Conquer Cup I

[spiesr]

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Predicting what noobs are likely to do is part of the skill. Dont' palce your troops in a continent that noob is trying to hold just to be eliminated and prove that he is a noob. Use it, know that he will take other plaeyrs out of this continent and gun for them knowing he will help you to get some of their terrs. Start from Asia, NA, Europe and keep your stacks there.

But in the example given, Players C & D may have done just that, but then lost due to the combined mistakes of Players A & E. They may have seen Player A's mistake coming, but simply not been in a position where there were any winning moves they could make.

[denominator]

Not really. Look at this scenario, which happens in lots of games with "inexperienced" players.

-Everyone has 4-5 spoils
-Player A cashes for 20, uses it to take Africa (or a similar bonus, which is inconsequential at this point in the game). By focusing solely on his new bonus, he ignores the fact that he's decimated Player E to fewer troops than the next cash is worth. All he cares about is securing his borders with stacks of 8, to ensure he gets that +3 next turn (unaware that the game won't last that long).

Now, what exactly could Player C or D (or E for that matter) done differently to stop B from sweeping the board right here? I guarantee, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least 4-5 instances of this happening in the first round of the Cup.

Predicting what noobs are likely to do is part of the skill. Dont' palce your troops in a continent that noob is trying to hold just to be eliminated and prove that he is a noob. Use it, know that he will take other plaeyrs out of this continent and gun for them knowing he will help you to get some of their terrs. Start from Asia, NA, Europe and keep your stacks there.

But in the example given, Players C & D may have done just that, but then lost due to the combined mistakes of Players A & E. They may have seen Player A's mistake coming, but simply not been in a position where there were any winning moves they could make.

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

[drunkmonkey]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

[spiesr]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

My point wasn't so much about what strategy was correct, rather than to point out that it is possible to lose this type of game through no major fault of your own. I accept that to be the nature of the game. However, I think that it illustrates why single elimination rounds with these settings is not the ideal setup for a paid tournament.

[AndyDufresne]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

My point wasn't so much about what strategy was correct, rather than to point out that it is possible to lose this type of game through no major fault of your own. I accept that to be the nature of the game. However, I think that it illustrates why single elimination rounds with these settings is not the ideal setup for a paid tournament.

We agree. Conquer Cup II will have multiple games per round I think, so if you manage to take a bad beat in one game, you still have some other games which can allow you to advance!


--Andy

[Rodion]

You should make a Cup for 2-sided team games (none of that 2v2v2 or 2v2v2v2 crap), either doubles, triples or quads.

[sherkaner]

Any tournament would be possible I guess, but 1v1 and 5 games per round (and increasing in later rounds) would be nice too.
Though with 1024 players you'd have 10 rounds in stead of 4.

[lostatlimbo]

I'd consider participating in future cups if they were 1v1 tourneys. I have enough frustration joining free games full of inexperienced players.

Amen to that!

[denominator]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

Ultimately, I agree with you. The strategy in the example has a very low-percentage chance of victory, and I would agree that it is a poor play regardless of the rank of the player.

What I'm getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of bitching (for lack of a better word) by the so-called "seasoned" players about losses due to plays of the so-called "n00bs". It's not so much how good or bad the strategy is or isn't, but rather the critiquing of it by the losing players that is bugging me.

[drunkmonkey]

Again, that's the way the game works. Would you view it differently had Player A not made a mistake, but instead cashed and steamrolled the board? I suspect not, because you view that as the "correct" strategy.

Just because a player is using a different strategy in these games doesn't make it incorrect, or your strategy the better one.

Yes, I would have seen winning the game as the correct strategy, as opposed to making a move that directly allows someone else to win the game. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that using a large cash to take a small bonus, while leaving another player for dead, is ever is a good strategy?

Ultimately, I agree with you. The strategy in the example has a very low-percentage chance of victory, and I would agree that it is a poor play regardless of the rank of the player.

