Conquer Club

me please
btw, this is a great idea and with tweaking we will get it
and yeah we need to clarify between turn games and the tourny game.

LLLUUUKKKEEE wrote:and yeah we need to clarify between turn games and the tourny game.

Yes, games should be Sequential, but the tournament style should be Freestyle.

I want to play too. please. thanks

Forza AZ wrote:

LLLUUUKKKEEE wrote:and yeah we need to clarify between turn games and the tourny game.

Yes, games should be Sequential, but the tournament style should be Freestyle.

How about this? An inbetween of freestyle and sequential. Of the 18 players, players will move 6 at a time. The first 6 players will go first (at the same time), then 7-12 will go, followed by 13-18. What do you think of that?

nice idea Greece-- very creative...... i like it but cant play because of how bad I am at 1 vs 1s. Good luck in the tourny !

GreecePwns wrote:

Forza AZ wrote:

LLLUUUKKKEEE wrote:and yeah we need to clarify between turn games and the tourny game.

Yes, games should be Sequential, but the tournament style should be Freestyle.

How about this? An inbetween of freestyle and sequential. Of the 18 players, players will move 6 at a time. The first 6 players will go first (at the same time), then 7-12 will go, followed by 13-18. What do you think of that?

Well, that at least will take some less time. But think if player 1-6 have 3 attacks before players 7-18 have their first, that a lot of them are already out before getting a chance to attack themselves. If you do it this way, then better would be to have players 1-6 have their 1st attack, then players 7-12 have their first, and only the 2nd of players 1-6 after all players had 1 attack.

Best for me stays that all 18 play at the same time. This however means you have to start 18 games at a time, and that will be more work to organise of course.

Can I join or not?

queen wife wrote:Can I join or not?

Sorry, I forgot to log my wife out... But I've already posted that I want to join, and I sent u a pm...

banana_hammocks wrote:there is a difference.... greece you need to clarify the difference between in the games and in the overall game/tournament.

I think it would work best if the overall game/tournament were "freestyle"...but the individual games were sequential turns.

if more than 1 person wants to attack a territory, just make it a 3 way ffa, rather than 2 1v1's.


PS. this is a great tournament and we are all just trying to help out and clarify the rules.

Good luck.

This is an excellent idea. But, it still doesn't account for the case where two people decide to attack each other at the same time. I don't know that I like the everyone getting 3 attacks per turn, that's a LOT of 1 v 1s to track.

Forza AZ wrote:-When you win an "attack-game" you get the territory you attack, unless more players attack the same territory in the same (sub)turn. Then the player that wins the attack game in the least amount of turns gets it (least amount of time isn't fair, as winning a game in RT in 15 turns can be faster then winning a game in 4 turns in a normal way. And so people with more time on CC would get an advantage).

PS: It can be possible that 2 players attack each other, so let's say player A attacks Brazil from Argentina and player B attacks Argentina from Brazil. When both win their attack-game then they in fact "switch sides".

I think banana hammocks way of dealing with multiple people attacking a terr is better. The biggest problem with making it freestyle is that people would have to PM their desired attacks. Otherwise, person A - posts that they want to attack person B and person B (who may or may not have been attacking person A) decides that they better attack person A.

Also, Forza's PS is invalid. In actual freestyle, if two people deploy to adjacent terrs and start attacking each other - once someone wins they own BOTH terrs. That should be the case here as well. So, whoever wins quickest (# of rounds) wins both terrs. If both games were won in equal amounts of time - that's effectively like saying that each went down to 1 army and couldn't attack any more, even though the opponent is weak [and the status quo should be kept].

GreecePwns wrote:Attacks allowed for the Turn = (# of territories owned/3) + continent bonus

I liked this. I don't like the minimum of three per turn. We're running a similar game in Generation One just for kicks, with 6 of us, and if everyone got three attacks to start, the 5th and 6th people wouldn't get a chance to play. In this tournament, it's even more likely to happen, because everyone starts with one territory. The first six players could wipe out everyone else before they play. They wouldn't even have to win all of their games to do it.

And taking each turn does take a while. It's been a week and we've almost gotten through the first half of the first round, and that's with everyone making one attack.

banana_hammocks wrote:if more than 1 person wants to attack a terratory, just make it a 3 way ffa, rather than 2 1v1's.

With this, you'd be able to run the whole game freestyle, just have people PM their attacks and set up games accordingly.

Aerial Attack wrote:But, it still doesn't account for the case where two people decide to attack each other at the same time.

