Conquer Club

There wasn’t an issue where it wasn’t allowed or not. Fall moved and blocked the door and the other clan moved in the other direction / didn’t try to go into world 2.1

Someone proposed we roll initiative every turn to see who starts / what order instead of the fixed “board game” clockwise turnnorder.

If that’s acceptable then it’s a change we can make that doesn’t affect the timeline

PACK 100% agrees with this

I'm okay with that. Sounds like a cool addition

IcePack wrote:Someone proposed we roll initiative every turn to see who starts / what order instead of the fixed “board game” clockwise turnnorder.

If that’s acceptable then it’s a change we can make that doesn’t affect the timeline

agree

Initiative might help some of the fairness questions, but does it answer all of DJENRE's concerns? From the way I read it, the larger issue he seemed to have was the fact that IcePack having to choose where they ended up after their intended path was blocked was not where they would have chosen to be had they had the chance to be alerted and make a second choice. Because of the dice rolls on the next turn, one spot, which they had not been put on, was more favorable than the spot that they had been put on. Part of it may be hindsight bias, but I thought that was the larger issue being discussed here.

I believe I have that summed up correctly. Based on the fact that IcePack asked us for suggestions that wouldn't significantly increase the game's run-time (which elongating turns and making multiple checks per round would do), wouldn't it be better if teams also included a Plan B when submitting their turns? It was mentioned earlier, but didn't seem to gain any traction. It wouldn't have to be super specific and contain a list of potential coordinates in descending order. It could be a general "If we can't move to this spot, we would like to move towards Map X." That way shouldn't really add any more work for IcePack to do, and it should also cut out the arbitrary factor that has the potential to inadvertently create a disadvantage.


Also, thank you again IcePack for running an interesting game to put a spin on Risk on this site. I'm sure setting this up and running it takes a lot more effort than most of us would want to do, so I appreciate it.

Jurasu wrote:Initiative might help some of the fairness questions, but does it answer all of DJENRE's concerns? From the way I read it, the larger issue he seemed to have was the fact that IcePack having to choose where they ended up after their intended path was blocked was not where they would have chosen to be had they had the chance to be alerted and make a second choice. Because of the dice rolls on the next turn, one spot, which they had not been put on, was more favorable than the spot that they had been put on. Part of it may be hindsight bias, but I thought that was the larger issue being discussed here.

I believe I have that summed up correctly. Based on the fact that IcePack asked us for suggestions that wouldn't significantly increase the game's run-time (which elongating turns and making multiple checks per round would do), wouldn't it be better if teams also included a Plan B when submitting their turns? It was mentioned earlier, but didn't seem to gain any traction. It wouldn't have to be super specific and contain a list of potential coordinates in descending order. It could be a general "If we can't move to this spot, we would like to move towards Map X." That way shouldn't really add any more work for IcePack to do, and it should also cut out the arbitrary factor that has the potential to inadvertently create a disadvantage.


Also, thank you again IcePack for running an interesting game to put a spin on Risk on this site. I'm sure setting this up and running it takes a lot more effort than most of us would want to do, so I appreciate it.

I think part of the changing the first person by initiative would also bring balance to the other part, as the same clan wont be dealing with it the whole game.
All will get treated the same way by me but it wont be the same clan every turn having to predict who goes where or might not get the moves they were looking for etc.

Someone else suggested the "alternate path" method via PM i think. Essentially this is "possible" but then it opens the door to a lot of other headaches. For example:
I tried to do alternate turns in the CR@W game and it can be a huge pain. Instead of we move to X it was:

We move to X unless A does B then go to Y but only if Z also does C and if they don’t do either just do Q. Or other such very difficult to follow long involved alternate universes that made it difficult for me to manage in a reasonable time. I’m afraid if we do that here I’ll regret it the same way. Or what happens then when the alternate plan gets blocked...it just goes back to the same add time or icepack decides method which again, isn't ideal for me.

I can't get sucked into another CR@W where each turn takes hours to update, the idea here was it was simple enough and fast enough for me to do on my lunch hour while on site break, and still give clans something to do. So thats 30 mins per turn that I can update basically, otherwise I'm giving up time in the evenings which I'm trying to keep for other things during the fall.

randomize turn order is also important in 2 ways ; early movers have a chance to block others ( sorry Djenere but what can i do with a one ?) but late movers may get to start 2 games in a turn ; they start a game if someone enters the room they are in and start a game when they enter another room in the same round so
1) yes lets randomize initiatives;
2) people should consider the chance they will be blocked and suggest a second and third spot , or let ice move them as close as possible ( not saying he did this round, i'm not taking the time to analysze that ) but we should take a little extra time as participants to allow the game-master to have an easy life.