What I'm getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of bitching (for lack of a better word) by the so-called "seasoned" players about losses due to plays of the so-called "n00bs". It's not so much how good or bad the strategy is or isn't, but rather the critiquing of it by the losing players that is bugging me.

I guess I saw the discussion in this thread not as bitching by losing players, but as reasons why more "seasoned" players didn't join the tourney in the first place.

[Bones2484]

Well. I lost when a freemium cadet with 2 games played thought it would be best to protect a +2 bonus and took out two of my big stacks. Needless to say, he and I were the first two killed.

Even though I had a feeling it would happen, it's enough for me to guarantee that I will not sign up for any future incarnation of Conquer Cup with the current setup.

[Vandal88]

You guys that walk around calling people noobs because they don't play thousands of games at the same time should stop complaining. I only joined CC a few weeks ago but I have been playing risk for over 20 years and I love the game. A game of risk should be fun and I personally enjoy seeking out a continent for a small bonus and proding my opponents borders until the cashes eventually end the game. I have resorted to your so called "escalating strategy" in certain scenerios but to use that as a sole strategy must get redundant and lame. Anyone can stack all their men on one territory and only attacks weak territories that surround them for a card until the cash reaches freakin' 80 or whatever, but that takes no strategy and actually makes the game boring. The game should be about maneuvering and shifting alliances, which comes about best when each player focuses on one or two key regions or continents. Not about creating "stacks". I find the Conquer Cup tournament very boring and disappointing because their are so many supposed "masters at escalating strategy" who have lost focus of the game and ruin it for those of us are here to enjoy ourselves. I got a new term, "stackers", and I won't be using it to describe someone in a positive manner.

[Chariot of Fire]

You guys that walk around calling people noobs because they don't play thousands of games at the same time should stop complaining. I only joined CC a few weeks ago but I have been playing risk for over 20 years and I love the game. A game of risk should be fun and I personally enjoy seeking out a continent for a small bonus and proding my opponents borders until the cashes eventually end the game. I have resorted to your so called "escalating strategy" in certain scenerios but to use that as a sole strategy must get redundant and lame. Anyone can stack all their men on one territory and only attacks weak territories that surround them for a card until the cash reaches freakin' 80 or whatever, but that takes no strategy and actually makes the game boring. The game should be about maneuvering and shifting alliances, which comes about best when each player focuses on one or two key regions or continents. Not about creating "stacks". I find the Conquer Cup tournament very boring and disappointing because their are so many supposed "masters at escalating strategy" who have lost focus of the game and ruin it for those of us are here to enjoy ourselves. I got a new term, "stackers", and I won't be using it to describe someone in a positive manner.

Your definition of a 'stacker' (as you've publicly complained about in Game 10038531) is rather misguided. Pink has a presence in five of the six continents - essential to stand a decent chance of eliminating a player whilst also remaining safe himself - while you yourself are confined and vulnerable, as is blue. If anyone was stacking it was you (on Dubai) which has cost you your troops in NA and in all likelihood any chance of winning the game.

You'll find the best (i.e. most successful) players are those who don't create stacks, by your definition, but who ensure they retain a good spread across the board. Who is harder to kill - the player with 6 x 4s spread over six continents or the player with 24 troops covering all six territories in Africa for a measly bonus (measly relative to the value of trades come Round 6)?

As equally important as personal growth in esc games is the protection of other players to prevent them being eliminated by a 3rd party. What's frustrating to a lot of seasoned players is to see their 'safe' 3 or 4 get whacked by someone hell-bent on taking a bonus. In my experience a bonus on the Classic map has never contributed to a win (not when there are four or more players).

