Conquer Club

People who prefer No Spoils say Escalating is more luck based, people who prefer Escalating say No Spoils is more luck based. Who is right? I think it depends on the board and settings you are playing. Large multi-player escalating is a game I don't like because someone goes for it, who shouldn't and then the next person cleans up, or you have a 13v2 roll to take someone out and lose it and the next person cleans up. Team escalating is different as long as there are only two teams.

Donelladan wrote:

berlin1945 wrote: I don't agree at all. In flat rate and escalating, comebacks are possible. But in no spoils? You're absolutely done if you fail in the first three rounds. Luck has the heaviest hand in no spoils.

If you fail to take cards in the first 3 rounds in a flat rate game you will lose. No come back possible because your opponent will have a extra troops from the cards ( same for escalating, where missing just one card can means game over).

Btw, following your argument come back are possible in flat rate and escalating if you are... lucky with the cards and your opponent isn't.

Also, don't play 1vs1, then all the luck factor is basically gone. That's why people complain so much about luck on CC imho. Too many people playing 1vs1.
In multiplayer games, luck is rarely a key factor ( except when you miss an elimination in escalating multiplayer).

I never play 1v1. Why would games with more players be different? Early bad rolls are early bad rolls.

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

berlin1945 wrote:

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.

berlin1945 wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.

Ok, so you are saying that a site which charges about 500 people roughly $30/year and likely has a gross revenue before expenses of $15,000/year... also has advanced enough programming/algos/ai to determine who will win before the game starts, but also adapts to recognize how hard someone is trying.

Very Interesting Theory! The odds are probably higher that the earth is flat, but I think both ideas have roughly the same merit.

I’ve never understood those thought processes. What incentive does the site have to make certain people win? It wouldn’t favor freemies because then premium people wouldn’t renew. It wouldn’t favor premium because they want to convert freemiums without pissing them off before they become customers

I mean, don’t get me wrong. The dice are shit but it’s shit for everyone.

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.

Ok, so you are saying that a site which charges about 500 people roughly $30/year and likely has a gross revenue before expenses of $15,000/year... also has advanced enough programming/algos/ai to determine who will win before the game starts, but also adapts to recognize how hard someone is trying.

Very Interesting Theory! The odds are probably higher that the earth is flat, but I think both ideas have roughly the same merit.

Again, not. what. i'm. saying. It's easy to suicide. Nothing can stop you from that. But the game can stop you from winning. You play your strategy, but it's irrelevant, because the other player has been chosen. You might tread water, even compete, but you'll never get over the high wall of the chosen player. It's just not happening.

Mind you, I have WON this way, and I am still complaining about it. It's disgusting.

If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

berlin1945 wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:
Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

Not really what I'm getting at. Sure, if you try to lose, nothing is stopping you. It's when you try to win. That is very different.

Ok, so you are saying that a site which charges about 500 people roughly $30/year and likely has a gross revenue before expenses of $15,000/year... also has advanced enough programming/algos/ai to determine who will win before the game starts, but also adapts to recognize how hard someone is trying.

Very Interesting Theory! The odds are probably higher that the earth is flat, but I think both ideas have roughly the same merit.

Again, not. what. i'm. saying. It's easy to suicide. Nothing can stop you from that. But the game can stop you from winning. You play your strategy, but it's irrelevant, because the other player has been chosen. You might tread water, even compete, but you'll never get over the high wall of the chosen player. It's just not happening.

Mind you, I have WON this way, and I am still complaining about it. It's disgusting.

What if it's not 'the game' stopping you from winning, it's smart opponents and dice luck. Sometime you just run good... sometime your opponent makes a ton of mistakes and you still can't beat him because you keep rolling losers. This isn't some conspiracy or predetermination it's just how a game of chance and skill works. If you are looking for a more sexy explanation, maybe you actually have ESP or something and YOU know the winner before it happens... but I assure you the game doesn't.

berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

What precisely do you mean by administered. BigWham owns the site, my understanding is there are basically no employees and only volunteers keeping running it.

This is just my very rough guess at revenue, but the ONLY source of revenue is subscription. You don't see any ads while you are here (that or my adblock software is just killing it). I've heard people discuss and estimate the number of paying customers before, maybe someone more informed can give you a better estimate. you can be assured it's a fraction of the total number of monthly users, which we know from this thread was around 5000 pre-corona. Even if they had 2000 @ $30/year (which they don't) it's only $60,000/year and that's before ANY expenses. Whoever BigWham is he isn't doing this to get rich quick, he probably just likes games.