Why is this a problem? Just make one game, winner gets both territories. If he's still using the map based on the territory, it won't make a difference. It might even make it more interesting, because if you suspect someone is going to attack you, you can attack at the same time, and instead of just defending your territory with a win, you'll win theirs as well.

count me in

Aerial Attack wrote:I think banana hammocks way of dealing with multiple people attacking a terr is better. The biggest problem with making it freestyle is that people would have to PM their desired attacks. Otherwise, person A - posts that they want to attack person B and person B (who may or may not have been attacking person A) decides that they better attack person A.

Also, Forza's PS is invalid. In actual freestyle, if two people deploy to adjacent terrs and start attacking each other - once someone wins they own BOTH terrs. That should be the case here as well. So, whoever wins quickest (# of rounds) wins both terrs. If both games were won in equal amounts of time - that's effectively like saying that each went down to 1 army and couldn't attack any more, even though the opponent is weak [and the status quo should be kept].

The only problem with having 3 (or more) player games, is that these games usually take much longer then 2-player games, and so these would hold up the tournament. (A 3-player game can easily last for a month or more).
Your remark about people attacking each other is a good 1. That will even make it more exciting. Only problem is that if the games are not played on the same map, that the player attacking on the smaller map has an advantage, since games on smaller maps usually take less rounds. But when you exclude larger maps from this tournament, then this won't have to be a big problem.

And PM'ing your attack is the best way I think, so players can't respond on attacks other players posted.


So best way to do it is this way I think:

-all 18 players play at once (first their first attack, then all players left their 2nd attack etc.). Players have to PM the organiser which attack they want (within about 24 hours, no reply is forfeiting your attack)
-When players attack each other, and both win their attack game, then the player that wins in the smallest number of rounds gets both territories, if both wins are in the same number of rounds, then situation stays as it is.
-When more players attack the same territory, then the 1 that conquers it in the least amount of turns gets it (3 or more player games are a good idea, but take to long I think).

BaldAdonis wrote:Why is this a problem? Just make one game, winner gets both territories. If he's still using the map based on the territory, it won't make a difference. It might even make it more interesting, because if you suspect someone is going to attack you, you can attack at the same time, and instead of just defending your territory with a win, you'll win theirs as well.

But on which map should that game be (assuming both territories have a different map for defending)?

And another question. What happens when player A and B attack each other, and player C attacks player A from another adjacent territory.
Let's say player B beats player A, but player C also beats player A, then who gets player A's territory?
And you also can't make it a 3-player game, as players A attack on B has nothing to do with player C.

Looking at this, I think my original idea in which it is possible to "switch sides" is the easiest in these kind of situations.

complicated but count me in. the one with Norse in, should that be game 2.

looking at the suggestions, i think the EASIEST (not necessarily fairest/best/quickest) way of doing it is:

Players have a deadline of say 48hrs to PM their attacks (otherwise lose their move).

Then look at each territory and have anyone who has said to attack it play ffa's, winner takes it.

This allows that if players attack each other ie. a attacks b, b attacks a....then they are able to switch if each wins the attack game. --- it is better to have a fair rule that can be easily interpreted than be exact like in a game on conquerclub.

Then repeat for Round 1 - attack 2....etc.




Problems with this are 1) ffa's will take longer than 1v1's and would draw out the tournament. ( originally i hadn't thought of this and it must be considered.)

2) it is not exactly like if you were playing a normal game of conquerclub.

3) could allow alliances (not necessarily bad)...2 player ally and attack a 3rd player, then in the ffa take that player out...garrenteeing that they will probably win and one of them taking the territory

4) chance of defending against 2 simultaneous attacks= 1/3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The alternative to this is:

Players have a deadline of say 48hrs to PM their attacks (otherwise lose their move).

Players play a series of 1v1's...on defending country. Whichever finishes quickest in number of rounds takes the country. To keep the country must win all games.

This allows that if players attack each other ie. a attacks b, b attacks a....then they are able to switch if each wins the attack game. --- it is better to have a fair rule that can be easily interpreted than be exact like in a game on conquerclub.

Then repeat for Round 1 - attack 2....etc.



Problems with this are:

1) If A attacks B and C attacks B... there will be 2 games AvsB and CvsB....If AvsB finishes quickly before CvsB (timewise) and A wins, then B has no incentive to play well against C, so may be beaten quicker. ---- on the other hand there are still CC points to think about so this may not be a problem.

2) it is not exactly like if you were playing a normal game of conquerclub

3) chances of defending against 2 simultaneous attacks= 1/4 (1/2*1/2) leading to a more attacking game.



