[GO] Constant (Very Flat) Rate Spoils

[AndyDufresne]

Merged.


--Andy

[Simon Viavant]

I thought someone might have suggested it before. I did the search, but it didn't really work.

[AndyDufresne]

No worries. Cicero, Jennifermarie, and I are working on a better scheme for this forum to make it a little more user friendly.


--Andy

[War Dog]

im vote 100

[Simon Viavant]

Bumping, this, I think sets in flat rate should always be 15 or 20, because in traditional risk, the average set in a game is probably 20-30, but in flat rate, the average set is 7. Cards hold much less value and get kinda pointless after round 5 or so in flat rate here so you don't really have that motivation to attack.

[jbrettlip]

I like the idea, but the poll is wrong. everyone would vote "more options" It needs to be more direct: like would you like a game where 1)all sets=6 armies? 2) cashing 3 cards is worth 4, 4 cards is worth 6 and 5 cards is worth 8? 3) colorless cards, so sets are not dependant on luck etc. If you want to get a consensus, I think you should revise the poll. Since it is pending, it may not be active anymore.

PS I love the 3,4,5 card cash option.

[ParadiceCity9]

I like the idea, but the poll is wrong. everyone would vote "more options" It needs to be more direct: like would you like a game where 1)all sets=6 armies? 2) cashing 3 cards is worth 4, 4 cards is worth 6 and 5 cards is worth 8? 3) colorless cards, so sets are not dependant on luck etc. If you want to get a consensus, I think you should revise the poll. Since it is pending, it may not be active anymore.

PS I love the 3,4,5 card cash option.

I like options 2 and 3, along with the overall idea of a new Flat Rate.

[Simon Viavant]

Concise description:

• Make a new version of flat rate.

Specifics:

• In this flat rate, for one thing it's not really flat (4, 6, 8, or 10.), and for another thing, cards are worth way less than in traditional risk. In an escalating game, the average set is probably 25 or more. In flat rate it's 7. There is a point to that, that way cards don't dominate everything, but that also sorta defeats the purpose of cards. I'm suggesting every set be 15.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• A game where cards are worth something, but don't dominate everything.
• A game where it's actually a real flat rate, eliminating some of the luck.

[crazycoders]

I agree a bit with you but not entirely. I feel there is too much luck in flat rate because someone that gets red cards has way less units than someone that gets blue. Yet again, imagine if you are lucky enough to own the blue card. I would put all same color sets at 7 and a rainbow at 10 like it currently is.

[Simon Viavant]

I agree, there is too much luck. This way there would be less luck. In your way there would still be luck, and sets wouldn't be worth that much.

[BaldAdonis]

"True Flat Rate" has been a suggestion for a long time. Most people settle somewhere between 5-10 for all sets though, not 15. Imagine a game where someone gets a three card set and the others have to wait until 5. One of them will die and give up two sets, worth 30.

[Simon Viavant]

"True Flat Rate" has been a suggestion for a long time. Most people settle somewhere between 5-10 for all sets though, not 15. Imagine a game where someone gets a three card set and the others have to wait until 5. One of them will die and give up two sets, worth 30.

Yeah, you've got a pretty good point there. But it should be worth going after cards, even late into the game. Maybe 10-12.

[Iccinot Nabrus]

Maybe that should be named one rate rather than flat rate. I think I've played CC so long, flat rate actually means something and my eyes light up whenever I see RGB. (I first noticed this while playing poker at home) Just a suggestion to your suggestion.

[Skiman]

Here's my two cents on modified / alternative version of Flat Rate.

Flat Rate presents two strategic choices for players. First, whether and where to attack to ensure you get a card. On many boards (including the classic map for example), playing without cards can make for a long, slow (and some would say boring) game. So it introduces a level of aggression into the game that makes it more interesting. Howver, unlike escalating, the game itself remains a territorial / positional game in which continent bonuses play a central role throughout the game. In escalating, those bonuses lose their strategic relevance once sets get into the 20s.

Second, the timing of when to cash your sets. The early mixed set can be decisive on smaller maps, so there's a luck element there. Trying to wait for a mixed set - also very much a luck thing - is another key timing question. Or, particuarly in games with 4+ players, playing your set last in hopes of making the big move after everyone else has over extended. Cashing earlier is often an advantage, as you

I'd like to see game where you had the choice of cashing 3, 4 or 5 cards at once. Cashing 3 cards is worth, say, four armies. Cashing 4 cards is worth 5 armies. Waiting and cashing 5 cards is woth 8 armies.

How does that change things? Well for starters, there's no luck of the draw with either the nature of the set (red vs green vs blue) or the timing of the set (watching someone cash a quick set on turn 3 while you wait to turn 5). However, it retains strategic decisions around timing the set (cashing early if you see an advantage in it) to waiting for a bigger set later, it doesn't disrupt the strategic importance of territory or bonuses and in keeps the need some some aggression (to get a card) in the game.

