Conquer Club

I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

Bruceswar wrote:I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

You don't like this idea?

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

You don't like this idea?

This would be correct

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

You don't like this idea?

This would be correct

May I ask why?

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

You don't like this idea?

This would be correct

May I ask why?

Another meaningless medal that will at some point come out, just like all these meaningless maps now coming out that have 5 people that like them. Crowding the system is never a good idea. This would create tons of more farming. We do not need this, and this is nothing to do anything with risk at all. It is just a bad idea all around.... just like some maps that come out. They never should have.

At least you are expressing your input during the process, Bruce. That is a good sign, even if you don't like a suggestion, or a map. Honestly, I mean it.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:At least you are expressing your input during the process, Bruce. That is a good sign, even if you don't like a suggestion, or a map. Honestly, I mean it.


--Andy

I always have opinions on things, but I hold some back due to the fact others might be offended.

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:I hope this does not make it in. This will just end up as more useless medals.

You don't like this idea?

This would be correct

May I ask why?

Another meaningless medal that will at some point come out, just like all these meaningless maps now coming out that have 5 people that like them. Crowding the system is never a good idea. This would create tons of more farming. We do not need this, and this is nothing to do anything with risk at all. It is just a bad idea all around.... just like some maps that come out. They never should have.

I see what you are saying Bruce, and I respect your view. I guess I like the suggestion because I love poker.

JoshyBoy wrote:
I see what you are saying Bruce, and I respect your view. I guess I like the suggestion because I love poker.

I like poker also and if I want the poker feel, just play poker club. We do not need spoils for this.

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:
I see what you are saying Bruce, and I respect your view. I guess I like the suggestion because I love poker.

I like poker also and if I want the poker feel, just play poker club. We do not need spoils for this.

I think it adds something a little different to the already given options. I don't even like the poker feel to it, I just like the change in strategy.

pmchugh wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:
I see what you are saying Bruce, and I respect your view. I guess I like the suggestion because I love poker.

I like poker also and if I want the poker feel, just play poker club. We do not need spoils for this.

I think it adds something a little different to the already given options. I don't even like the poker feel to it, I just like the change in strategy.

It goes against everything this game stands for... Imagine if you could play soccer 5 vs 5 and not 11 vs 11.. There are some rules that need not be bent. Cards must be a 3 set is one of them.

Edited to add: a ton of coding is needed for this one also which will make it not easy.

I'm going to be honest, i couldn't for the life of me figure out what you were talking about, until that last post. I originally was thinking "Hey, this sounds like a new quirk to the game". But now i see the flaw in "cashing 1 or 2 cards" or "cashing in 5" all at once.

I'm not sure I see the flaw. All due respect to Bruceswar and his opinion, to which he is certainly entitled and has explained with a valid reason. In fact, it's pretty awesome to hear valid opposition to the idea. Criticism is beneficial when constructive.

The problem I see, though, is clinging to tradition. Cashing in three cards at a time is a time-honored tradition of the game this site is based upon. But that doesn't mean we can't innovate. We already have altered the rate, with Flat-Rate spoils and Nuclear spoils. Those two have introduced new strategies. I certainly wouldn't play an Escalating game the same as I would a Flat-Rate game, and I'd play a Nuclear game different that either of those. Of course, we also have No spoils, which itself is different too.

There are new maps that introduce new strategies. Every one is breaking the tradition of the original game, and I personally own several board game variants of the original game that introduce new maps and game mechanics.

And, of course, there's Fog of War which isn't realistically possible with the original board game, and we have the option between Manual and Automatic troop deployment. Each of those options change the way one plays the game.

Oh, and our many game modes coupled with our turn options.

Tradition was broken a long time ago. In my opinion, for the better. Not because I enjoy every mode and option (I don't) but because I highly value the freedom of choice and a wide array of options. The only thing we haven't innovated is the number of spoils one cashes at a time. (No Spoils doesn't count.)

