Poker Club [Quenched]

[Major Roadworks]

As a pokerfreak, I love the concept of this map!

Quick question: If a player has less than 5 territories but holds a bonus (e.g. a pair) - should they be given their bonus since technically they don't have a 'hand' of 5 cards?

[danfrank]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

[MrBenn]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

The problem with 'no card bonus' is that cards have another meaning in the context of CC - this would surely lead to more confusion...

[yeti_c]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

[yeti_c]

As a pokerfreak, I love the concept of this map!

Quick question: If a player has less than 5 territories but holds a bonus (e.g. a pair) - should they be given their bonus since technically they don't have a 'hand' of 5 cards?

A fair point - but one that I think would make the game a lot harder - hence why I left it as is.

Also - as in some starts - you only have 2 cards - it's a bit harsh to force them to go through at least 9 neutrals til they can get bonuses.

C.

[yeti_c]

Thirdly i think that each player should start with only one two or three territories .. he started a game with a pair on the drop under fog it seemed pretty even because he could not see me... without fog he clearly would have been a favorite...

This has been discussed in the map development - we chose the starting places specifically so that it was only possible to receive a maximum of 2 pair - and only if you're playing 2 or 3 or 4 player - to get that drop you would be very lucky - and if you have pairs - chances are - the other players have pairs - we decided that the +2 bonus that they received for this was negligible with the neutrals on the map. - Above 4 players and it's impossible to receive 2 pair - you may receive 1 pair.

C.

[PLAYER57832]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

Then this should be explained as such in the legend. Or you will continue to confuse folks. Anything "not normal" should be explained...


Second: In game 3254290 my opponent got the high card bonus, then I also got it in the next turn. Unless this is a "per person" this should not be possible. That is, is it the overall high card OR just having the high card for that person ... that is, essentially a default bonus? Either way, it should be explained a bit better.

[yeti_c]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

Then this should be explained as such in the legend. Or you will continue to confuse folks. Anything "not normal" should be explained...

Possibly - but there's no place to put anything like "sadly we cannot have one bonus in on go due to limitations in the XML - you will receive 1 for territories and the rest for your bonus - it will add up to the bonus shown in the legend".

Second: In game 3254290 my opponent got the high card bonus, then I also got it in the next turn. Unless this is a "per person" this should not be possible. That is, is it the overall high card OR just having the high card for that person ... that is, essentially a default bonus? Either way, it should be explained a bit better.

"Your best hand pays your bonus"

C.

[Boss_oss_ss]

OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

Then this should be explained as such in the legend. Or you will continue to confuse folks. Anything "not normal" should be explained...


Second: In game 3254290 my opponent got the high card bonus, then I also got it in the next turn. Unless this is a "per person" this should not be possible. That is, is it the overall high card OR just having the high card for that person ... that is, essentially a default bonus? Either way, it should be explained a bit better.

Well in poker if you don't have a hand all you have is a "high card". That is what it means. This way you always get a minimum of 3 armies!

[Knight2254]

So apart from the visibility issues...

Any gameplay issues?

C.

A couple suggestions:

If there is a way, perhaps through BoB even, to show what cards you have and what your opponent has. Knowing what cards his full house comes from makes it easier to figure out where to attack. Also, knowing what you have without writing everything down would help you figure out what cards you should focus on. Right now you can do it, but it is difficult to see and hard to follow.

[yeti_c]

So apart from the visibility issues...

Any gameplay issues?

C.

A couple suggestions:

If there is a way, perhaps through BoB even, to show what cards you have and what your opponent has. Knowing what cards his full house comes from makes it easier to figure out where to attack. Also, knowing what you have without writing everything down would help you figure out what cards you should focus on. Right now you can do it, but it is difficult to see and hard to follow.

You can see this info in the Textmap (in BOB)?

C.

[clangfield]

Just started a 3 player game - WAY too many neutrals. Had no opportunity to attack my opponents - daft.

[barterer2002]

Game 3250723

Flush is getting me +7 Legend says it should be +8

2008-09-14 19:38:11 - barterer2002 receives 7 armies for holding Flush

[MrBenn]

not that hard guys. notice that you get 1 army for holding a territory. add this to your bonus and voila. you've got the same total as shown in the legend.

