Conquer Club

yeti_c wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:well i personally think without dice you might as well go and play cluedo.

Er Cluedo has Dice in?!

C.

no i was making the point that risk without dice is like a fry up without bacon and may as well go and play a different game.

I was making the point the Cluedo actually has Dice in it...

Thus your analogy was flawed...

C.

IT DOES!?!?! o my god i was so very wrong. i havent ever played cluedo, i thought u just had to guess who did the murder!?! where do dice come into that?!?!

dice determine movement, the amount of steps you can make (must make) when ending in a particular room you can make statements (questions) about them. e.g. was the doctor murdered in the gameroom with a WII console?

Risktaker17 wrote:

jakejake wrote:i dislike the idea, it ruins the game

But some people want a style that ruins the game

I feel Escalating Cards ruins the game, so I don't choose to play those games. But I am not denying everyone else the option of choosing that style of a game.

[EDIT] Besides then when anyone complains about the dice, you could say go play the no dice games.

peanut72 said

Besides then when anyone complains about the dice, you could say go play the no dice games.

Succinctly put peanut.

I like it. I'm up for anything that lowers the luck factor. Though only as options, because more options = better

I think that we shouldnot have non dice games where armies eliminate each other

173 votes, 15 pages and a clear majority for no dice games option... why isn't this being developed yet?

Just to respond to your question.

173 votes out of 200,000 in CC is hardly a representative group. As for the "clear majority" ... you have already dismissed any objections, so why would folks keep posting them.

PLAYER57832 wrote

173 votes out of 200,000 in CC is hardly a representative group. As for the "clear majority" ... you have already dismissed any objections, so why would folks keep posting them.

I think you mean 20,000 not 200,000.

The important figure is the 2,400 odd viewings. If people were dead set against this, then there would have been many more votes against. Those who have voted are saying, in the majority, they want it, as is normal, most do not bother.

We have not dismissed the objections, I resent that remark. We have just said, let's wait until we see if this goes any further. Or would you have us spend enormous amounts of time getting into long protracted arguments and discussions for something that may never happen, surely you would have seen the craziness of that being in the Special project Groups.

Edit: Have just reviewed the figures I had researched on styles of games played. many, on average, have less than 50 running at any one time (out of 5,000), and many of those playing seem to specialise in them, in other words, there are only around 1% of games in action (and sometimes even less) on these games, so I would argue that your point on numbers is spurious on two counts. 1) The games attract less than have even bothered to vote here, 2) The players of these games have a marked skew to specialisation. Notwithstanding this, those in favour of no dice games have always championed that this is about choice, those against seem to want the opposite, in which case why not have a campaign to knock out all those games with so few players? (rhetorical question)

Fruitcake wrote:Edit: Have just reviewed the figures I had researched on styles of games played. many, on average, have less than 50 running at any one time (out of 5,000), and many of those playing seem to specialise in them, in other words, there are only around 1% of games in action (and sometimes even less) on these games, so I would argue that your point on numbers is spurious on two counts. 1) The games attract less than have even bothered to vote here, 2) The players of these games have a marked skew to specialisation. Notwithstanding this, those in favour of no dice games have always championed that this is about choice, those against seem to want the opposite, in which case why not have a campaign to knock out all those games with so few players? (rhetorical question)

You lost me.

I wish this forum had a dizzy smiley.

oooooooo yeah that would definetly be funner

Apologies insomniacdude, sometimes one writes in a concious stream of thought rather than plans it so it is easily readable.

I had some research done on the number of games played, what styles, who played them etc etc. The reasons why are immaterial, however, the results were fascinating.

Many games are actually played by a very few number of the membership. Some have less than 1% of the total games being played at any one time, with less than 0.25% of the membership actually bothering to play them more than once. That is to say, less than 50 games being played at any one time with less than 60 people regularly playing them. These games are ignored by a massive majority, most of whom (in one case 98.6% of the membership) never even play them. This shows that many games are only played by very few who specialise in those games and those games alone (some of which have rules I have never seen on any risk board, online or anywhere else.)

