[GP/UI] Poker Spoils

[TheForgivenOne]

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.

[Laughing.Boy]

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.

[Bruceswar]

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.

[Laughing.Boy]

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.

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

[pmchugh]

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

[Bruceswar]

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.

[pmchugh]

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.

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

[phantomzero]

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.

[pmchugh]

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.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

[JoshyBoy]

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.

This presents a very strong case for the suggestion that we should limit recruits to certain maps and settings and unlock them over time.

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

[JoshyBoy]

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.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

That suggestion is good but I personally believe that some of the specifics should be changed.

[Queen_Herpes]

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.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

That suggestion is good but I personally believe that some of the specifics should be changed.

PLease...suggest your beliefs...in that thread...