Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:
I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)
I concur.

Well if you ask me,i will go to order how sugestion has accepted in to-do list.If you have sugestion from 2006 years,then it will be normal to implement all sugestion from 2006 years,and then to move in 2007 years sugestion. If you think that some ideas from to-do list now its not need ,then you need to remove some very old sugestion,or to work in to hes new development.
present situation in to-do list
Gameplay
2006-8
2007-2
2008-1
2009-0
--------------
community&site
2006-4
2007-0
2008-2
2009-1
---------------------
still have big number of sugestion who is from 2006 years.
Note-i see that random map is still in to-do list but i belive that this is implemented in .right?

I think initial army placement would be bad for the site. Once you do that things become pretty scientific and there becomes such a thing as an optimal army placement, optimal progression, etc. I understand that initial army placement would not replace random drops but it's still really not necessary.

The best way to fix freestyle would be to ban the clickable maps script altogether. The next best things are making it available to everyone and eliminating double turns. Regardless, any of these measures would probably bring many otherwise tactically inept noobs back to low-rank reality.

I am not even sure if this is possible but I would like the ability for a player upon initiating their turn to trade a set amount of armies for lifting the fog for just that turn....it might be a percentage of armies being received that turn such as 50%. Just a thought.

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=17885

Just go through that golden thread

I wouldn't pick any of the 5 up there as the next. Auto attack limits would be nice for std. esc. games. Both for defender and attacker. (i.e. you should be able to set the limit for how many you will go down to, or how many your opponent will go down to before it stops). I saw andy post this one somewhere, so i know its on the list. Map groupings could be good too. Also, would be nice to extend the time limit on game invites. If your friends not on for 24 hours, you might get stuck with anybody for a partner.

Since so many people have BOB, etc, I would like to see some of those features encorporated directly into CC. Right now, those who have the ability to use BOB get a distinct advantage in some games (particularly freestyle). Since the coding is there, I would guess integrating it should not be that difficult?

As a minimum, I would like to see how many territories people have, maybe down at the bottom, without having to page through the log and count.

It would be nice to get a list of those territories you have lost since your last turn, too... particularly in fog.

All of this information is available already, this would just mean those of us without the add-ons have it more readily (without counting).

AndyDufresne wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I know you didn't ask about these, but there are a lot of "seemingly easy fixes" from the to-do list that could be accomplished rather than one big thing?

I say that while recognizing that just because one of us may think it looks like an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean that it IS.

I know with time management, sometimes getting rid of a lot of little tasks is a better thing than knocking out one big task.

(Just a thought...)

I concur.

One example would be to average the individual ratings for each person, rather than having the new rating supercede all previous ratings that person has given (then the overal rating would be an overall average, exactly like now).


This would go a long way to fixing people's gripes on the ratings, without a huge hassle (I believe).

I think Lack is looking first for a bigger update than a couple of smaller ones---since over the last few months most of his updates have been small. It's a cycle.
--Andy

Cycle, my behind...we've got things that have been on the to-do list for more than three years. That's not a cycle, it's a wheel...spinning endlessly and getting nowhere.

1v1 Team games!

Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

How about a system that moderators are elected by a panel that is composed of fair and honest players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

notyou2 wrote:How about a system that moderators are elected by a panel that is composed of fair and honest players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

But who would decide who is

notyou2 wrote:fair and honest

or the

notyou2 wrote:players that aren't exhibiting fundamentalist or extreme liberal views?

Another panel to chose the panel
Sorry but probably wouldn't work. There would be bias involved in picking the panel...

Ugly_Moose wrote:Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

I agree with this idea. On another site similar to this one(except much worse) players lose extra points if they deadbeat a game

Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

BOB...

kratos644 wrote:

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

BOB...

Well, seems like many of BOB's features should've been folded into the site long ago.

Incandenza wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

The attack details is a great idea. When I first came on this site that was something I looked for.

I also looked for a log showing how many armies and territories each player had. This was also on another site I played and was very useful. If a player has 15 territories I would know I would have to conquer 4 territories from him so he gets the minimum amount of armies on his turn. It's easier than counting territories. Also by showing the total armies a player has you can easily see the strongest player to the weekest.

BOB...

Well, seems like many of BOB's features should've been folded into the site long ago.

I will say that I agree with you there Incand. They did make a start at it by listing the next redemption value which BOB did, too. Next it would be nice to see the territ and army counter incorporated as well.

I'd like to see the 1v1 team games in first though.
That'd be so sick. And be great for DW and I in our challenge

Ugly_Moose wrote:Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

open for so much abuse

lord voldemort wrote:

Ugly_Moose wrote:Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

open for so much abuse

Depends on how it's done. I don't think the winner should get extra points. But the loser should lose extra points...
Say to people equal score 1000 and 1000 for this example.
player A deadbeats so player B wins
Player A loses 40 points for deadbeating but player B still only gets 20.

CharruaWarrior wrote:Initial army placement would drag the game. I've been on a site that literally took over 2 months to have all the armies placed.

I think initial army placement could be something added later on down the road, when many of the other interesting features have been added. This would, in my opinion, take too long to start. Imagine an 8 player game. It would take years! Obviously this would be optional, but there are better upgrades which I beleive would benefit all players, would be for the log to show players territories ATTACKED but not conquered. This is what I assumed Attack details in game log was. Sounds a lot like the Log 2.0 promised in 2006?

kratos644 wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:

Ugly_Moose wrote:Something I would like to see is a penalty for deadbeats.

If you are kicked out of a game for missed turns then the points are doubled what you loose and the other players are rewarded for sitting through this with double points.

This should discourage missed turn drop outs.

open for so much abuse

Depends on how it's done. I don't think the winner should get extra points. But the loser should lose extra points...
Say to people equal score 1000 and 1000 for this example.
player A deadbeats so player B wins
Player A loses 40 points for deadbeating but player B still only gets 20.

Point deflation. The next big threat to the scoreboard?

Why are people voting for "More battle royales"?

That's not a coding time issue...

C.

yeti_c wrote:Why are people voting for "More battle royales"?

That's not a coding time issue...

C.

Yeah, they happen every now and then (usually around the christio-pagan new year celebrations), no need to have more of them. I say keep them rare.

yeti_c wrote:Why are people voting for "More battle royales"?

That's not a coding time issue...

C.

With the future intent of battle royales, yes it is.

one of the things i love about CC is the random placement of armies, so i hope if the initial thing goes through, we will be able to chose one or the other.

thanks!

yeti_c wrote:Why are people voting for "More battle royales"?

That's not a coding time issue...

C.

I've asked about 15-20 player games (Mni-BR's) and I was told it was a coding issue.