I vote for whatever makes it easier on the IcePack

IcePack wrote:

Jurasu wrote:Initiative might help some of the fairness questions, but does it answer all of DJENRE's concerns? From the way I read it, the larger issue he seemed to have was the fact that IcePack having to choose where they ended up after their intended path was blocked was not where they would have chosen to be had they had the chance to be alerted and make a second choice. Because of the dice rolls on the next turn, one spot, which they had not been put on, was more favorable than the spot that they had been put on. Part of it may be hindsight bias, but I thought that was the larger issue being discussed here.

I believe I have that summed up correctly. Based on the fact that IcePack asked us for suggestions that wouldn't significantly increase the game's run-time (which elongating turns and making multiple checks per round would do), wouldn't it be better if teams also included a Plan B when submitting their turns? It was mentioned earlier, but didn't seem to gain any traction. It wouldn't have to be super specific and contain a list of potential coordinates in descending order. It could be a general "If we can't move to this spot, we would like to move towards Map X." That way shouldn't really add any more work for IcePack to do, and it should also cut out the arbitrary factor that has the potential to inadvertently create a disadvantage.


Also, thank you again IcePack for running an interesting game to put a spin on Risk on this site. I'm sure setting this up and running it takes a lot more effort than most of us would want to do, so I appreciate it.

I think part of the changing the first person by initiative would also bring balance to the other part, as the same clan wont be dealing with it the whole game.
All will get treated the same way by me but it wont be the same clan every turn having to predict who goes where or might not get the moves they were looking for etc.

Someone else suggested the "alternate path" method via PM i think. Essentially this is "possible" but then it opens the door to a lot of other headaches. For example:
I tried to do alternate turns in the CR@W game and it can be a huge pain. Instead of we move to X it was:

We move to X unless A does B then go to Y but only if Z also does C and if they don’t do either just do Q. Or other such very difficult to follow long involved alternate universes that made it difficult for me to manage in a reasonable time. I’m afraid if we do that here I’ll regret it the same way. Or what happens then when the alternate plan gets blocked...it just goes back to the same add time or icepack decides method which again, isn't ideal for me.

I can't get sucked into another CR@W where each turn takes hours to update, the idea here was it was simple enough and fast enough for me to do on my lunch hour while on site break, and still give clans something to do. So thats 30 mins per turn that I can update basically, otherwise I'm giving up time in the evenings which I'm trying to keep for other things during the fall.

Thank you Jurasu, you perfectly understand the matter.
the larger issue he seemed to have was the fact that IcePack having to choose where they ended up after their intended path was blocked was not where they would have chosen to be had they had the chance to be alerted and make a second choice. Because of the dice rolls on the next turn, one spot, which they had not been put on, was more favorable than the spot that they had been put on.
Thank you for your support.

I'm not for giving all alternatives, it will be a brainkiller for Icepack.
Also Ice, many players noticed that one round every 48h (instead 24h actually) won't be a shame because with the actual system, a team can meet 2 or 3 teams in a single round, so a team leader could have to start like 15 games in a single week (because he plays all kind of game).
You know I'm not for the idea you take any decision for any team.
What about giving the roll to all by pm, then having 24 hours to let you know where we move, exactly like we did before.
But there is an additionnal 24 hours period to deal with problems (in case there are problems), but also to edit all moves asken on the thread and ask for type of game to all teams (double, triple, or quad). And also you can create the games.

If there are problems, they can be dealed directly into the thread and team can choose what they want to do in case their move is not correct.

Also I'm for the alternative path, but I think PACK and RET are the teams we have to ask first, as they have more to loose than any other team with this 'new' system.

That's my opinion.

t4mcr53s2 wrote:( sorry Djenere but what can i do with a one ?)

Not your fault, and like we said loveliveteach and myself, we totally forgot about you in front of the door
But that's not the matter.

Low and LLT fall will be in feudal ( lower left ) care to join us? i figure you will choose game type as second in

sorry guys ... I have not read through all of this .. but I believe the gist of it is that there are times when a team can get blocked because of what might have happened before his turn comes along.

The way I see it is the easiest solution would be to modify the rule regarding not letting 2 teams occupy the same location simultaneously ....

So I would suggest one of these options ...

