Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: 1. Dice - 3 attacking vs. 2 defending - Anyone who's ever played RISK would notice this first about this site
2. Classic map - Same bonuses and territs - So they changed the graphics a little bit? Just because I put a frog hat on a kitty doesn't make it not a kitty.*
3. Spoils - Flat rate, escalating and no spoils - They are THE SAME EXACT THING from the game. So they added nuclear spoils. Whoopdee-doo. That doesn't change much.

On classic, I agree. However, not on the rest.

Really? I'm sorry, but the first thing I thought of when I learned about the dice and spoils on here was RISK.

The 3v2 dice battle is as much a part of RISK as the classic map. Same as the spoils, as my family has played it all three ways (no spoils, flat rate and escalating).

They're so close to RISK that they're pretty much INSIDE of it.

Try a game called Lux Delux. Most turn times are around 30 seconds...

Army of GOD wrote:Yea...

Conquer Club = RISK

The "classic map", 3 attacking DICE vs. 2 defending, "spoils", all three types of reinforcements, etc...

Just because there's fog of war, freestyle, nuclear spoils and different maps doesn't change that this site is literally a carbon-copy of RISK.

Not that I think it's a bad thing, it's just, you have to admit this is pretty much risk with "internet-friendly" options and more maps.

I like how you say "literally a carbon-copy". It shows you have no idea what "literally" means.

Army of GOD wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: 1. Dice - 3 attacking vs. 2 defending - Anyone who's ever played RISK would notice this first about this site
2. Classic map - Same bonuses and territs - So they changed the graphics a little bit? Just because I put a frog hat on a kitty doesn't make it not a kitty.*
3. Spoils - Flat rate, escalating and no spoils - They are THE SAME EXACT THING from the game. So they added nuclear spoils. Whoopdee-doo. That doesn't change much.

On classic, I agree. However, not on the rest.

Really? I'm sorry, but the first thing I thought of when I learned about the dice and spoils on here was RISK.

The 3v2 dice battle is as much a part of RISK as the classic map. Same as the spoils, as my family has played it all three ways (no spoils, flat rate and escalating).

They're so close to RISK that they're pretty much INSIDE of it.

In the original Risk, the only cards option was escalating. People, I am sure, began to play other ways, but they were not part of the original game. Also, Risk has always had wild cards. CC never has.

You take corn flakes, substitute wheat and .. voila, you have wheaties. Add a few vitamins, a couple other grains and voila you have Total. Same here. Sure, the dice are the same, the idea of trading for bonuses is the same, and the idea of conquering various territories for bonuses is the same. Everything else, differs. And differs a LOT. Like I said, Age of Merchants used resource pairs and not territories, was made almost from the start. Actium, too introduced a unique concept. It was among the first, if not actually the first to use bombardment. Fog was, I believe, also a part of the maps from the beginnning or near beginning. Fuedal introduced the concept of starting at one point and the conquering territories. Now we have a whole range of maps. Sure, a lot are territory maps on the lines of Risk, though with very different graphics, structures and therefore game play. More and more maps just have little bearing on Risk, other than the dice and cards/spoils combinations. If you don't think so, then I would suggest you try playing a few more maps.

Further, as I said, a big part of this site is the development, not to mention conversation. None of those exist on Risk, the board game. They also don't exist in other on-line game sites that truly are Risk. (not sure if there are any that exist any more now, but there were at one time).

This is one of those cases where different people will always have different views. but as was said above, CC keeps moving further and further away.

Trephining wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Yea...

Conquer Club = RISK

The "classic map", 3 attacking DICE vs. 2 defending, "spoils", all three types of reinforcements, etc...

Just because there's fog of war, freestyle, nuclear spoils and different maps doesn't change that this site is literally a carbon-copy of RISK.

Not that I think it's a bad thing, it's just, you have to admit this is pretty much risk with "internet-friendly" options and more maps.

