[GO] Constant (Very Flat) Rate Spoils

[alex_white101]

woops didnt look in the pending bit of the tp-do list, o well.

[Risktaker17]

Subject: No matter what combination of cards are handed in the card value stay the same.

Body: A new card option should be added. When you hand these cards no matter what color are worth the same. I think its needed because it takes the luck out of cards. In flat rate, you can be extremely screwed by bad luck. Just an idea

Priority: 3 not that important

[yeti_c]

Pretty sure this has been suggested before...

C.

EDIT - Click here

[Rybal]

I think that that was already planned - It is under pending.

[superkarn]

New Idea

I just thought of another idea for flat/constant card rate:

* doesn't matter what color cards you have, as long as you have at least 3, you can trade them in
* if you trade when you have 3 cards, they're worth 4 men
* if you trade when you have 4 cards, they're worth 6 men
* if you trade when you have 5+ cards, they're worth 8 men
* 3 cards still equal a set

The main benefit with this option is that there's no luck involved, only strategy. You get to decide whether 6 men this turn is more bebeficial than 8 men the next turn or not.

This adds another level of strategy, and at the same time a more leveled playing field. Of course the # of bonus could be modified to work better (e.g. to 5,7,9 or 4,8,10, etc).

[Selin]

Or you could go with "no cards", it MOSTLY does the same thing.

Except in no cards games you have no motivation to attack whgich leads to stagnation and simple army building. Everyone wants to build their armies without attacking until the other players attack and weaken each other. Adding a real flat rate would give people incentive to get a card each turn.

I fully agree on that.

.

[vtmarik]

I just thought of another idea for flat/constant card rate:

* doesn't matter what color cards you have, as long as you have at least 3, you can trade them in
* if you trade when you have 3 cards, they're worth 4 men
* if you trade when you have 4 cards, they're worth 6 men
* if you trade when you have 5+ cards, they're worth 8 men
* 3 cards still equal a set

The main benefit with this option is that there's no luck involved, only strategy. You get to decide whether 6 men this turn is more bebeficial than 8 men the next turn or not.

This adds another level of strategy, and at the same time a more leveled playing field. Of course the # of bonus could be modified to work better (e.g. to 5,7,9 or 4,8,10, etc).

I like this. Sort of a Colorless Card option.

Very cool.

[isodice]

Increasing the need for good strategy is always preferable! I like the latest idea of having to decide whether to trade at 3 cards vs. 5 cards, and having to weigh the benefit/cost of that decision - depending on your current situation in the game, it could be a different decision every time.

So who needs to be made aware of this so we can get it moving into production??

[superkarn]

Yep, I think colorless card option is good because sometimes when I play flat rate, I would get a mixed set with the first 3 cards while somebody else would have to wait till the 5th card and they ended up trading reds. This can pretty much ruin a game. Worse if you keep trading reds while the other players keep getting mixed.

This way you know your options, and not hoping for cards.

More strategy + less luck = more fun

[lianweizhi]

I think the no color idea has some merit, but I still worry that the last guy in a 6 player game could get annihilated before he gets to his fourth turn, with 5 guys trading cards before him. Of course, it would have to be an organized attack effort most likely, but my point is I think the idea still needs tweaking. Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas at this time, and my technician is trying to ask me something so I need to get back to this thought later.

[lianweizhi]

I agree less luck is better though. Rolling the dice is bad enough!

[superkarn]

hmm only 4 replies about the new card option...

makes one wonder whether the [Pending] in the topic automatically makes people skip reading this thread

[Night Strike]

I would give the colorless card option a try. And I think the army values are pretty good.

[Haydena]

I like it

[BeakerWMA]

When my friends and I used to play Risk all sets were worth 8 armies, with the 2 bonus if you owned it in place.

[superkarn]

Just wondering what the mods think of the new "colorless" card option idea?

[pancakemix]

Just wondering what the mods think of the new "colorless" card option idea?

I don't think that would work. Part of the coding is that it randomly selects the color for the card regardless of how you're playing cards (unless it's no cards) so you would ave to change the coding and that would be the only form of cards you could play.

That's just my understanding of it though.

Another thing, Having increased amounts for more cards isn't exactly IMO a good idea, and I don't know if it's even possible to do it.

[The1exile]

Another thing, Having increased amounts for more cards isn't exactly IMO a good idea, and I don't know if it's even possible to do it.

Well, I'm not a programming genius but you could make each card worth 2 armies and allow you to cash as many as you like at any time (or a minimum of 3 cards, but the principle remains the same), which might work.

[superkarn]

Another thing, Having increased amounts for more cards isn't exactly IMO a good idea, and I don't know if it's even possible to do it.

Well, I'm not a programming genius but you could make each card worth 2 armies and allow you to cash as many as you like at any time (or a minimum of 3 cards, but the principle remains the same), which might work.

I know it's possible to implement. The1exile's idea is one way to do it.

pancakemix, just wondering why you think it might not be a good idea? Maybe you're seeing something I'm not

[Shelter417]

"Colorless cards" is a really good idea. Anything that reduces the element of "luck" in the game...

