Gillipig wrote:In Sweden we have a government owned company that has monopoly on gambling in Sweden. It's called "Svenskaspel"
Yeah we have pretty much the same thing in Finland, only with a less stupid sounding name.
Moderator: Community Team
Gillipig wrote:In Sweden we have a government owned company that has monopoly on gambling in Sweden. It's called "Svenskaspel"
natty_dread wrote:Gillipig wrote:In Sweden we have a government owned company that has monopoly on gambling in Sweden. It's called "Svenskaspel"
Yeah we have pretty much the same thing in Finland, only with a less stupid sounding name.
jammyjames wrote:Nice - 1st game.. Second eliminated.. Thanks MR Private!!
comic boy wrote:jammyjames wrote:Nice - 1st game.. Second eliminated.. Thanks MR Private!!
Did you really expect anything else, this tournament was always going to be a total lottery because the majority taking part dont know basic escalating strategy.
comic boy wrote:jammyjames wrote:Nice - 1st game.. Second eliminated.. Thanks MR Private!!
Did you really expect anything else, this tournament was always going to be a total lottery because the majority taking part dont know basic escalating strategy.
lostatlimbo wrote:Sorry to interrupt your bickering, but I have a complaint about the actual tournament... Conquer Club put two long-time teammates (possibly even multis) in the same game of the first round.
I understand this stuff is hard to track and I've never made a complaint before, but when you ask players to spend $5 on entry, you need to make the extra effort to prevent this. It is highly unfair to myself and the other two players to have to face two players (or one, perhaps) who play almost all their games together.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=157035
Rodion wrote:It's funny that you mentioned how you wasted 5 dollars when simply having a set to cash with your 4 cards can be enough to have a reasonable chance of winning the game.
lostatlimbo wrote:Rodion wrote:It's funny that you mentioned how you wasted 5 dollars when simply having a set to cash with your 4 cards can be enough to have a reasonable chance of winning the game.
And of course, I totally choked on it. Awesome. I wasted 5 dollars by being me.
Rodion wrote:By the way, am I right in assuming round 2 games start as soon as there are 5 round 1 winners? That could allow for people to control who they play against in the latter rounds by deciding when they should kill the last remaining player.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Just a thought for future editions of this tourney, would it not be better to make each of the games a more level playing field by pooling players of equal/similar rank in each of the games? It means there would be less disparity in both terms of ability and points won/lost, plus less likelihood of a noob ruining a game for a seasoned esc player. Whichever player from the lesser ranks makes it through the first few rounds is obviously worth his salt and is worthy of playing with the higher ranks (so this pooling of players need only apply to the first two rounds, say).
Chariot of Fire wrote:Just a thought for future editions of this tourney, would it not be better to make each of the games a more level playing field by pooling players of equal/similar rank in each of the games? It means there would be less disparity in both terms of ability and points won/lost, plus less likelihood of a noob ruining a game for a seasoned esc player. Whichever player from the lesser ranks makes it through the first few rounds is obviously worth his salt and is worthy of playing with the higher ranks (so this pooling of players need only apply to the first two rounds, say).
Another (indirect) benefit of adopting this system is it prevents the possibility of abusing the system through the creation of multis in the hope one of them gets entered in the same game as the established player. For a mere $5 per entry I'm sure it may have entered someone's mind to nip round the corner to every establishment with internet and greatly enhance his (established account's) odds of winning the grand prize.
As a reformed criminal I tend to spot these things immedately ;-)
Tviorr wrote:Well assuming that you are really clever and know all about escalating strategy, then entering pretty much any contest where the majority of the other contestants are so obviously morons, would actually up your chances of winning, making it less of a lottery.
I mean, assuming people pay too much attention to map bonuses, a defensive setup strategy should be even more efficient in setting you up to make a bid at exactly the right time. Again, assuming that you are really clever.comic boy wrote:jammyjames wrote:Nice - 1st game.. Second eliminated.. Thanks MR Private!!
Did you really expect anything else, this tournament was always going to be a total lottery because the majority taking part dont know basic escalating strategy.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Just a thought for future editions of this tourney, would it not be better to make each of the games a more level playing field by pooling players of equal/similar rank in each of the games? It means there would be less disparity in both terms of ability and points won/lost, plus less likelihood of a noob ruining a game for a seasoned esc player. Whichever player from the lesser ranks makes it through the first few rounds is obviously worth his salt and is worthy of playing with the higher ranks (so this pooling of players need only apply to the first two rounds, say).
Another (indirect) benefit of adopting this system is it prevents the possibility of abusing the system through the creation of multis in the hope one of them gets entered in the same game as the established player. For a mere $5 per entry I'm sure it may have entered someone's mind to nip round the corner to every establishment with internet and greatly enhance his (established account's) odds of winning the grand prize.
As a reformed criminal I tend to spot these things immedately
denominator wrote:Being able to recognize how your opponents are playing leads to far greater chances of success than simply playing the basic escalating strategy and hoping everyone else does. Everyone has a right to play the game however they see fit, so complaining that you lost because another player didn't play "properly" is pathetic.
drunkmonkey wrote:denominator wrote:Being able to recognize how your opponents are playing leads to far greater chances of success than simply playing the basic escalating strategy and hoping everyone else does. Everyone has a right to play the game however they see fit, so complaining that you lost because another player didn't play "properly" is pathetic.
Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.
-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).
Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.
drunkmonkey wrote:Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.
-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).
Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.
Return to Announcement Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users