If it were change for the sake of change, I'd agree that Poker spoils was nothing but rubbish. However, it isn't. In fact, it may be one of the most strategy-changing options yet. Right now, everybody cashes in three spoils at a time, and when you can cash those is is largely left to chance. With one or two spoils, you have no option and thus no strategy. You have a 1-in-3 chance with three spoils, just shy of 4-in-5 chance with four spoils, and five spoils guarantees you can (and must) act. At any point along the possible collection of spoils, one has a 42.5% chance of being able to cash, not including a person who has no spoils. (That's just the way of the game.)

However, your ability to choose a strategy is less than that, since you must act at five spoils. Unless you have three of one type and one of each other type, thus giving you a binary choice, (statistically happening less than 25% of the time you gain five spoils) you have no real option at five spoils. In reality, you have a choice to act strategically about about 27.5% of the time, or about 11-in-40. With Flat-Rate, Escalating and Nuclear, that is.

With Poker spoils, you have the option to act strategically 100% of the time. (Again, discounting a person having no spoils.) There is still chance, but you always have a choice. Players can act with cool, calm collective strategies, saving spoils and pruning their collections for the optimal cash-out; or they can spend what they have right away for a desperate gamble or last-ditch effort. A player can not be sitting on four cards and have no way to act.

I don't see another useless medal. It's not about playing Poker. (That's just the inspiration. I don't even play Poker.) And it's not about crowding the system and change for the sake of change.

Poker spoils is about the ultimate expression of choice and strategy. It is the ability to manage your inflow of troops as much as randomness will allow. It is the thinking man and woman's spoil system.

At least, that's what I've envisioned.

You missed the whole point. It is impossible to have fog of war in real life. Flat rate is nothing new from the original game. Nuclear is, but you know what it has in common with Escalating and Flat rate? All have 3 spoils needed. You mine as well flipping quarters to see if you win an attack and sending out bunnies to take over the next spot. This whole idea is pretty absurd if you ask me. Cashing 1 card just makes no sense. @ the other maps comment. Maps still use the same basic game style as this site is modeled around sans a few off shoot maps. Anyhow this is not needed and not a good idea.

No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

But that's the thing. Are we going to keep changing this site further and further until it no longer is based around what it is meant to be? We still have basics here. You cash 3 cards. There are 3 Attackers and 2 Defenders Max. For 99% of the maps, you must eliminate all your opponents. Just the few Objective maps are quirks. You are changing the way cards are cashed. Soon people will want to cash 10 cards at once. Or people will start wanting either 4 attackers or 2 attackers for holding something on a map.

Well, as you correctly pointed out, the option for original settings will always be there. Regardless, as I stated before, I'm against changes for the sake of changes. Changes that offer a legitimate perk to the overall system are innovative.

Anyways, I'd argue that the Poker spoils system is more true to the original game than Nuclear spoils is. I'd put it on the same level of divergence as Assassin mode. It keeps the same flavor, but alters the tactics.

Laughing.Boy wrote:No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Bruceswar wrote:

Laughing.Boy wrote:No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Sacred cows and traditions. To be honest, I was hoping for something more useful. Anything not meant to be changed stands in the way of progress.

Nevertheless, to each their own.

TheForgivenOne wrote:But that's the thing. Are we going to keep changing this site further and further until it no longer is based around what it is meant to be?

Yes.

Laughing boy made a great point...no need to cling to tradition. All changes to this site have been innovative and exciting. Someone, somewhere likes them. If you don't like a setting, don't play it! Understandably there are settings that would be useless like, say, "TOTAL ANNIHILATION". In TOTAL ANNIHILATION, each player cashes a set of spoils and it completely nukes the whole board. So, whoever gets to three cards first, wins.