I like how you say "literally a carbon-copy". It shows you have no idea what "literally" means.

Your write. Eye has know eye-dea.

King Doctor wrote:I'm still not comfortable with the fact that the core of the 'Conquer Club' rules system is ported directly from the game Risk. Sure there's lots of pretty extra maps to use those rules on and a few extra features (like freestyle) that computers have enabled. But, at the very centre of all that has been extrapolated from, there's Risk.

Now I know that CC never paid for the license to use that piece of intellectual property, upon which all of its added IP rests, I feel somewhat concerned about the legality of this site.

This defense of intellectual property sounds an awful lot like a defense of Capitalism.

Should we just assume that while you are fearful of the legality of this this, you really don't think Hasbro should be able to 'own' this property? I mean long-term ownership of the "concept" of the game Risk must be against your core socialist beliefs. No?

King Doctor wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Not that I think it's a bad thing, it's just, you have to admit this is pretty much risk with "internet-friendly" options and more maps.

I do not see how anybody could reasonably disagree with this. It just seems so obvious.

Agreed as well.

jimboston wrote:long-term ownership of the "concept" of the game Risk must be against your core socialist beliefs. No?

You have no idea what you are talking about, as all well-read students of intellectual property regimes know Karl Marx (genius that he was) has already covered this topic very thoroughly.

Monopoly, Oligopoly and Quasi-Cartell ownership of intellectual property is clearly anathema to collectivist social models, though it is required that some recognition of production from effort must be present in a communitarianist state. Ergo, while intellectual property as we know it is clearly immoral and unsustainable, CC's appropriation of it from Hasbro for no reward is equally deplorable.

I hardly see how such a stance can be controversial, unless one of the participants in the conversation is a disciple to the one we know as Mammon.

King Doctor wrote:

jimboston wrote:long-term ownership of the "concept" of the game Risk must be against your core socialist beliefs. No?

You have no idea what you are talking about, as all well-read students of intellectual property regimes know Karl Marx (genius that he was) has already covered this topic very thoroughly.

Monopoly, Oligopoly and Quasi-Cartell ownership of intellectual property is clearly anathema to collectivist social models, though it is required that some recognition of production from effort must be present in a communitarianist state. Ergo, while intellectual property as we know it is clearly immoral and unsustainable, CC's appropriation of it from Hasbro for no reward is equally deplorable.

I hardly see how such a stance can be controversial, unless one of the participants in the conversation is a disciple to the one we know as Mammon.

I wasn't talking about Marx.

I was talking about your stated beliefs.

In previous threads you have talked about how you don't believe in the ownership of property. I believe you were refering to more than just land... but all types of property.

Additionally, you have talked about here "some recognition of production"... and about how you should only earn enough to cover your needs... with the rest going back to the community. Surely by now Hasbro has been well-compensated for the value-add that this intellectual property would demand. No?

Obviously we aren't talking about copyright ownership as it exists today... but rather how you would have it.

King Doctor wrote:I'm still not comfortable with the fact that the core of the 'Conquer Club' rules system is ported directly from the game Risk. Sure there's lots of pretty extra maps to use those rules on and a few extra features (like freestyle) that computers have enabled. But, at the very centre of all that has been extrapolated from, there's Risk.

Now I know that CC never paid for the license to use that piece of intellectual property, upon which all of its added IP rests, I feel somewhat concerned about the legality of this site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King Doctor wrote:But, at the very centre of all that has been extrapolated from, there's Risk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King Doctor wrote:centre

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hey there folks, just popping in to clear all this up for you. seems like you've wasted a lot of effort so far going around in circles, when perhaps a dodecahedron would have been a better shape.

you see, it hasn't really got much to do with all the technical jibbery-jabbery about the rolling of the X diceicles vs the Y diceicles and so on, it is all about the leveraging of brand value.

now stick your fingers in a jar of those words and lick 'em clean just so you're sure you get it.

if i create a carrot growth emulator, stick it on the web, and called it "Super Risk - A Game of Strategy and Risk"... people will come and give it a go. because they're looking for Risk... even though it's really a highly flawed game, with a cumbersome rule-set and imbalanced victory conditions.

and if i make my CGE look somewhat like Risk, and perhaps smell a bit like Risk, even if its a CARROT GROWTH EMULATOR.... they may just stay too! and after a while they come and fill up the forum with tripe like this and you're set.