[crazycoders]

I like that last idea man. I'd prefer a that to changing the flat rate, but obiouvsly that would need to be a different name of card type such as Exponential.

1 card = 1 unit (take the preceding + the card number)
2 cards = 3 units (take the preceding + the card number)
3 cards = 6 units (take the preceding + the card number)
4 cards = 10 units (take the preceding + the card number)
5 cards = 15 units (take the preceding + the card number)

And so on, until a set limit that i would augment for that specific type such as 7 or 8...

At 7, you can get 28 units and 8 it's 36 units.

The rules for cashing in would be the same as normal, no more than x cards or you have to cash in. But in this version the limit COULD be different.

[King Dain II]

I do not see how this helps at all. Let me explain my reasoning.

No Cards: no luck involved in getting extra troops
Escalating: 1 field of luck: whether you have a set. When you use it says how much it is worth (as far as I understand like classic board game risk, never played on an escalating game myself)
Flat Rate: 2 fields of luck: whether or not you have a set, how much it is worth

So, if you make a true flat rate option, you will get this:

No Cards: no luck involved in getting extra troops
Escalating: 1 field of luck: whether you have a set
Flat Rate: 1 field of luck: whether or not you have a set

There will be an equal amount of luck involved in flat rate and escalating, making them similar. Of course there will be a difference between the two since escalating starts out small and becomes large, but essentially you are making a no luck, some luck, a lot of luck list become a no luck, some luck, some luck list.

That was my two cents worth. I think that if you want a real flat rate, play no card game like I do. It eliminates the luck of how much a set is worth by making all of them 0.

[Simon Viavant]

I like that last idea man. I'd prefer a that to changing the flat rate, but obiouvsly that would need to be a different name of card type such as Exponential.

1 card = 1 unit (take the preceding + the card number)
2 cards = 3 units (take the preceding + the card number)
3 cards = 6 units (take the preceding + the card number)
4 cards = 10 units (take the preceding + the card number)
5 cards = 15 units (take the preceding + the card number)

And so on, until a set limit that i would augment for that specific type such as 7 or 8...

At 7, you can get 28 units and 8 it's 36 units.

The rules for cashing in would be the same as normal, no more than x cards or you have to cash in. But in this version the limit COULD be different.

I like this idea.
Dain: The point of this is to create a card set less dependant on luck, with a system where cards don't completely dominate late game, but where cards are also worth something late game.

[Paddy The Cat]

I like that last idea man. I'd prefer a that to changing the flat rate, but obiouvsly that would need to be a different name of card type such as Exponential.

1 card = 1 unit (take the preceding + the card number)
2 cards = 3 units (take the preceding + the card number)
3 cards = 6 units (take the preceding + the card number)
4 cards = 10 units (take the preceding + the card number)
5 cards = 15 units (take the preceding + the card number)

And so on, until a set limit that i would augment for that specific type such as 7 or 8...

At 7, you can get 28 units and 8 it's 36 units.

The rules for cashing in would be the same as normal, no more than x cards or you have to cash in. But in this version the limit COULD be different.

now THIS is a truly great idea-its all about the strategy... do you cash earlier for less, or try to survive later until more

of course, with eliminating opponents, something has to be figured out, but i like it !

[crazycoders]

^_^

Thx

(Bump)

[TruePurple]

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 thought of this same idea, then found it on the forum. So of course I whole heartedly agree.

Man, this thread is so old, yet still pending?! Please get around to this excellent idea!

I play no spoils because flat rate has too much luck, and I don't like escalating. But if they implemented this, I would certainly use it. I miss the element of spoils.

[General Mayhem]

Hang on. So whats the point in having cards then? If theyre all the damn same value. Just dont use em!

[Thezzaruz]

Hang on. So whats the point in having cards then? If theyre all the damn same value. Just dont use em!

Having spoils is a way to encourage attacks and (hopefully) help speed up/resolve games.

[General Mayhem]

Hang on. So whats the point in having cards then? If theyre all the damn same value. Just dont use em!

Having spoils is a way to encourage attacks and (hopefully) help speed up/resolve games.

Thanks for the description of the cards. I had no idea until now! Do i look like a numb nuts!?
My point is getting the same value reward for each set in my opinon is a boring idea. You might aswell not bother.
Its for people who always get shit red sets and cant build a strategy to deal with such a hand.
If you cant work with the luck of the cards. Dont play em.

[JBlombier]

That's why they suggest it as an option, not a replacement for the current system.

[General Mayhem]

i know.
it just seems pointless in my opinion. but if adds to it for some. then fine