[GO] Constant (Very Flat) Rate Spoils

[Fazeem]

I am surprised by how ignored this thread has been and the fact that it and the others bumped on this topic have yet to be merged. If I am to gather from what has been posted in one thread the Current administration looks to backpeddling from the previous and are now goingto ignore this option. I personally feel it is a mistake to do so but I can understand how previous supporters her are still current active players are not continuing participate in what was a unfullfilled promise

[Funkyterrance]

Personally I like 4 per set but I'm also partial to no spoils. Imho the lower the better after 4; I would like for cards to be worthwhile but not feel forced to get a card(escalating already does this).

[Lord_Bremen]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

[greenoaks]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

why bother giving spoils at all, just automatically credit the players with 6 troops every few turns.

[Lord_Bremen]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

why bother giving spoils at all, just automatically credit the players with 6 troops every few turns.

Choosing when to use cards is an important part of strategy. I'll often save sets (in flat rate) in case I get attacked and need them to recover, etc.

[agentcom]

I am surprised by how ignored this thread has been and the fact that it and the others bumped on this topic have yet to be merged. If I am to gather from what has been posted in one thread the Current administration looks to backpeddling from the previous and are now goingto ignore this option. I personally feel it is a mistake to do so but I can understand how previous supporters her are still current active players are not continuing participate in what was a unfullfilled promise

If you find identical suggestions let us know and we'll merge them. Maybe not quite identical ... a suggestion for flat rate should be 5 troops per set could be merged with one that sets the rate at 6 ... but very similar at the least.

I don't know that anyone is backpedaling or breaking promises. The response here seems to be some people like the idea, other people don't think it would add much. That doesn't make for a very strong candidate for implementation.

[greenoaks]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

why bother giving spoils at all, just automatically credit the players with 6 troops every few turns.

Choosing when to use cards is an important part of strategy. I'll often save sets (in flat rate) in case I get attacked and need them to recover, etc.

there is very little need to hold onto them as everyone gets the same.

at least in Flat the decision to hold & try for a Rainbow set or cash that Red/Green/Blue set now always comes into play.

Constant offers nothing as holding provides no chance to improve your cash.

[DoomYoshi]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

why bother giving spoils at all, just automatically credit the players with 6 troops every few turns.

Choosing when to use cards is an important part of strategy. I'll often save sets (in flat rate) in case I get attacked and need them to recover, etc.

there is very little need to hold onto them as everyone gets the same.

at least in Flat the decision to hold & try for a Rainbow set or cash that Red/Green/Blue set now always comes into play.

Constant offers nothing as holding provides no chance to improve your cash.

Unless you can take a territory for the +2?

[Lord_Bremen]

This is a good idea. I think it should be set somewhere between 6-8 (or could we have an option to pick when we create the map?). The idea is to take away the luck of the current 'flat rate" system, not to make cards less useful (which 4 would do).

why bother giving spoils at all, just automatically credit the players with 6 troops every few turns.

Choosing when to use cards is an important part of strategy. I'll often save sets (in flat rate) in case I get attacked and need them to recover, etc.

there is very little need to hold onto them as everyone gets the same.

at least in Flat the decision to hold & try for a Rainbow set or cash that Red/Green/Blue set now always comes into play.

Constant offers nothing as holding provides no chance to improve your cash.

That's simply not true. I often don't trade in rainbow sets until I have 5 cards and the game forces me. It's stupid to play cards if you don't absolutely need the armies, cause you have no idea where you'll end up needing them, especially with adjacent reinforcing. I'm also much less likely to break someone with 3+ cards, because he might be able to cash and fight back. Plus you need to fortify much more heavily against people who might have cards.

[Fazeem]

I am surprised by how ignored this thread has been and the fact that it and the others bumped on this topic have yet to be merged. If I am to gather from what has been posted in one thread the Current administration looks to backpeddling from the previous and are now goingto ignore this option. I personally feel it is a mistake to do so but I can understand how previous supporters her are still current active players are not continuing participate in what was a unfullfilled promise

If you find identical suggestions let us know and we'll merge them. Maybe not quite identical ... a suggestion for flat rate should be 5 troops per set could be merged with one that sets the rate at 6 ... but very similar at the least.

