taught how to play those with success because the strategy is so simple. As for people playing Risk and talking to form teams at the table, maybe in YOUR trailer....

I didn't play tabletop Risk very much in my life, but the few games I played were definitely diplomacy-heavy. Once I discovered the computerized version, I quickly switched to that. It made it a lot easier to not have to pick up all the blocks after someone threw the board across the room.

Every serious article on Risk that I've read (and I've read quite a few) talks about the importance of diplomacy. It's definitely a big part of the game, for standard formats like Flat Rate where armies build slowly.

If you don't like diplomacy, there are plenty of good suggestions in this thread already:

• Switch to playing escalating
• Switch to playing polymorphic or team games
• Make a list of friends who agree not to use diplomacy (Talk the the XI Games people, for instance.)

You know what they say about doing the same things and expecting different results. As long as you play long multiplayer games with Flat Rate or Nuclear, you will find that they tend to result in slow-moving games with personalities.

I'm leaving soon too. The dice are just too mercurial. Up down, up down, up down, up down.

There is a group of players that forbid diplomacy in their game. Like Duk said, the Xi Games.
Join this usergroup and you'll be playing silent game.

This user group:
memberlist.php?mode=group&g=11195

berlin1945 wrote:I'm leaving soon too. The dice are just too mercurial. Up down, up down, up down, up down.

Me too. Shitty dice. I will play at other dice maps sites where the dice are more stable. But I think it will take me a few weeks yet to wind down my games.

Donelladan wrote:There is a group of players that forbid diplomacy in their game. Like Duk said, the Xi Games.
Join this usergroup and you'll be playing silent game.

This user group:
memberlist.php?mode=group&g=11195

Or just play at a site like Major Command where they have a diplomacy feature built right into the software!

YukFoo wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:I'm leaving soon too. The dice are just too mercurial. Up down, up down, up down, up down.

Me too. Shitty dice. I will play at other dice maps sites where the dice are more stable. But I think it will take me a few weeks yet to wind down my games.

I've played at a number of different sites, I have yet to find one with "stable" dice. Some sites might be a bit better than CC for dice but none are even close to good enough to make up the difference in community activity.

Caymanmew wrote:

YukFoo wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:I'm leaving soon too. The dice are just too mercurial. Up down, up down, up down, up down.

Me too. Shitty dice. I will play at other dice maps sites where the dice are more stable. But I think it will take me a few weeks yet to wind down my games.

I've played at a number of different sites, I have yet to find one with "stable" dice. Some sites might be a bit better than CC for dice but none are even close to good enough to make up the difference in community activity.

I always find the dice complaint so interesting. Like sure cc has some crazy dice but I think it is people just not realizing how assault probability works. The few key complaints I see all to often are.

1) My 6 vs 2 attack failed (or something similar) - Like sure a 6 vs 2 is expected to win most of the time but even then it is only a ~90% success rate. Not to pick on YukFoo but when you are playing 50+ games like he is you are just going to see the 10% often enough to notice. That doesn't mean the dice are bad per say...just that when playing a larger number of games the non probable outcome is going to happen more often because there is a larger sample size.

2) Your 160 beat my 175 so you got lucky - I probably get this one more often because of playing city mogul where troop counts get large but its really a troubling complaint as that attack is actually a 2/3 favorite to win. Now to the point above that doesn't make it a sure thing but I personally think the expected outcome happening is not necessarily luck.

3) 3 vs 2 attacks should win - In playing hive it is surprising how often people think attacking with 3 troops (2 attacking dice) vs 2 troops will work for them. For example multiple times people have attacked with a 3,3,3 vs 2 and acted like they should have never once lost that attack when it is only going to be successful 84% of the time.

Ultimately while it is frustrating to have the 10%/20% etc. happen part of playing a game like Risk is that there is a little bit of luck in the game. Now I am sure you can go find games of mine where I have complained about the dice or cards in the game chat so don't misunderstand this to say people can't be free to complain about the dice. Its more to say that just because bad dice happen and you get unlucky it doesn't necessarily mean that CC has bad dice as that is part of the nature of rolling dice.