Is lack doing the right thing?

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:36 am

I need admit: Im now thinking about abandon the site, after the last update. I know that some people will like it very much. Some will simply say "if want, go then". I know CC dont need me to exist, but I believe is something wrong here. I devoted my life to this site, and then I only got changes I dislike. You can understand some modifications like the team games mod?

Lack words:
"Team Games:
Hate getting stuck with a deadbeat partner in a doubles match? Now when someone is auto-kicked in a team game, the teammate will inherit the armies. If there are two surviving teammates, the armies go to the one that joined the game first. Also, when playing sequential team games many find it unfair that the first team gets a lot of firepower while their opponents have their hands tied. The order is now staggered to alternate between teams. I know some people find it fun to be able to coordinate a double or triple play with your team - you can still pull that off in a freestyle game where it would be more appropriate."

How many people like the modification? To me, it sucks a lot. But what makes me furious is the way its simply throwed over us! Now, games that I started thinking about one rule have another one. I dont want play them in the new rule, and I wouldnt start them if I knew the mod was coming. And now I will be punished by lack secrets, because I will lose points if I choose not play, and I will probably get negative feedback because of this (by the way, I dont like the feedback system too). I would accept the punishment, if it was my fault, but I did nothing wrong. I want the games deleted, these games are in turn 1. In another, old game, a guy will probably receive a continent as gift, after my turn, and after my partner turn. I dont know how bad it will be to us in the game, but others will surely have same problem in a bigger scale.

Other example: grievances thing. Why remove the ignore list, and then see all our complaints to return them back after a time? Wouldnt be better only announce it before, so no time wasted programing a bad feature?

Im not even discussing how bad I believe the mods are, but the way they are implemented. Should lack announce them at least one week before? This way, he could have a massive feedback instead of base himself in the opinion of 2-3 that dont like a feature. For sure, the discussion before and later lack announce its coming would be a bit different, dont you agree? Who cares about a thing said by one guy that joined 1 week ago and have 2 posts? And who cares about what lack says?

Bring It On · Post by **Bring It On** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:46 am

I completely see wot u are sayin. Its annoyin how all my games have changed and i will now have to change my strategies because of it. I pretty sure that there are alot more people out there who feel the same to marv.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:47 am

I agree. As I wrote in a post in the announcement thread, the fact that the modifications kicked in just like that was not a nice surprise. All of a sudden a real time game got different rules in round 4. Great. The ten games or so that are ongoing on my game list presumably also have a different set of rules right now. Splendid. With a week's grace period between the announcement and the implementation one would be able to actually prepare for it. Now, as you say, all previous planned and implemented strategies basically go down the drain. It's really annoying.

HighBorn · Post by **HighBorn** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:48 am

the glitches have also become very bad in some games too

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:56 am

HighBorn wrote:the glitches have also become very bad in some games too

Yes. In my real time game last night the updates caused the game to bump out for 30 seconds or so. When I got back into the website I could finish my turn. However, then the game engine glitch and decided to skip my partner's turn (a double game). The other team was able to move and my partner lost one turn, lost a card and wasn't able to take the continent we had set up (I had fortified him heavily so it would have been a walk in the park). Next round, the new modifications kicked in (we had no idea then, but we realized it when we started to skim the forum) and it was all of a sudden alternate turns that was the deal. When my partner finally was able to move, he didn't get the double bonus (for not having moved the last round). In alles, my partner lost 7 armies, 1 card and the possibility to take and hold a continent). From having had the upper hand, the glitch basically served the game to our opponents. Quite annoying. Luckily (at least for us) the other team made a mistake not thinking about the alternate turn rule that had kicked in a few rounds later. Again the game was turned around. All in all, no one was very happy about that game.

I realize that there may be glitches and problems with each new update. But an idea may be to announce that an update will take place at a certain time. Then close the server, implement the update and then restart the site. That may perhaps limit the scope of these glitches.

SMITH197 · Post by **SMITH197** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:42 am

marv, we have lacks to do list published. These things were all on there, and if you didn't like them, uou had plenty of time to start a thread and discuss.

I dont think you have any right to complain.

Although, a date for new modification would have been nice.