[lianweizhi]

I talked about this with Superkarn a little today. What about weighted cards according to your fighting prowess?

Three tiers: a "1" card, a "2" card, and a "3" card, each worth the number they are once traded (e.g. if you trade a set of 1, 2, and 3, you get a bonus of 6)

To get a "1" card, you must conquer one to three territories.
To get a "2" card, you must conquer four to six territories.
Conquer seven or more territories to get a "3" card.

You must have a minimum of 3 cards to trade in for a bonus, but you can also trade 4 and 5 cards if you have them.

The range of card bonuses would then be 3 (capture only 1-3 territories over three turns) to 15 (capture 7+ territories over five turns - which if you did that you should have won already).

With this system, you would be encouraged to be as offensive as you can, and it would take any luck outside of the dice rolls out of it.

The only concern here would again be that poor last guy... with everyone before him trying to take out 7 territories, he could get eaten up. A possible solution would be to start each player off with one more territory than the guy that goes before him.

Card values and tier thesholds can/should be adjusted as needed per the game.

What do you think?

[Aerial Attack]

I talked about this with Superkarn a little today. What about weighted cards according to your fighting prowess?

Three tiers: a "1" card, a "2" card, and a "3" card, each worth the number they are once traded (e.g. if you trade a set of 1, 2, and 3, you get a bonus of 6)

To get a "1" card, you must conquer one to three territories.
To get a "2" card, you must conquer four to six territories.
Conquer seven or more territories to get a "3" card.

You must have a minimum of 3 cards to trade in for a bonus, but you can also trade 4 and 5 cards if you have them.

The range of card bonuses would then be 3 (capture only 1-3 territories over three turns) to 15 (capture 7+ territories over five turns - which if you did that you should have won already).

With this system, you would be encouraged to be as offensive as you can, and it would take any luck outside of the dice rolls out of it.

The only concern here would again be that poor last guy... with everyone before him trying to take out 7 territories, he could get eaten up. A possible solution would be to start each player off with one more territory than the guy that goes before him.

Card values and tier thresholds can/should be adjusted as needed per the game.

What do you think?

Two things I see with this:

1. Getting cards is difficult enough only having to take ONE territory. So, this would encourage (almost force) more people to ally with their neighbors. Instead of non-aggression pacts, you'd see minimal aggression pacts (I'll leave 3 terrs with 1, you take them, I take them back, and so on and so forth). These pacts/alliances could be a good thing.

2. Each successive player starting with 1 more territory would prove fatal for the FIRST player. Seeing as how they have fewer terrs (they would have fewer armies). Even without bad dice rolls the first or second player would certainly be targeted for early elimination. Unless you are suggesting they have the same number of armies - in which case they would wield tremendous power (lots of armies in just a few territories) to bull rush at the outset. No matter how you implement this - someone has a tremendous advantage/disadvantage.

[Aerial Attack]

New Idea

I just thought of another idea for flat/constant card rate:

* doesn't matter what color cards you have, as long as you have at least 3, you can trade them in
* if you trade when you have 3 cards, they're worth 4 men
* if you trade when you have 4 cards, they're worth 6 men
* if you trade when you have 5+ cards, they're worth 8 men
* 3 cards still equal a set

The main benefit with this option is that there's no luck involved, only strategy. You get to decide whether 6 men this turn is more bebeficial than 8 men the next turn or not.

This adds another level of strategy, and at the same time a more leveled playing field. Of course the # of bonus could be modified to work better (e.g. to 5,7,9 or 4,8,10, etc).

I like this idea. True, the 6th player can get bum rushed (but that could happen no matter the settings). Besides, not everyone gets a card every turn (g d f-ing dice!! *smirk*).

[superkarn]

*Bump*

Anyway, this was supposed to be under the Classified section in the To-do list. But I don't see it there anymore. Just wondering if this idea has been canned?

For more info, the New Flat Rate Option is stated back on page 2 (not the same idea as the one at the beginning this thread). Or just read what Aerial Attack quoted above ^^^



Also would like to reiterate the pros and cons of the current card options and the new option:
No Cart
+ No luck involved
- Less incentive to attack

Flat Rate
+ Does not get out of hands in long games (max you can get per trade is 10 + 6 bonuses)
- Luck affects both how soon you can get a set and how many men you receive

Escalating
+ Chance of a come back win
- Luck still affects how soon you can get a set, but does not directly affect the number of men you receive
- Can get out of hands in longer games (i.e. getting 100+ men per trade)

Colorless Cards (new option)
+ No luck involved
+ Incentive to attack
+ Does not get out of hand with massive bonuses per trade

[Simon Viavant]

Concise description:

• A flat rate game where every set is worth 10 armies.

Specifics:

• A flat rate game where 3 blues, 3 reds, 3 green, and 1 of each all are worth 10 armies. It would be an option, not to replace the current system.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• You have an equal chance of getting each set, and this way you would have an equal bonus
• Less confusing for newer players playing flat rate.
• Cards would be more worth while. People would be more motivated to attack. Now cards are kinda worthless in flat rate and a lot of the time it's not worth attacking for cards.