Conquer Club

KLOBBER wrote:A rambling mind considers intelligent posts to ramble due to lack of intelligence to comprehend them. Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.

Sweet, my first time being ignored by an overly pretentious wanker.

Thezzaruz wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:You are right, it will promote defensive strategy, as an ADDITIONAL OPTION. This means that total number of strategy options available on the site will be increased, which can only be a good thing for those with the intelligence to comprehend additional strategy.

It won't add additional strategies to the existing games but rather create separate games with a single dominant (and IMO boring) strategy. I can't see it bringing any added value to the site and hence I don't think that the site managers should spend any time on it.
Obviously you are of a different opinion.

Your personal lack of vision and logic notwithstanding, it will add variety to the strategy available ON THE SITE (as I stated above). Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)

As of now, there is only one option, and so it only accommodates those of your opinion. Additional strategical variety will promote overall popularity of the site, as there are obviously people of differing opinions regarding strategy, and an additional option will accommodate the preferences of MORE people, not fewer.

BTW, I think the option as it stands is fine; nobody is arguing that it's a bad option. I just think that more options in addition to that one cannot hurt, and can only help the overall popularity OF THE SITE (I'm not referring to "existing games" here, but to the overall site). <---- I can scarcely believe that I have to specify that last statement, but inexplicably, it has become necessary to do so.

KLOBBER wrote:Had you the intelligence to comprehend this option correctly, you would understand that additional options would increase popularity of the site by attracting people more open-minded and intelligent than yourself.

In short, you are wrong.

obviously Lack should implement this immediately. then he could advertise this site as an online risk-like game where players don't take risks. that should appeal to intelligent people the world over.

TeeGee wrote:Am I reading this wrong or does the OP want to take the skill out of the game and just leave it up to the dice to decides who wins?

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I am reading this idea

I'm fairly surprised by the number of people that have come out against this idea without presenting any substantial arguments to support their gut, one sentence, "this won't work", "this is dumb", reaction. It's probably a matter of self confidence; if you're taking the time to post an opinion, have the balls to back it up! otherwise keep quiet.

KLOBBER wrote: Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)

Obviously I didn't refer to "existing" as "already started games" but rather as "available types of games", would have thought that you with your vastly superior intelligence would have figured that out quite easily.

and all this clinging to the dice paradigm set out by a copyrighted game with the physical rolling dice in mind (as far as I know; I admit that I don't know the history) is pretty much... dumb; as is all this BS crap about intelligence and IQ, but I digress. If it turns out that equalized, 3 dice vs 3 dice (with the usual transitions to 2 and 1), does stalemate the game (which I don't believe that it will because they are dice; to change an Einstein quote: "God shoots dice"), then it's possible to come up with other possibilities for the dice... Everything in these forum posts boils down to the fact that the dice are the engine of the game, and ADDITIONAL engines can be constructed to increase the diversity of game play; in fact I posted a new suggestion to this forum that makes this idea more general.

May I be so bold as to suggest that, other than practical limitations of implementation and computational resources, there is no argument against these suggestions. Therefore those of you who have come out against this idea outright were plain wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm not calling you stupid.

I'm calling you ignorant and impulsive.

Man I crack myself up!

D

Thezzaruz wrote:

KLOBBER wrote: Obviously, it will not affect "existing games," as the option is not even available yet (what orifice did you pull THAT out of?)

Obviously I didn't refer to "existing" as "already started games" but rather as "available types of games", would have thought that you with your vastly superior intelligence would have figured that out quite easily.

Obviously, if you want people to understand your meaning the first time, you need to learn how to communicate in English. In the context you used it, "existing games" means "already started games."

In the sense that I induced you to finally communicate in correct English, you are also wrong. This is because implementing additional options will NOT DECREASE, but will INCREASE the number of "available types of games" on this site, which is guaranteed to increase the overall popularity of the site by accommodating the preferences of additional groups of players.

This is cut-and-dry, direct logic, lost only on the very dullest of brains.

KLOBBER wrote:This is cut-and-dry, direct logic, lost only on the very dullest of brains.

Does anyone know which high school klobber goes to? Somebody should build them a library.

docdurdee wrote:Everything in these forum posts boils down to the fact that the dice are the engine of the game, and ADDITIONAL engines can be constructed to increase the diversity of game play; in fact I posted a new suggestion to this forum that makes this idea more general.

Word is lack's not big on changing the fundamentals of the game, although I hear he wants to know how 5v3, 7v4 or 7v5 dice would work out (turns out it's just a bigger advantage for the attacker, approaching 1/6 defense wins, and I bet you can figure out why). If you want to play a different game, you can play in a different place. There's no chess here, there's no scrabble here, there's no equalized dice here.

i totally support this idea and on top of that i want to suggest further options like:
1. defender rolls 1 die regardless of number of troops and attacker rolls 10 dice regardless of number of troops. it should promote an aggressive gameplay
2. adopt the D&D style dice that have 20 faces.
3. offer the option to replace dice with a coin.
4. every time a die is rolled the words klobber sucks appear on the screen, of course as an option, the message could also be customized to say klobber sucks or klobber is a moron.

BaldAdonis wrote:

docdurdee wrote:Everything in these forum posts boils down to the fact that the dice are the engine of the game, and ADDITIONAL engines can be constructed to increase the diversity of game play; in fact I posted a new suggestion to this forum that makes this idea more general.

Word is lack's not big on changing the fundamentals of the game, although I hear he wants to know how 5v3, 7v4 or 7v5 dice would work out (turns out it's just a bigger advantage for the attacker, approaching 1/6 defense wins, and I bet you can figure out why). If you want to play a different game, you can play in a different place. There's no chess here, there's no scrabble here, there's no equalized dice here.

I'm beginning to understand the "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely) behind this member's posts: There is to be no absolutely no change whatsoever on this site, ever, for better or worse, from this day forward. If you don't like it, then leave.

I'm happy to say that I'm not that narrow-minded.

KLOBBER wrote:I'm happy to say that I'm not that narrow-minded.

You even took me off ignore to see what I wrote! You're making great strides.

I think "No Dice" is a much better idea than "Equalised Dice"...

C.

yeti_c wrote:I think "No Dice" is a much better idea than "Equalised Dice"...

C.

Agreed. "No Dice" takes any element of luck out of the game and makes it a total game of skill. Where as with equalised dice, it still requires skill, but more like backgammon allows for a greater element of luck