HOLY SHIT

thanks for the few guys who posted first to answer my question...

on one hand im very impressed how active the forum was, my first post got 3 pages of reply....

however, stop bitching about something i didnt ask lol ( not many posts relevant to my questions. ) ^^ thanks anyways for your opinions and advice

much love x

I love you too.

Please stop saying that Age of Merchants was one of the first maps completed. It was the 40th, completed in June 2007.

Ashr wrote:however, stop bitching about something i didnt ask lol

Lmao

the.killing.44 wrote:Please stop saying that Age of Merchants was one of the first maps completed. It was the 40th, completed in June 2007.

I believe you are mistaken on both points. I did see that the first game showing up was in June, but the thread talks about earlier games.

jimboston wrote:I wasn't talking about Marx.

I was talking about your stated beliefs.

Well then you were talking about Marx.

jimboston wrote:In previous threads you have talked about how you don't believe in the ownership of property. I believe you were refering to more than just land... but all types of property.

... and nobody here would ever seek to deny you your right to a personal opinion.

jimboston wrote:Additionally, you have talked about here "some recognition of production"... and about how you should only earn enough to cover your needs... with the rest going back to the community. Surely by now Hasbro has been well-compensated for the value-add that this intellectual property would demand. No?

Has it? I fail to see that it has been compensated at all, per the standards of a socio-communal intellectual 'property' regime or any other workable proprieto-legal scheme that you care to postulate.

jimboston wrote:Obviously we aren't talking about copyright ownership as it exists today... but rather how you would have it.

You're talking about Marx?!

Well then why didn't you just say so at the beggining?

King Doctor wrote:

jimboston wrote:I wasn't talking about Marx.

You're talking about Marx?!

Well then why didn't you just say so at the beggining?

... and this is why you are a troll.

If I were to start arguing a more socialist view, you would still disagree.

You're comedy may be funny to yourself... Good for you.

Again, I submit for you a picture of the Doctor with his best friend...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Please stop saying that Age of Merchants was one of the first maps completed. It was the 40th, completed in June 2007.

I believe you are mistaken on both points. I did see that the first game showing up was in June, but the thread talks about earlier games.

Heh?

P.S. jim, you and metsfanmax need to stop posting unfunny demotivational posters when you get fed up of someone.

the.killing.44 wrote:P.S. jim, you and metsfanmax need to stop posting unfunny demotivational posters when you get fed up of someone.

No no, leave him his self-defence mechanism.


If he cannot find the skill to muster words to defend himself, then at least permit him cribbed pictures to cower behind.

jimboston wrote:

King Doctor wrote:

jimboston wrote:I wasn't talking about Marx.

You're talking about Marx?!

Well then why didn't you just say so at the beggining?

... and this is why you are a troll.

Are you trying to say that you talking about Marx somehow makes me the troll?


Because if you are, then I'm pretty sure that you're just repeating Kant and Derida.

Just to enter the debate and put in my two cents.

I understand that this site is moving further away from Risk in it's nature with more and more games being designed that could never be achievable by Risk or Hasbro.

My point is that I used to play an open source game called Triple-A this was originally started in reponse to Axis and Allies but then moved away from that desinging other games that had similar engines. Hasbro took them to court, won and shut them down. Now I am not saying that Hasbro will do this here but the basis of their argument against Tripla-A was that the foundation of their engine was based on a Hasbro product.

So in short you can never trust the monet hungry gobblers to leave those of us who have something interesting alone.

Thanks

Scyther