So to use the figure of 173 as an argument against something is, in my opinion, spurious. The figures above show, that some games are not played, and have never been played by even the number that has voted to have this option (103), let alone bothered to respond by voting altogether. To argue that points from no dice games should not be added when the above paragraph shows that many only really garner points when they specialise to the extent of playing little else is also spurious.

Lastly, we, who have championed No dice games, have always felt this is about choice and about the consumer. We believe strongly that those who have an entrenched position against it are, in fact, denying the choice to the consumer. They may argue to the contrary, but to deny us choice when others are allowed is unjust and incorrect. One wonders what else they would deny the consumer given the chance.

Fruitcake wrote:Apologies insomniacdude, sometimes one writes in a concious stream of thought rather than plans it so it is easily readable.

No worries. I do it more often than not. I'm always conscious of my clarity over the internet...often times, not conscious enough. The new post makes sense.

Lastly, we, who have championed No dice games, have always felt this is about choice and about the consumer. We believe strongly that those who have an entrenched position against it are, in fact, denying the choice to the consumer. They may argue to the contrary, but to deny us choice when others are allowed is unjust and incorrect. One wonders what else they would deny the consumer given the chance.

That's not really true. It's been said several times that we're fine with you playing it, just outside of the direct confines of the CC system. I think it's different enough that it shouldn't be considered in the rankings and that Lack shouldn't have to worry about something that doesn't contribute to the heart of the site.

But we've done this do-si-do before, so I'll say nothing more beyond that

Fruitcake, in best defender of the faith mode, wrote:One wonders what else they would deny the consumer given the chance.

Of course Marcus Tullius!!

Defending rights is something you would know all about

Any official word on this suggestion? To-do, pending, or rejected?

Any news on this from the powers that be?

You have my support, fruitcake. A dice-free strategy game sounds much more fun, who cares if it won't be Risk anyways?

this is just a curiosity fruit..what would happen on a 1 vs 1 on maps like pearl harbor, world 2.1, conquerman, and those other ones with (what is it...100+territs?) lots of territs... with the whole 'must have 2 more men' how many territs would a person be able to take with the beginning deployment (on those maps)? would it be enough to assure that the player who goes second can not strategically win? if indeed they can...perhaps use example with large deployment to show how they would fight back after losing 2-3 territs and the army that comes with it... thnx for your time

this has had a lot of life yet it seems to have fallen through the cracks what is the status on this suggestion?

I have nothing against the idea but the way I feel is it all becomes who come first and who gets the best drop will win. And once someone gains a continent they are practically unbeatable.

Concise description:
[*]Have an option to turn off dice and be able to attack with the outcome: kill a man, lose a man every time.


Specifics:
[*]I know that the dice ARE random, but because of that they favor you at points and kill you at others. I am proposing that there be an option to make the loss and gain equal for situations such as: you have 9 men, desperately need to take a territory with 3 men to win the game... outcome with dice: attacking territory = 1, defending territory = 2.

In a situation like this, the person attacking would always rather play it safe and lose men. I think that there should be a button that says: attack without dice, and auto attack without dice

However, when you do need to either be lucky, or die anyways, you can turn the dice on and see how things turn out


This will improve the following aspects of the site:
[*]Games will be based more on strategy than luck
[*]There will be less complaints about dice

Been suggested before. I'd have no problem with this if it was optional, but keep in mind that in a 1-1 world, there could be no such thing as a 1v1 game because the whole game would be decided by the drop, and whoever goes first would have an extreme advantage (imagine a 1v1 doodle... the person with first move just wipes the map cause' they always have more armies.)

Keep in mind that that is why I suggested the ability to switch the option on and off.

In other maps than doodle, like Age of realms, where it pays off to take the advantage at the beginning, this could be extreemly useful to getting off on a balanced start. The person using dice on an Age of realms map has the chance to become far stronger, yet can also be crushed in the first few turns by bad roles.

As to your comment on the doodle map, here is what happens with dice

I played a doodle earth map where I started out with the entire america continent and surrounded on all but one side with neutrals and went first! I lost in 4 rounds because of dice. The other person in the game did not start out with any continent, and did not even bother taking one during the game because he saw that he could go in and take out my men with less than triple the armies.