Moderator: Community Team
Army of GOD wrote:Flat rate is by far the worst setting. Making them all equal will reduce the luck, but it still involves luck. I'd rather just play No Spoils.
eddie2 wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Flat rate is by far the worst setting. Making them all equal will reduce the luck, but it still involves luck. I'd rather just play No Spoils.
i would beg 2 differ nuc spoils is the luckest one id say
Or even like the current Flat Rate setting is.
RedRing wrote:I like this idea, one of the ones I was thinking about earlier. For people that LIKE spoils... but wish it has just a little less luck to it.
TheForgivenOne wrote:Because i am going by what you poll said. It was a heavily weighted to "No". You have ignored, or have simply not responded to, anyone that says "Hey, there is still a tremendous amount of luck in this Suggestion". You are still lucky if you can cash in at 3, and i have to wait for 5 to cash in. To be honest, this is calling basically for more stalemate games.
TheForgivenOne wrote:So? Every option has people that like it and don't like it. If we were to implement every option that had some people that liked it, such as the Surrender/Forfeit/Quit button, then this place would be over riddled with options.
drunkmonkey wrote:Because most people would never use this. A bonus of 4 troops every now and then does nothing to move the game along. It would play out like a no spoils game.
Woodruff wrote:drunkmonkey wrote:Because most people would never use this. A bonus of 4 troops every now and then does nothing to move the game along. It would play out like a no spoils game.
The suggestion isn't locked into "bonus of four troops". It's about having the same number of troops (whatever that may be) for the bonus. Personally, I would always play this instead of what we now have in "flat rate" if it were available. It's a much more fair option. In fact, I would go so far as to predict that this option would virtually eliminate the use of "flat rate" once people got used to it.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Bump
Darwins_Bane wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Bump
Don't bump a thread unless you have something to contribute please.
DJ Teflon wrote: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.
It’s not perhaps a sentiment one has too often in life, but it can be said without hesitation that the past year or so has been a good one for popular accounts of the lives of 17th-century English polymaths.
DoomYoshi wrote: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.
greenoaks wrote: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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users