This suggestion offers something innovative which creates a completely new environment for strategy in the game. A player who is close to obliteration can cash his or her one card to stave off certain death, or make a last-ditch effort to break an opponent. Its all a calculation and will innevitably require a new book to be written about the strategy involved with this kind of spoils group. Think about a multiplayer game where taking out your opponents for their spoils suddenly changes when the player with 2 cards cashes, and the player who follows him cashes his one remaining card. Your turn is next and you are left with a board of players with no cards, so taking everyone out becomes impossible in one turn.

I'm very excited about this option as are many other players, their comments have been posted.

ultimately, however, it is just a suggestion. Once it gets submitted, it is still a suggestion. The site may or may not go for it. If it does, it seems there is a lot of support behind it. If it doesn't, there might be some players upset about it, probably more players upset about it not being implemented than there are players who would be "bothered" by its addition to the settings.

Bruceswar wrote:

Laughing.Boy wrote:No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Bruce you have totally lost me, can you play Speed, freestyle, foggy, 8 player, escalating on a 300 territory board in you're house?

CC isn't risk, and this is a great new strategy idea that you actually could play on a board if you wanted to

pmchugh wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Laughing.Boy wrote:No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Bruce you have totally lost me, can you play Speed, freestyle, foggy, 8 player, escalating on a 300 territory board in you're house?

CC isn't risk, and this is a great new strategy idea that you actually could play on a board if you wanted to

Speed = Yes

8 Players = Yes

300 Spot board = Yes (Printer works well)

Freestyle = Yes (but hard)

Fog = No.


While all of these may bend the rules a tad they keep the same simple concept.

First off bruce my point was combined, you can't have 8 people cashing in sets of 100+ and attacking defending all at the same time. It is nothing like the original game.

Secondly, have you recieved a heavy blow to the head any time in the last few days? Cause you're points just do not make any sense. This change keeps "the same simple concept" you're eager to protect where as the likes of city mogul, freestyle, fog and many other game variations on this site change it to the point where it's no longer recognisable. The site adapts and changes, deal with it.

pmchugh wrote:First off bruce my point was combined, you can't have 8 people cashing in sets of 100+ and attacking defending all at the same time. It is nothing like the original game.

Secondly, have you recieved a heavy blow to the head any time in the last few days? Cause you're points just do not make any sense. This change keeps "the same simple concept" you're eager to protect where as the likes of city mogul, freestyle, fog and many other game variations on this site change it to the point where it's no longer recognisable. The site adapts and changes, deal with it.

Well said.

Laughing.Boy wrote:If it were change for the sake of change, I'd agree that Poker spoils was nothing but rubbish. However, it isn't. In fact, it may be one of the most strategy-changing options yet. Right now, everybody cashes in three spoils at a time, and when you can cash those is is largely left to chance. With one or two spoils, you have no option and thus no strategy. You have a 1-in-3 chance with three spoils, just shy of 4-in-5 chance with four spoils, and five spoils guarantees you can (and must) act. At any point along the possible collection of spoils, one has a 42.5% chance of being able to cash, not including a person who has no spoils. (That's just the way of the game.)

However, your ability to choose a strategy is less than that, since you must act at five spoils. Unless you have three of one type and one of each other type, thus giving you a binary choice, (statistically happening less than 25% of the time you gain five spoils) you have no real option at five spoils. In reality, you have a choice to act strategically about about 27.5% of the time, or about 11-in-40. With Flat-Rate, Escalating and Nuclear, that is.

With Poker spoils, you have the option to act strategically 100% of the time. (Again, discounting a person having no spoils.) There is still chance, but you always have a choice. Players can act with cool, calm collective strategies, saving spoils and pruning their collections for the optimal cash-out; or they can spend what they have right away for a desperate gamble or last-ditch effort. A player can not be sitting on four cards and have no way to act.

I was actually agreeing with Bruce about not adding this as an option until I read the above quote. If it is added it will make for some better strategy than Nuclear Spoils and provide some very interesting cashing strategies.

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

So really in the end I'm split. I think if more options are going to be added, this is a very decent option, but at the same time, I'd be quite happy with just keeping the existing game options.