1 - lift the restriction and allow more than 1 to occupy the same location or pass through to the other side and continue its movement to its final destination.
or
2 - Allow teams pass through an occupied location but NOT end the turn in the same location.
---- using a direct line movement to where the intended destination was to be ... IP will move the team token. If there are not enough steps available to safely move to the final destination ... he will move it as far as possible and the token's final destination will be the farthest number of steps where it can rest in an unoccupied location. At no time will the token be allowed to move MORE than the number of spaces equal to the number rolled. If when travelling in a straight line to the intended destination there is no UNOCCUPIED safe landing space then the token remains in place and the turn ends.

so as an example ... the team rolls a 6 ...

steps 4 and 5 are occupied but 6 (final destination) is open then the token moves to step 6.

case 2: roll again a 6 ... step 5 and 6 are occupied .. the token can only move 4 safely so it does so and completes the rest of their turn on location 4. At no time would the token advance past the max number of spots for example skip 5 and 6 to land on the next vacant spot which is #7.

case 3: roll is 6 ... 4 and 6 are occupied so the farthest safe landing for the token would be the 5 step so that is where it stops.


I hope I am expressing my thought properly ... I realise in Clue that double occupancy is not allowed ... but with this little adjustment we can all continue without making IP make any decisions or wait for rerouting.

ElricTheGreat wrote:sorry guys ... I have not read through all of this .. but I believe the gist of it is that there are times when a team can get blocked because of what might have happened before his turn comes along.

The way I see it is the easiest solution would be to modify the rule regarding not letting 2 teams occupy the same location simultaneously ....

So I would suggest one of these options ...

1 - lift the restriction and allow more than 1 to occupy the same location or pass through to the other side and continue its movement to its final destination.
or
2 - Allow teams pass through an occupied location but NOT end the turn in the same location.
---- using a direct line movement to where the intended destination was to be ... IP will move the team token. If there are not enough steps available to safely move to the final destination ... he will move it as far as possible and the token's final destination will be the farthest number of steps where it can rest in an unoccupied location. At no time will the token be allowed to move MORE than the number of spaces equal to the number rolled. If when travelling in a straight line to the intended destination there is no UNOCCUPIED safe landing space then the token remains in place and the turn ends.

so as an example ... the team rolls a 6 ...

steps 4 and 5 are occupied but 6 (final destination) is open then the token moves to step 6.

case 2: roll again a 6 ... step 5 and 6 are occupied .. the token can only move 4 safely so it does so and completes the rest of their turn on location 4. At no time would the token advance past the max number of spots for example skip 5 and 6 to land on the next vacant spot which is #7.

case 3: roll is 6 ... 4 and 6 are occupied so the farthest safe landing for the token would be the 5 step so that is where it stops.


I hope I am expressing my thought properly ... I realise in Clue that double occupancy is not allowed ... but with this little adjustment we can all continue without making IP make any decisions or wait for rerouting.

Actually it's in rules, the position is blocked and we cannot pass throught.
But the matter is that in this case, Icepack select HIMSELF where the team should go instead, and that can give more or less possibilities for next round.

I used to play a kind of dice-games during my childhood.

Assume randomize initiatives;
Dice will be 1 to 6.
Assume dice rolled squares to be moved.
Assume that you have your next square to move in front of you.
Assume you can turn around if an obstacle.

When you are about to move to the next square, it's possible that several adjacent squares are occupied.

Code: Select all

There are four direction if none occupied - move as predicted.
There are three directions if one is occupied - move will be "Left" {1,2}, "Right" {3,4}, Turn around and continue the move {5,6}.
There are two directions if two are occupied - move will be "Left/Right" {1,2,3}, Turn around and continue the move {4,5,6}.
There is one direction if three are occupied - Only one direction allowed.
There is none direction if all are occupied - Stay put - you're locked.

That would add an extra difficulty in the game.

t4mcr53s2 wrote:Low and LLT fall will be in feudal ( lower left ) care to join us? i figure you will choose game type as second in

Sounds good, see you there, t4 and FALL.

I guess you missed the whole point of my post ...

Which is to remove the rule regarding

the position is blocked and we cannot pass through

and replace the movement method to one of my options listed

DJENRE wrote:

ElricTheGreat wrote:sorry guys ... I have not read through all of this .. but I believe the gist of it is that there are times when a team can get blocked because of what might have happened before his turn comes along.

The way I see it is the easiest solution would be to modify the rule regarding not letting 2 teams occupy the same location simultaneously ....

So I would suggest one of these options ...