Discuss

banana_hammocks wrote:The alternative to this is:

Players have a deadline of say 48hrs to PM their attacks (otherwise lose their move).

Players play a series of 1v1's...on defending country. Whichever finishes quickest in number of rounds takes the country. To keep the country must win all games.

This allows that if players attack each other ie. a attacks b, b attacks a....then they are able to switch if each wins the attack game. --- it is better to have a fair rule that can be easily interpreted than be exact like in a game on conquerclub.

Then repeat for Round 1 - attack 2....etc.



Problems with this are:

1) If A attacks B and C attacks B... there will be 2 games AvsB and CvsB....If AvsB finishes quickly before CvsB (timewise) and A wins, then B has no incentive to play well against C, so may be beaten quicker. ---- on the other hand there are still CC points to think about so this may not be a problem.

2) it is not exactly like if you were playing a normal game of conquerclub

3) chances of defending against 2 simultaneous attacks= 1/4 (1/2*1/2) leading to a more attacking game.



Discuss

I like this one more. I think the tournament will take quit some time already, so 3 or 4 player games should not be in, as this can result in a very long delay for all other players for their next attack.

1) Don't think that is a problem. The defenser has no objective in the 2nd game for this tournament, but why should he just want to lose it. It's still about points, and also he might rather have 1 player taking a territory then another (furtheron in the tournament).

2) Whatever you come up with is not exactly like a game in CC. If you want to mimic a Freestyle Battle Royal exactly, then you still would have let the players play 1 by 1 most time, only not in a standard order. Playing 1 by 1 in this tournament is no good idea. It will take to much time.


Only thing you need now, it a way to determine a difference if 2 players win their attacking game for the same territory in the same number of rounds. A few options:

-Player that finishes the game with most territories wins
-Player that finishes the game with most armies wins.
-Play-off between both attackers on the same map for the win.

Last option draws out the tournament a bit, but don't think it will happen that much that 2 players win their attack game in exactly the same number of rounds.
1st option gives some extra to the games, as it is good to take as much neutrals as you can before taking out your opponent, but still wanting to finish it in as less rounds as possible.

I would like to join. I haven't read all of the debate on the rules. I just like the idea of the tournament. Tell me what the rules are when they have been finalized, if they haven't already been.

DresdenSooner

Including any sort of 'freestyle' in the MAIN game, or multiple players at once, effectively eliminates the ability of any non-premium players to particiapte (in the later rounds, not turn one). say they won all three R1 games, have 4 territories, and get attacked on all 4, or multiple attackers on some of them (by certain rules choices)?

When I read the intro to this, I thought, "this will take forever... SO WHAT? This is COOL."

1: Suggest the MAIN GAME remain sequential. it IS battle royale, yes, a lot of folks will get eliminated before their first turn. just like a 'real' one.

2: Do anything reasonable to speed up the 1v1s... Escalating, maybe? Unlimited?

3: Suggest one minor change to attacking rules, and YES, this will greatly change long-term tactics on the 'main board'.... when it's your MAIN TURN, you must declare ALL attacks then. so there's no chained 'storming ahead'. This will slow down the main game, but it will GREATLY speed up the subgames by allowing them to run simultaneously... with the exception of when the attacker is a non-premium. they still have to declare all the attacks, but woudl have to fight them serially, or as simultanelously as they can.

3a. you could allow someone to declare chained assaults, but fi they lose a battle along the way, all further advancement is halted on that route. this represents strategic planning... "okay, we attack from Andy's to Brazil, Brazil to Sarah, Sarah to Conga, and Conga to Egypt, then fortify... okay, got brazil... WHAT? I lost 15v3 attacking Sarah? *#^$@#&**...." I'm sure we've all been there.

Oh, and sign me up. I'll play, however this works out.

Kinnison wrote:Including any sort of 'freestyle' in the MAIN game, or muti=ple players at once, effectively eliminates the ability of any non-premium players to particiapte (in the later rounds, not turn one). say they won all thrit R1 games, have 4territories, and get attacked on all 4, or multiply on some of them (by certain rules choices)?

Yes, that is a problem, but you can just let non-Premium players just join 2 games first (you should let them have 2 slots as that is the average number of games a player has to play at once), and join the other games when they finished the first.

me in plz =)

is there still room to join? otherwise count me in

Is this still going on? And when is the next round of the MLS-tournament? I haven't heard anything yet.

in

only 5 more , let's go people