I don't know that anyone is backpedaling or breaking promises. The response here seems to be some people like the idea, other people don't think it would add much. That doesn't make for a very strong candidate for implementation.

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=102718
viewtopic.php?f=471&t=79857

[agentcom]

I am surprised by how ignored this thread has been and the fact that it and the others bumped on this topic have yet to be merged. If I am to gather from what has been posted in one thread the Current administration looks to backpeddling from the previous and are now goingto ignore this option. I personally feel it is a mistake to do so but I can understand how previous supporters her are still current active players are not continuing participate in what was a unfullfilled promise

If you find identical suggestions let us know and we'll merge them. Maybe not quite identical ... a suggestion for flat rate should be 5 troops per set could be merged with one that sets the rate at 6 ... but very similar at the least.

I don't know that anyone is backpedaling or breaking promises. The response here seems to be some people like the idea, other people don't think it would add much. That doesn't make for a very strong candidate for implementation.

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=102718 This one started over in Q&A, so it's not really clear what the OP wants. At one point, he suggests paying out lower amounts for mixed sets. I guess that in the final sentence the OP does come down to making "make another variation of game with a true flat and equal rate." Thanks for finding that.
viewtopic.php?f=471&t=79857 - This one allows a bigger cash for a 3 card rainbow, if I'm reading it right. So we'll get a cross-reference in there to this one.

[agentcom]

MERGED: Re-define Flat Rate Bonus or Create New Bonus Type
As noted in the OP, as edited, this thread is for suggestions that add an additional option for having this constant-value cash. The last sentence of the post linked above, appears to suggest that even though it started in Q&A, so it's not entirely clear. However, there is some good stats stuff about card probabilities there.

Edited OP.

Thanks fazeem for pointing out the threads. Sorry it took so long to get back to you

[rhp 1]

all but redundant (no spoils) and really does nothing but add another dimension of luck ("i 2 paired and lost because of it!") for more people to post "how 'fixed rate' games are fixed"

[Fazeem]

again this is a just another simple Idea that can create a more diverse and inviting game enviroment here it does not require a lot of work to implement and truthfully who would be hurt by having it as a option? as to a muber given how 3's tend to be a common theme make it a fixed 9 troops. No one loses when it is a option and not a forced change as a someone whos favorite setting is the current Flat rates we use I still feel this is awesome addition that only helps the site.

[Lord_Bremen]

all but redundant (no spoils) and really does nothing but add another dimension of luck ("i 2 paired and lost because of it!") for more people to post "how 'fixed rate' games are fixed"

Maybe if you actually tried a flat rate game sometime you'd realize how fundamentally different it is from no spoils?

And it seems like you're saying less luck is a bad thing?!?

[rick1063]

I have a suggestion which I think would solve all of these issues and create a new style of game, it would go as follows:-
Spoils can be valued at current escalating values or maybe toned down slightly (say 4,6,8,10,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,35,40,45,50 etc)
The big difference would be that the value of the spoils when you cash them in is individual to each player (so the 1st set you cash is worth 4, your 2nd set is worth 6).

The benefits to this are :-
1. - That it eliminates the problem with flat rate spoils being too different in value (one player gets 4 vs another player gets 10)
2. - It rewards a player that can make an elimination as they could potentially be a set ahead of their opponents by capturing other players cards but not to the extreme point of escalating spoils games. It also means that an elimination is valuable at any point during the game and not just when you can get enough cards to sweep the board (as in escalating)
3. - The existence of cards in the game stops games gettting stale with no attacking (as can happen in no spoils)
4. - It punishes players who miss turns/rewards players who don't as those who miss turns (some deliberately in escalating games) would fall slightly behind the other players in terms of cards.
5. - It would add a new pace of game which would fit in between flat rate and escalating. The early stages of the game it would still be important to go for territory bonuses etc (which are often ignored in escalating) but the slowly escalating nature would offer a way to break the stalemates which can occur later in flat rate & no spoils games

I've been thinking about this for a while and cannot see any down side, I believe it would become most peoples preferred method of play and would be a genuinely different option.