--Smitty

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:46 am

I dont understand why to complaint about doubled team turns. Everyone can use them. Why to complain if who starts is random? This new thing completely kills the team strategy.

As I said in the other thread, I want complain about cards, then, because one double having 2 mixed sets in 3 turns, and another one having no sets with 4 cards is unfair, too. The same for the dice. Even why no team could do a big damage in first turn without perfect dice. Want a slower game, how about one fortification, then? No, we need kill the essence of team games, the true cooperation between partners.

The worst: its not requested by me, I didnt know, I dislike, and Im now obligated to play with this fucking rule! Maybe doing it an option called "for the losers unable to win if the other team starts", but no, this is simply ridiculous. And my games I started to play with old rules, what I do with this garbage now?

HighBorn · Post by **HighBorn** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:48 am

i agree marv every one has the same chance in teams.. why change that... now youv made it singles with a teammate...

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:52 am

SMITH197 wrote:I dont think you have any right to complain.

And I dont think you have any right to disagree me in my topic, balls!

Im complaining already, Im really angry about this, and I will probably really abandon the site, if you want to know (you probably dont, I believe). Im full of shit dropped over my beloved site, guy.

EDIT: more, I saw lack to-do list. This is the topic listed there:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=909
The main suggestion was not about this, and lack gave no opinion there. So, what should we discuss as a possible change? The game not starting by the 2nd (or 3rd) player in a team, I imagine. Then we got THIS SHIT! How could I expect this, sir?

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:02 pm

I don't think I will abandon the site. But especially the mandatory alternate turn setting in team games will probably cause me to play fewer games. As was noted above, it basically to a fairly large degree turn team games into single games with a permanent ally. It's a nice feature, but I don't understand why it should be mandatory (why not have two different settings here and keep the old style sequential team game as an option). As a separate option, fine. But now the only way to play team games is by using the freestyle option which, in itself, have features that makes it less appealing than the previous sequential doubles or triples setting.

Scorba · Post by **Scorba** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:16 pm

Personally I think I'll enjoy the alternate turns in teams games more, but I have to agree that it should have been an additional game type.

And Smithy, although this was on the list it was never mentioned that it would replace the existing team games formula.

joetalk · Post by **joetalk** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:20 pm

Alright every one is entitled to there opinion, and as a longtimer here on cc i would have to agree that the way this batch of improvements was just kind of thrown in was kind of unfair to those who have investments in a certain stratigy.
I would first and formost like to comment that i just dont hear enough applause for all the effort that lack and the mods put in here, to make this the great place it is for us all on a daily basis!!!!!
and Please feel free to take ur handle and walk at anytime, but don't look back and expect others to pitty u, we all suffered the same with this last update.
with all this said i do agree with notification of improvments but would like to hear more gratitude on these pages and less whining
and thats my two bits joetalk

jonboyau · Post by **jonboyau** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:22 pm

I am not too thrilled about the change to doubles sequential either. It does take away a lot of the team strategy when you have to alternate turns between teams. I will switch to freestyle I guess, but while I enjoy the interactive aspects of it- there are definitely some drawbacks. When you start up a freestyle game and wait for another team to join you can be down 10 plus before you even know it started. I guess I will just have to look for games to join instead of starting new ones.

If it were available, I would most like to play a game where the teams go in consecutive turns- either seperately or interactively as they choose. The start could be random as to which team goes first to take away the "surprise" element.

areyouincahoots · Post by **areyouincahoots** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:40 pm

I'm with you, Smith! That exactly what I was thinking!

HighBorn · Post by **HighBorn** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:41 pm

Meh!!

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:23 pm

It always seemed to me that the way the turns worked in team games was unfair. I know that there was an equal chance that either team might end up with an advantage/disadvantage, but that still didn't make each game fair. On the contrary, it was understood that in each and every game one team was going to have a major disadvantage.

I have played RiskII with the Cd for many, many years. When playing doubles with the cd it has always been universally recoginized that the game should just be relaunched over, and over, again, until the team order is sequential. I don't think I've ever been in a doubles game where anyone would even consider starting the game, if teammates had their turns in a row.

