[GO] Constant (Very Flat) Rate Spoils

[greenoaks]

i think 6 would be a better figure than 4

and rename this thread Fixed Spoils

[Darwins_Bane]

Bump

Don't bump a thread unless you have something to contribute please.

[Victor Sullivan]

Bump

Don't bump a thread unless you have something to contribute please.

Alrighty then, I'll address some FAQs/arguments for this spoils option:

• Arguments for the option
  -Reduces the luck factor of spoils, yet still allows players to get a boost of troops
  -Provides another option in the Spoils department, thus creating more diversity between games
• FAQs
  Q1: How many troops will I get for a cash?
  A1: That will be discussed later down the road, once this is submitted. (I will probably post a poll then)
  Q2: What makes this any different from Flat Rate?
  A2: Flat Rate gives out troops based on what color set you have (4 for red, 6 for green, 8 for blue, 10 for one of each) while all color sets in Fixed will be the same (X for red, green, blue, or one of each).
  Q3: If you want to "reduce the luck factor", why don't you just play No Spoils?
  A3: Fixed allows for players to get a troop bonus, which is much different from getting no troops at all. Fixed would give the losing guy more of a fighting chance than No Spoils would. Now, you might say, "Well the winning guy would get the same bonus of troops soon after," but the percentage of troops relative to each player's current bonus is very different. Think of it this way: 10 troops for 5 territories is a lot better than 10 troops for 20 territories.
  Q4: I would never play this option, so why submit it at all?
  A4: Others do, and implementing this would not mean that you'd have to play with this setting at all, though I'd encourage you to give it a chance.

Hope this helped, everyone! Comments are greatly appreciated!!

-Sully

[Teflon Kris]

Nice idea Sully - as discussed above a better option than flat rate - still requires some luck so not as much of a stalemate as no spoils.

I also wonder about the +2 troops on card regions and whether we could have an option to include this or not - maybe that's a seperate suggestion though.

[Victor Sullivan]

Nice idea Sully - as discussed above a better option than flat rate - still requires some luck so not as much of a stalemate as no spoils.

I also wonder about the +2 troops on card regions and whether we could have an option to include this or not - maybe that's a seperate suggestion though.

Yeah, probably, but thanks for the comment!

[DoomYoshi]

I am bringing these topics out from the archives. This idea has been suggested 7 times before, and at one point was marked *pending*. I am presuming that is the system they used before we had "Submitted" but the suggestion was never implemented. I want to judge if there is any interest in this. If not, I can move it back to the archives.

The suggestions have been for 4 per set, 7 per set (the current mean cash value), 10 per set and 15 per set.

[Funkyterrance]

I very strongly support this. I don't like escalating games but I like playing for cards. Flat rate has too much luck involved imho so I don't play that either. This would make a nice "in-between" setting and I guarantee I would play it a lot.

[agentcom]

I am bringing these topics out from the archives. This idea has been suggested 7 times before, and at one point was marked *pending*. I am presuming that is the system they used before we had "Submitted" but the suggestion was never implemented. I want to judge if there is any interest in this. If not, I can move it back to the archives.

The suggestions have been for 4 per set, 7 per set (the current mean cash value), 10 per set and 15 per set.

Yeah, there have been several iterations of what is now the Suggestions Forum. At first it was the same as Bug reports, then the suggestions got moved out, then there was some sort of priority system, then there was Lack's To-Do list, etc., etc.

<Cue cynical comments>

As for the suggestion, it's an interesting idea. I'd probably play it occasionally. I, too, am curious how people feel about it. I feel like there will be two responses: "Meh" or "Hell Yeah." I'm more on the "meh" side, myself.

[greenoaks]

meh for me.

if the setting doesn't blow us away it should not be added. quality control is a good idea, yes i'm looking at you Foundry

[Funkyterrance]

meh for me.

if the setting doesn't blow us away it should not be added. quality control is a good idea, yes i'm looking at you Foundry

It does blow me away, to be quite honest. Ever since I started playing here I didn't like playing flat rate for the crazy amount of luck it provides. I've always wanted a constant flat rate option and I would be really excited if this came through.

[greenoaks]

meh for me.

if the setting doesn't blow us away it should not be added. quality control is a good idea, yes i'm looking at you Foundry

It does blow me away, to be quite honest. Ever since I started playing here I didn't like playing flat rate for the crazy amount of luck it provides. I've always wanted a constant flat rate option and I would be really excited if this came through.

but it doesn't really alter the way games are played or blow most of us away.

this might be a decent setting but so are many others. it just doesn't stand out like Nukes and Trench did or like Conquest does now.

[Funkyterrance]

meh for me.

if the setting doesn't blow us away it should not be added. quality control is a good idea, yes i'm looking at you Foundry

It does blow me away, to be quite honest. Ever since I started playing here I didn't like playing flat rate for the crazy amount of luck it provides. I've always wanted a constant flat rate option and I would be really excited if this came through.

but it doesn't really alter the way games are played or blow most of us away.

this might be a decent setting but so are many others. it just doesn't stand out like Nukes and Trench did or like Conquest does now.

Yeah granted it's not some wild new concept. But fun? I really think it would be. It sounds plain on paper but strategically it would add just as much a new element as say nukes or trench.

[Fazeem]

bump for arguments sake.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=189830

[Fazeem]

bump for arguments sake.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=189830

[clangfield]

I am bringing these topics out from the archives. This idea has been suggested 7 times before, and at one point was marked *pending*. I am presuming that is the system they used before we had "Submitted" but the suggestion was never implemented. I want to judge if there is any interest in this. If not, I can move it back to the archives.

The suggestions have been for 4 per set, 7 per set (the current mean cash value), 10 per set and 15 per set.

I'd echo the vote for 6, or perhaps 9 - being multiples of the 'standard' minimum of 3.

[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