Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:
Or even like the current Flat Rate setting is.

The current flat rate setting used to be a standard in the H-version boardgame. escalating was a rarely-played option.

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.

Exactly! C'mon, mods, this is a good idea!

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: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.

It's limiting the luck to whether or not you get a set of three, rather than if you get the higher-valued set of three. The boldly italicized part solves the stalemate problem. I don't see why people are against this. There are clearly people who like this, so why not give them the option to? This is a legitimate request and I can't imagine it'd be difficult to implement.

-Sully for the cards

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.

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.

The forfeit button was rejected on account of people intentionally throwing games. No one can abuse this.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly! We should at least beta test this or something, to look for stalemates and popularity. If there are a lot of stalemates and it's not very popular like all you haters think it'll be, then fine, drop it. If not, then keep it as an extra card bonus option. You can't say, "Oh, there's gonna be stalemates and no one's gonna want to play," if it hasn't been tested. And like Woodruff said, it doesn't have to be 4 troops it can be more, if need be.

-Sully's fixed on Fixed

Bump

i think 6 would be a better figure than 4

and rename this thread Fixed Spoils

Victor Sullivan wrote:Bump

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

Darwins_Bane wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote: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

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.

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.

Yeah, probably, but thanks for the comment!

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Funkyterrance wrote:

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

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.

greenoaks wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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