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

jwagenet wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:Nothing about the game seems random. Like someone said, running a computer to do random for so many players is probably expensive. So what the site actually does is pick the winner at the beginning of each game. All my games go that way. I win no matter what in some games, and have no chance in the others.

Running true random is substantially simpler to implement than weighting the die on the fly.

Not what I said. It seems the game picks the winner at the beginning of the game. That's probably the only random thing about it.

This is one of the few theories I've seen about the dice/games that is EASY to disprove. Just try to lose 15 games in a row, in theory that would be impossible if the games are pre-determined but I guarantee you could accomplish this if you actually set your heart to it.

I don’t remember ever losing 15 games in a row...six, seven yes...10 on a really bad streak, yes, but I can’t remember fifteen...now someone can map rank me or whatever and prove me wrong, but I know I’ve won over twenty straight...but either winning streaks or losing streaks are easily manipulated. Good players win more than they statistically should. Great players win a bit more than good ones.

berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.

Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.

The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.

The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.

Dukasaur wrote:
The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.

Everyone is so warm, pleasant and supportive of the mods though, so I imagine it's quite rewarding.

8,967 now..... I guess as a World this is a good sign that CC is dropping back to where it was

Dukasaur wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.

Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.

The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.

The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.

If you care so much, then cobble some funds together and buy it back. The game is moribund. The community is shrinking and dying.

berlin1945 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.

Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.

The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.

The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.

If you care so much, then cobble some funds together and buy it back. The game is moribund. The community is shrinking and dying.

Maybe you can buy it and change the code so you are the pre-determined winner in more games.

mookiemcgee wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

berlin1945 wrote:If this place is only making 15,000 dollars a year, who is administrating it? Are they doing it (practically) for free? Why would they do that?

It's more than that. It's probably something like 70,000 a year, but still not a lot of money.

Only two people get paid, the owner and the one support admin, and though they don't make the numbers public, we're all pretty sure they don't get paid a lot.

The owner is part-time. He was full-time the first two years after he bought the site, thinking he was going to make it grow, but after a couple years he realized it's never going to happen and he had to go get a real job. He only sporadically pays attention to CC now, which is why there's so little development.

The rest is volunteers. Why do we do it? Loyalty to the community, mostly.

If you care so much, then cobble some funds together and buy it back. The game is moribund. The community is shrinking and dying.

Maybe you can buy it and change the code so you are the pre-determined winner in more games.

I don't want to be the predetermined winner. I want every player to have the same square deal at an honest dice roll. I want the dice to be the same for high level players as it is for low. I want the dice to be consistent from day to day and rank to rank. I want the dice to reflect real dice, not some arcane backroom generator. Vote for me for President, you should.

Anyone want to make an offer on this website? I can be the money man, but I do not know the first thing about coding...

As long as I can ban caffeine, I will not get buyer's remorse for the impulse purchase.

YukFoo wrote:Anyone want to make an offer on this website? I can be the money man, but I do not know the first thing about coding...

As long as I can ban caffeine, I will not get buyer's remorse for the impulse purchase.

Have to get some lawyers on the case. Wonder if any play CC

8626

IcePack wrote:8626

Yep,I've been keeping an eye on this...the last week or so the drop has slowed down.....it's still dropping but at a much more gentle pace...I guess we'll keep dropping now a few a day for the next month or so and then we'll be back to the numbers pre-covid more or less.

Davie.K wrote:

IcePack wrote:8626

Yep,I've been keeping an eye on this...the last week or so the drop has slowed down.....it's still dropping but at a much more gentle pace...I guess we'll keep dropping now a few a day for the next month or so and then we'll be back to the numbers pre-covid more or less.

I suspect that we will stay above pre-covid numbers for a while. I personally know of 10-15 players that have come back in the last couple of months who will likely stick around and a bunch of newer players have come who will likely stick around for some amount of time as well. I am guessing we will end up somewhere in the 7k - 7.5k by the end of the summer. After that will likely be another slow burn down as CC isn't attracting as many fresh faces as it once did.

Yep,I can see that happening as you say it will.....I think it was down to 5,200ish wasn't it just before it happened

Davie.K wrote:Yep,I can see that happening as you say it will.....I think it was down to 5,200ish wasn't it just before it happened

Yeah, I think 5288 was the lowest number recorded in this thread.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5140717