1 - lift the restriction and allow more than 1 to occupy the same location or pass through to the other side and continue its movement to its final destination.
or
2 - Allow teams pass through an occupied location but NOT end the turn in the same location.
---- using a direct line movement to where the intended destination was to be ... IP will move the team token. If there are not enough steps available to safely move to the final destination ... he will move it as far as possible and the token's final destination will be the farthest number of steps where it can rest in an unoccupied location. At no time will the token be allowed to move MORE than the number of spaces equal to the number rolled. If when travelling in a straight line to the intended destination there is no UNOCCUPIED safe landing space then the token remains in place and the turn ends.

so as an example ... the team rolls a 6 ...

steps 4 and 5 are occupied but 6 (final destination) is open then the token moves to step 6.

case 2: roll again a 6 ... step 5 and 6 are occupied .. the token can only move 4 safely so it does so and completes the rest of their turn on location 4. At no time would the token advance past the max number of spots for example skip 5 and 6 to land on the next vacant spot which is #7.

case 3: roll is 6 ... 4 and 6 are occupied so the farthest safe landing for the token would be the 5 step so that is where it stops.


I hope I am expressing my thought properly ... I realise in Clue that double occupancy is not allowed ... but with this little adjustment we can all continue without making IP make any decisions or wait for rerouting.

Actually it's in rules, the position is blocked and we cannot pass throught.
But the matter is that in this case, Icepack select HIMSELF where the team should go instead, and that can give more or less possibilities for next round.

ElricTheGreat wrote:I guess you missed the whole point of my post ...

Which is to remove the rule regarding

the position is blocked and we cannot pass through

and replace the movement method to one of my options listed

DJENRE wrote:

ElricTheGreat wrote:sorry guys ... I have not read through all of this .. but I believe the gist of it is that there are times when a team can get blocked because of what might have happened before his turn comes along.

The way I see it is the easiest solution would be to modify the rule regarding not letting 2 teams occupy the same location simultaneously ....

So I would suggest one of these options ...

1 - lift the restriction and allow more than 1 to occupy the same location or pass through to the other side and continue its movement to its final destination.
or
2 - Allow teams pass through an occupied location but NOT end the turn in the same location.
---- using a direct line movement to where the intended destination was to be ... IP will move the team token. If there are not enough steps available to safely move to the final destination ... he will move it as far as possible and the token's final destination will be the farthest number of steps where it can rest in an unoccupied location. At no time will the token be allowed to move MORE than the number of spaces equal to the number rolled. If when travelling in a straight line to the intended destination there is no UNOCCUPIED safe landing space then the token remains in place and the turn ends.

so as an example ... the team rolls a 6 ...

steps 4 and 5 are occupied but 6 (final destination) is open then the token moves to step 6.

case 2: roll again a 6 ... step 5 and 6 are occupied .. the token can only move 4 safely so it does so and completes the rest of their turn on location 4. At no time would the token advance past the max number of spots for example skip 5 and 6 to land on the next vacant spot which is #7.

case 3: roll is 6 ... 4 and 6 are occupied so the farthest safe landing for the token would be the 5 step so that is where it stops.


I hope I am expressing my thought properly ... I realise in Clue that double occupancy is not allowed ... but with this little adjustment we can all continue without making IP make any decisions or wait for rerouting.

Actually it's in rules, the position is blocked and we cannot pass throught.
But the matter is that in this case, Icepack select HIMSELF where the team should go instead, and that can give more or less possibilities for next round.

Yes I perfectly see what you said.
But we're not asking for changing the rules, we pointed out a problem which is NOT in any rules.
See the problem and try to apply your new rule, it won't help.
Icepack had two possibilities for us and choose one instead the other.

I sent a PM to two clans that haven't submitted their turns. I assume it has to do with the ongoing discussions etc.
For now, Turn 5 started before the discussions so we will play this per normal. I've given them until Thursday @ 2400 CCT to submit for Turn 5.

I'll send out new info with the Turn 6 rolls, if any.

Thanks,
IcePack

IcePack wrote:I sent a PM to two clans that haven't submitted their turns. I assume it has to do with the ongoing discussions etc.
For now, Turn 5 started before the discussions so we will play this per normal. I've given them until Thursday @ 2400 CCT to submit for Turn 5.
I'll send out new info with the Turn 6 rolls, if any.
Thanks,
IcePack

Well I understand our demand about turn 5 has not been received favorably.
Then we move to H20.

Yes I perfectly see what you said.
But we're not asking for changing the rules, we pointed out a problem which is NOT in any rules.
See the problem and try to apply your new rule, it won't help.
Icepack had two possibilities for us and choose one instead the other.

Actually my solution DOES cover it ... there is no longer any need for IP to decide anything .... you move part way to your destination, all the way, or not at all!

No 2nd choice ... you pick the destination and the rest just happens

Foed is looking for a team interested in going back and forth between FE and Arms Race to get all the clues we can

Who is interested

Updated

foed, low either of you interested in a tussle at arms race? for turn 6?