I also sincerely doubt that Anyone plays team games at home with partners taking both of their turns in a row. That just woudn't happen. On the other hand, myself, and I'm sure many, many, other people on this site, have played hundreds of thousands of team games at home, and I bet that virutally all of them have been based on an alternating turn taking by teammates. There's a reason that everyone plays that way. To do otherwise would be unfair.

The way things developed at this site, with all kinds of strategies based on double turns was simply an abberation. There's now a level playing field in team games. We'll have to wait and see, but I'll bet that this will change the imbalance we have now on the leaderboard, with it so full of team players. My bet is that we'll start to see much more of a balance in the top ten between team and singles players.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:37 pm

I only hope you are not forgetting the main thing in this topic: the absence of warning and discussion about the features implemented. I dont think a topic of 8 or 9 posts, with a different starting theme, and 2 or 3 opinions, whithout lack opinion, could serve as a base to all the gameplay change.

Again, this rule for team games IS SHIT!
But I agree with joetalk. We should show more gratitude to lack. Im one of the first guys to congratulate him for the good things. The problem is, he shouldnt assume a suggestion as good the way he is doing.

Sir Gordalot · Post by **Sir Gordalot** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:01 pm

I like all the new updates except for the team-mate deadbeat... I think trading over of the teammates armies is awarding deadbeating...

I wrote this in the original Suggestion thread for this update and it was not addressed by lack or any of the other mods...

well i'm just thinking... what if you and your partener were split on a continent... if it is played like it should be... one person fortifies his armys to the other and you still have to attack to get the territories... risking your armies...

all of a sudden if one person deadbeats... his partener would gain control of the continent with absolutely no losses

does anybody else see this problem?

Pilate · Post by **Pilate** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:04 pm

If you deadbeat, you lose 9 troops from the 3 turns you miss and 3 turns for every subsequent turn. You also lose the potential cards

HighBorn · Post by **HighBorn** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:05 pm

yeah i addressed it in one forum this can be abused beyond all comprehention

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:07 pm

It does seem like a lot of people would tend to agree with you Sir. Especially if we start to see people doing this as a strategic option.

Personally, I think if your teammate deadbeats you might as well accept that you have a major uphill fight, and will probably lose. What's the big deal, you knew you had a 50/50 chance of losing anyway.

If your teammate deadbeats, for whatever reason, you should just accept it, and not be rewarded in any way. If it happens more than once, then maybe you need to find a new teammate. If your teammate was a stranger, then that's what the feedback system was designed to take care of.

Oh, I forgot, Marv wants his thread back.....lol

Yeah, the surprise was bad. Still think you have to just get over it.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:22 pm

Are anyone else realizing the old team rule in old games?

I saw some reports of this happening since last night, so today I was not wanting to play, but then a turn in a old game would end (time), and I played, and is my partner time again. I dont know if the new rule was supposed to apply only to new games, but its not in effect in my games (I started all before the update). If so, much more fair, since the rules are not changed during the game (thanks lack, but you should mention it in the announcement, too).

I dislike the change anyway, and I would appreciate more discussion, but Im not thaaaaat angry if I can at least finish my games in the same rule. On other hand, games already receiving players but not started yet in the update hour are using the new rule. Argh! I didnt join for them.

Darklord001 · Post by **Darklord001** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:24 pm

Hey Folks, in hopes to calm some agitation existing team games do not appear to be affected by this change.

from my game in 41082, you can clearly see that team mates are playing back to back.

people who have found their team games suddenly under the new rules must have signed up after the changes were implemented.

existing games are still under the old rules (at least for sequence of moves)

HighBorn · Post by **HighBorn** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:31 pm

i dont know.. i think i have had a little of both happening to me.. some new some old.. guess i shall have to see..

Scorba · Post by **Scorba** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:36 pm

Something strange is going on with the turn orders in these games. In game 41000, a triples game with me as the last player in my team, I eliminated an opponent in my turn and my two opponents then got to move as with the old rules. However, for reasons I cannot fathom it is now my turn again with both my team mates missed out.

I have no idea how to play my turn as I don't know who the hell is going to move next.

Is lack doing the right thing?

Should lack announce the changes at least one week before implement them?

Is lack doing the right thing?

ok ok ok ok

doubles

Team Games

deadbeating

game 41082