[jonofperu]

This seems to be the most central place for discussing Flat Rate alternatives.
My preference would be to replace the current system with something that is truly flat.
If that's not possible, I think it would still enhance the site to have a truly flat alternative.

I despise Flat Rate spoils. I've heard many people on the site express the same opinion. Can we run a poll? Maybe offering alternatives?
The main reason for this is that it involves a higher luck factor. There is enough luck in the dice. Luck can defeat the best strategy. Skill should prevail.
My latest beef with Flat Rate comes from a clan war game where our opponents have drawn 6 rainbows out of 7 sets played. We have drawn 2 out of 6 (2 reds, 2 greens, 2 rainbows). Even if you eliminate one of their rainbows that's still an advantage of 16 troops to them! (And in case people want to argue about the "strategy" involved in hanging onto cards for a chance at a rainbow... we haven't cashed until we had 5).

"Flat Rate" isn't flat! Yes, there are fixed values, but the reward is VARIABLE based on LUCK.
I know there's been a lot of discussion, but that's my opinion. It's shared by many.

Whether or not it would be possible to replace the current system I still think it would be a nice enhancement to add an alternative.
I used to play Risk as a kid. I would get tired of escalating and would sometimes eliminate cards altogether, OR I would play with a version of Flat Rate.
The systems I like are:

1) Escalating with a cap: call it "CAPPED SPOILS" for simplicity
Start low so spoils aren't overpowered at the start: 4,6,8,10. But stop before the sets overpower most regional bonuses. (Yes, I know some maps have insane bonuses, but think classic map structure.) I think the best place to stop is 10. (This may be original, I haven't seen it posted.)

2) A "True Flat Rate": every set of any color worth 7, etc. (Another idea suggested is colorless cards. Or any 3 cards can be cashed regardless of color?)

3) A "Stockpile" option: sets are worth a number of troops based solely on the number of cards.
3 cards = 4 troops
4 cards = 6 troops
5 cards = 8 troops

All of these are better than the Variable Rate (alias "Flat Rate") option now used.

Advantages of Spoils
There is an incentive to conquer a territory every turn. This can make gameplay more dynamic than No Spoils.
Escalating spoils in particular can help games end more quickly. The new tweak to escalating might help avoid stalemates??
Spoils add a comeback opportunity if someone grabs a bonus or gets ahead.

Problems with Escalating Spoils
Many of us feel it creates a lottery. To win multiplayer escalating on the Classic map you simply follow the SOC guidelines: create several stacks around the board and get cards. As soon as spoils are worth enough, someone sweeps the board. But even if you apply this excellent strategy all you do is increase your chances of winning. If everyone else does the same, it's a lottery.
There is more strategy in team or poly games: even eliminating a teammate for cards becomes an option. With teams/poly escalating is at least "mostly fair" - you can count on what the set values will be. (Although there is still the set you get with only 3 cards that wins the game or the lack of a set while holding 4 that loses it. When sets escalate luck matching cards can win/lose a game.)
But one of the biggest problems is it eliminates the value of regional bonuses on many settings/maps. You often simply play for spoils and position until cards are worth enough. I don't really have a problem with Escalating Spoils although my impression is that most pure strategists on the site prefer Foggy No Spoils games.

Problems with Flat Rate
I have to add one more argument. If "Flat Rate" really is flat, then so is Escalating... there is a preset value for sets cashed in. In fact Escalating is MORE FLAT than Flat Rate: because you have no idea what your cards will be worth in Flat Rate, but in Escalating you know exactly what it's going to be worth based on the fixed scale. (Yes, I know there are a lot of variables: who turns in before you, etc. But I still think it's more predictable and fair than "Flat Rate".)

I haven't discussed Nuclear (a nice variant) or Zombie (aaaaagh!), but this doesn't really apply to them.

P.S. I like the idea of implementing an alternative and if it becomes more popular than Flat Rate THEN we can discuss replacing Flat Rate. Probably a better chance of implementing something that way.