[barterer2002]

Ah, sorry I missed that. I read the previous page to see if it had been commented on but didn't want to go through all 50+. Should have read the previous 2, thanks for the quote benn old bean

[happy2seeyou]

I have 10 games going on this map right now. It's looking pretty fun. Do the same cards get picked for every game with 4 player doubles? I

[edbeard]

I have 10 games going on this map right now. It's looking pretty fun. Do the same cards get picked for every game with 4 player doubles? I

certain cards were picked out to be the starting areas on the map. all the other cards were made to have a neutral start. they were done so that the best start anyone could have is 2 pair and they made they as unlikely as possible. I can't remember how many starting cards they picked. I believe it was 16 so that every game type starts everyone with a minimum of 2 cards and a max of 5.

[yeti_c]

I have 10 games going on this map right now. It's looking pretty fun. Do the same cards get picked for every game with 4 player doubles? I

certain cards were picked out to be the starting areas on the map. all the other cards were made to have a neutral start. they were done so that the best start anyone could have is 2 pair and they made they as unlikely as possible. I can't remember how many starting cards they picked. I believe it was 16 so that every game type starts everyone with a minimum of 2 cards and a max of 5.

Correct - there is an illustration of the starts on the first page of this thread.

C.

[NoobX2000]

you shouldn't be able to play "no cards" on this map

[watkinsdouglas]

This is a great map, my only concern is that when you are playing as red, it gets really hard to see your troops.

But thanks for the great, original, idea!

[utmbrad1]

I am currently playing in a match. One of the problems I am having is seeing where the ownership of the card is. Could it be possible to darken the circle?

[G_M]

Great idea and really fun as well.

My one problem I find however is that the games are really one sided. If someone grabs an early bonus if a straight or flush (very likely with a good drop) he is virtually unbeatable.
The player without a bonus has to fight through 2/3 neutral fields each with 3 troops before he can break the bonus. This will take 2-3 turns, during which the player with the bonus can just deploy and wait.

Maybe one must stick to 8 player games.

A suggestion is to start all fields off with 2 troops instead of 3.

[pamoa]

Great idea and really fun as well.

My one problem I find however is that the games are really one sided. If someone grabs an early bonus if a straight or flush (very likely with a good drop) he is virtually unbeatable.
The player without a bonus has to fight through 2/3 neutral fields each with 3 troops before he can break the bonus. This will take 2-3 turns, during which the player with the bonus can just deploy and wait.

Maybe one must stick to 8 player games.

A suggestion is to start all fields off with 2 troops instead of 3.

I agrre there is a balance problem.
Either you lowerneutral to 2 or even 1.
Or you lower the bonus scale, lets say divide by 2.

[yeti_c]

Great idea and really fun as well.

My one problem I find however is that the games are really one sided. If someone grabs an early bonus if a straight or flush (very likely with a good drop) he is virtually unbeatable.
The player without a bonus has to fight through 2/3 neutral fields each with 3 troops before he can break the bonus. This will take 2-3 turns, during which the player with the bonus can just deploy and wait.

Maybe one must stick to 8 player games.

A suggestion is to start all fields off with 2 troops instead of 3.

I agrre there is a balance problem.
Either you lowerneutral to 2 or even 1.
Or you lower the bonus scale, lets say divide by 2.

Bonus scale shouldn't be touched - as you're missing the other side of this -even if you own the whole map the most bonus you can get is 15.

I might be tempted to lower the neutrals to 2 - but I'd be a bit worried that 1st turn takeouts would be more likely then.

Remember - you can only drop with 2 pair at best - so if player 1 gets a straight - then you've gotta get yourself something better - I can't legislate for that. It's upto you to get the hands.

C.

[G_M]

Remember - you can only drop with 2 pair at best - so if player 1 gets a straight - then you've gotta get yourself something better - I can't legislate for that. It's upto you to get the hands.

C.

Well if someone drops 2 pair, he could theoretically have a full house in 1 turn. The opponent might have 2 neutral cards to go through before breaking th bonus. Basically impossible.