How about a Website Callout?

[Blue Dragon]

First, let me introduce myself. Blue Dragon here, programmer behind wawgame.com. Pretty much the same idea as Conquer Club actually. Anyway, I've been poking around and this place looks great! My kudos to lackattack in all ways.

I've fought (and am still fighting) the exact same battles (dice aren't random enough, multis, etc, etc). Anyway, I'd like to propose a challenge. The best of wawgame.com against the best that conquerclub.com can muster! How about it? A little cross-pollenation cant hurt and one thing I KNOW is that lackattack and I aren't making any money off these things.

Whatddaya think? BTW, it definitely WONT be me. I just got awarded Worst Player of All Time in our annual ego boost awards. 8P

[mjs94]

I came over to check this site out. I think we could have a good cross website tourney.

For those of you who might read this and care - you can find me now on both sites as mjs94

[VicVegas]

I've been playing World at War for about four years now and am hopelessly addicted. I think BD's (as we affectionately call Blue Dragon) idea is fantastic! I don't think I'd qualify to be on the Best of World at War team (though, I did get a few votes for best player in our 4th annual ego boost awards), I'd sure love to see it happen.

C'mon Conquer Clubbers!

vV

[terrafutan]

Nice idea

Check out the scoreboard to see who would make it into your 'best players' list.

I'm down on page 7 or 8 of 8 so I definately don't qualify

[Haydena]

I had a look at it, I must say, I'm not that impressed with the maps compared to the ones here at conquer club, but... dude i'm loving all those different settings for the games! Especially Cutthroat, Paranoia and open Paranoia. I love the idea of gaining points for eliminating certain players, and the Paranoia mode looks excellent. Having a target to destroy

And I think the Conquer Clubbers would own your guys any day

[SunTsu]

I, too, am a WaW-player, and I am also not one of the best players over there. I am looking forward, however, to playing games on this website as well....

[Condor]

Coming from W@W, and having only seen the classic map here, I have to say the map is too hard to view. It might make a nice picture, but as a game board it lacks readibility.

[AndyDufresne]

Hence the two versions for maps, small and large. Interesting idea, could be played at both sites, so one site would not get a clear advantage. Perhaps it could be a monthly, semi annually, or annually event.

--Andy

[VicVegas]

I'm using large and still have some difficulty... but I suppose after I grow acquainted with the maps, I will have an easier time reading them.

Good idea about having the tourney on both sites. We should do singles and team matches.

One thing Blue Dragon has done very well with World at War is implement a TON of different game options. Fog of war is one of my favorites. Cards of Mass Destruction (the territories played have their armies reduced to 1) and airlift (you can fortify regardless of borders) are fantastic as well. Also note that if you hover your mouse over an army number, it will show you which player owns the armies. If you hover over the player's name to the right, it will show you how many cards they have and their ranking. If you hover on their rank, it will show you an encoded number that represents their IP, which is a fantastic, anonymous tool for sniffing out multis. <-- all this just scratches the surface.

Let's do this!

vV

[VicVegas]

AND... to show how cool Blue Dragon is, HE is the one that introduced the World at War community to this site.

vV

[lackattack]

Hi Blue Dragon!

I'm also a big fan WaW, and I've played quite a few matches on your site as lacktose (at one point I had the blue flower ).

I hereby accept your challenge.

Conkies, we'll have to put together an all-star team that we can cheer on. No convicted mutis allowed, nor players with dual citizenship on both sites (can we really trust them ???? )

As for the structure, I'll start off the discussion by proposing a round-robin of triples games to give it a "team" feeling (say 3 triples from each site).

Also, I'd like to welcome you World At War players who've come to check out CC.

[Marvaddin]

Well, lack, some players will need double citizenship... or will we play at a site designed for the duel?

If you need me for that game, Im here!!

[lackattack]

Of course you're right Marv. I meant players like bondra, rabin and Hazmaniac who've been playing both CC and WaW for a long time. I don't want to make them choose sides.

[Patroclus]

Lack: Will you be checking IP's to make sure that no one representing CC has multiple accounts?

You might narrow your search for honest, honorable players by checking out xi members.

So many here have been caught at being multi's and there are more I am sure (I have some that I am checking on, even without your capacity to check IP).

Interesting challange. Looks like fun!

[qeee1]

I'm up for it... I'm only ranked 37 or something... and on the way down again, but if no one else is doing it...

Also everyone should be given an equal chance whether they're in Xigames or Elite Core or whatever, players shouldn't be given preferential treatment for joining an independant organistation.

[VicVegas]

BRING IT ON!

FEEL THE PAIN!

etc. etc.

vV

[Blue Dragon]

My team3 (triples) option is kinda funky. Havent played yours here but on mine the first 3 players of team 1 play first, then the 3 players of team 2 play. That is inherently unfair to team 2 I know. I bet lackattack has his staggered as it should be. If so, this whole tourney really should be played here - IF we are playing it in a team-mode sort of game.

However if instead we just play normal single mode, then I would propose 6 players from each site in a simple elimination tourney. 3 from each site play in 2 games and the top 3 from those games go on to the final. The site representing the winner of that game gets the bragging rights.

I kinda like the latter but really only because my team option is so screwy.

I just want to keep it very very simple at least at first. On my site I'm taking volunteers for a week and then I'll choose the top 6 of those volunteers. But I like the idea of 6 players from each site - nice manageable number and a single elimination is also nice and simple.

[lackattack]

Yeah, we have the same issue here with sequential team games - staggered play order is somewhere on my to-do list

I'm good with 6 vs 6 single elimination

Anyone who wants to be on Team Conquer Club, post something here or send me a pm. I'll simply choose the 6 highest ranked volunteers.

[dagreatbroomhead]

i am in if i have the rank for it

[qeee1]

As mentioned previously I'm in if I have the rank. Might have to play a few more soon to get it up, unfortunately going away tomorrow.

[SMITH197]

i dont think i have the rank but I'm game if you so desire

[VicVegas]

I don't see a problem with doing both team and single tourneys.

vV

[Marvaddin]

I want to play, too...
Have you decided the rules / map already? In fact, the tourney will decide only the best players to that map...

[AndyDufresne]

I'll simply be a cheerleader, but I'm looking forward to watching the games or at least getting a play by play!

--Andy

[mjs94]

should we make the games on the "classic Risk style" map? I still believe it is the most balanced and at the least it is what the most players are familiar with. It shouldn't give either website team an advantage as that map is present (more or less) on both sites.

For what it's worth, I don't believe single elimination is a good format either (for team games anyway) - especially when you add in the complication of the 2 websites. Maybe a round robin format where it's one game between each of the teams played on each of the sites.

Just suggestions...