This game (CC) can never really compare to playing the board game because it lacks the dynamic of ongoing conversation between the protagonists (you're one of the few, looking at your game chat, who actively seeks to make truces in esc games). Noobs also make mistakes that can cost games, e.g. believing they can attack St.Petersburg from Belarus on the Europe map

[kchalot]

I have a bug on the game 10038531 Round 6.
I change my cards, and didn't receive the +2 bonus on two territories (I changed already now because of this 2 bonus ! )
Please tell me, what to do .
Thanks, Kch

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not sure what you mean. Game Log:


2011-11-10 22:48:31 - kchalot got bonus of 2 troops added to Lagos
2011-11-10 22:48:31 - kchalot got bonus of 2 troops added to Beijing
...
2011-11-10 22:51:00 - kchalot reinforced Dakar with 2 troops from Lagos

If you didn't get the 2 troops how did you reinforce from Lagos?

[IR1SH ACE]

sweet....made it threw the first round....Game 9979977

big thanks to all the players in that game for playing a good game with no stupid play....

[QoH]

Your definition of a 'stacker' (as you've publicly complained about in Game 10038531) is rather misguided. Pink has a presence in five of the six continents - essential to stand a decent chance of eliminating a player whilst also remaining safe himself - while you yourself are confined and vulnerable, as is blue. If anyone was stacking it was you (on Dubai) which has cost you your troops in NA and in all likelihood any chance of winning the game.

You'll find the best (i.e. most successful) players are those who don't create stacks, by your definition, but who ensure they retain a good spread across the board. Who is harder to kill - the player with 6 x 4s spread over six continents or the player with 24 troops covering all six territories in Africa for a measly bonus (measly relative to the value of trades come Round 6)?

As equally important as personal growth in esc games is the protection of other players to prevent them being eliminated by a 3rd party. What's frustrating to a lot of seasoned players is to see their 'safe' 3 or 4 get whacked by someone hell-bent on taking a bonus. In my experience a bonus on the Classic map has never contributed to a win (not when there are four or more players).

This game (CC) can never really compare to playing the board game because it lacks the dynamic of ongoing conversation between the protagonists (you're one of the few, looking at your game chat, who actively seeks to make truces in esc games). Noobs also make mistakes that can cost games, e.g. believing they can attack St.Petersburg from Belarus on the Europe map

Great post CoF. Very good.

[Incandenza]

Great post CoF. Very good.

Concur. And considerably more polite and profanity-free than mine would have been.

[jackal31]

apparently we seasoned vets "stackers" are playing a new kind of Risk then.

CoF, we've been doing it wrong this whole time!

[s3xt0y]

epic dice fail for the loss kinda frustrating...player who sat there and did nothing all game won, when the round before their last cash they had 3 troops...

[Chariot of Fire]

Sure looks like the dice crapped on you there mate. To roll 12-35 and then 22-42 in consecutive turns must have been frustrating, but I guess we've all been there.

Battling my own demons at the moment. I used to play only one or two multiplayer esc at the same time, but at the mo whilst I'm not in many team games I've immersed myself in a lot more. Have just run through my games and of the last 10 where I've held 4 cards at a critical time to trade I've been sitting on two pairs in nine of those 10 games. Wonder what the odds of that is?

[s3xt0y]

Sure looks like the dice crapped on you there mate. To roll 12-35 and then 22-42 in consecutive turns must have been frustrating, but I guess we've all been there.

Battling my own demons at the moment. I used to play only one or two multiplayer esc at the same time, but at the mo whilst I'm not in many team games I've immersed myself in a lot more. Have just run through my games and of the last 10 where I've held 4 cards at a critical time to trade I've been sitting on two pairs in nine of those 10 games. Wonder what the odds of that is?

This site tends to show me that drastically improbable things happen way more than they statistically should. The funny thing about my game is he managed to get next to perfect dice right after to eliminate me he had 3 troops had to cash and got 68 I had 53 scattered all over the place and he ended with 61. I wish I could clear a board with dice like that...

[Davie.K]

If i was to sign up for the next Conquer Cup with my credit card,would the payment be taken instantly or when it starts ?

[AndyDufresne]

If i was to sign up for the next Conquer Cup with my credit card,would the payment be taken instantly or when it starts ?

It would be taken instantly (assuming there is no lag in processing).


--Andy

[Davie.K]

Cheers