[GO] Constant (Very Flat) Rate Spoils

[Metsfanmax]

but if that happened then it wouldn't be like normal risk at all >.>

You mean like "nuclear spoils" is?

Or even like the current Flat Rate setting is.

[Victor Sullivan]

but if that happened then it wouldn't be like normal risk at all >.>

You mean like "nuclear spoils" is?

Or even like the current Flat Rate setting is.

Exactly my point!

[Army of GOD]

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.

[lord voldemort]

flat rate is the luckiest card setting

[rdsrds2120]

Flate rate? Why play that when I could go stick a fork in a toaster? Anyway, I think that enough people are familiar with the flat rate system so as to change it could cause a lot of sudden confusion. Depending on how much support you get for the general idea of having a type of spoils that is always equivalent, you would probably have more luck getting a new type of spoil like that created than getting an existing spoils option edited.

[Victor Sullivan]

Anyway, I think that enough people are familiar with the flat rate system so as to change it could cause a lot of sudden confusion. Depending on how much support you get for the general idea of having a type of spoils that is always equivalent, you would probably have more luck getting a new type of spoil like that created than getting an existing spoils option edited.

Maybe I wasn't clear before, but my idea was to create a new card bonus setting, because, as you said, people are already familiar with the current "Flat Rate" setting. Obviously if this were to happen (which I really hope it does) we'd have to figure out a name for my suggestion like "Fixed" or something...

[rdsrds2120]

Anyway, I think that enough people are familiar with the flat rate system so as to change it could cause a lot of sudden confusion. Depending on how much support you get for the general idea of having a type of spoils that is always equivalent, you would probably have more luck getting a new type of spoil like that created than getting an existing spoils option edited.

Maybe I wasn't clear before, but my idea was to create a new card bonus setting, because, as you said, people are already familiar with the current "Flat Rate" setting. Obviously if this were to happen (which I really hope it does) we'd have to figure out a name for my suggestion like "Fixed" or something...

Fixed seems reasonable, but then you'd have to get support from the general community for it to go through. I'd open a poll.

[safariguy5]

If you have a game that goes on for a long time under this system, you're going to have a stalemate like you would in a flat rate game except that the threshold number of rounds is going to be much lower. In the current system, getting 10 extra troops when the stacks are 30 is much more significant than getting 4 when the stacks are 30. Anticipate more stalemates this way.

[Victor Sullivan]

If you have a game that goes on for a long time under this system, you're going to have a stalemate like you would in a flat rate game except that the threshold number of rounds is going to be much lower. In the current system, getting 10 extra troops when the stacks are 30 is much more significant than getting 4 when the stacks are 30. Anticipate more stalemates this way.

• The idea is to have a troop bonus that applies to all card combinations i.e. 4 troops for 3 reds, 3 greens, 3 blues, or 1 of each.

When I said 4 troops, it was just an example. It could be 6 or 8 as long as it's not too high.

[gordon1975]

i only play flat rate or no spoils,id play this setting. good idea

[safariguy5]

If you have a game that goes on for a long time under this system, you're going to have a stalemate like you would in a flat rate game except that the threshold number of rounds is going to be much lower. In the current system, getting 10 extra troops when the stacks are 30 is much more significant than getting 4 when the stacks are 30. Anticipate more stalemates this way.

• The idea is to have a troop bonus that applies to all card combinations i.e. 4 troops for 3 reds, 3 greens, 3 blues, or 1 of each.

When I said 4 troops, it was just an example. It could be 6 or 8 as long as it's not too high.

If it was say 8, then the person who drew the 3 card set would probably win most of the time too. 4 is only reasonable because it doesn't impart an insurmountable advantage to the lucky guy who gets a 3 card set. 6 might be debatable, but I would probably draw the line at 5.

[Victor Sullivan]

My initial thought was 4, as that's what me and my friends do when we get together and play risk and it works best at least for the classic map cuz it's not too much to overpower the cards but not too few that you can't do anything with them. I think 6 would be my highest but we can debate the number later when this first poll's results are in.

[MichelSableheart]

It's an ok setting, but I doubt it's different enough from no spoils and Flat rate to warrant the extra programming effort and extra space in the gamefinder/gamecreation screens.

[SirSebstar]

I think the difference between flat rate and "fixed" as the Original poster (OP) suggested is a bit small.
luck;to take luck out of the equation, you are better served with no spoils.
e.g. you have 3 cards and a set, i have 4 and no set. still luck.
height;the amount of troops recieved was a suggestion. can be from 4 to say 8ish but not to high?! If its not high enough cards will not matter. e.g. the average cost in dice lost to get 3 red under flat rate is usually not enough to cover your losses. So 4 is way too low. And flat rate does tend to run into stalemates..

i see a valiant attempt to redesign the flat rate system (or suggest an alternate), but i suggest you try and think it through a bit more. both its positives and negatives and see where it adds to the site..\good luck

[drunkmonkey]

What about removing colors from the cards completely? Turn in any 3 for a set. If you have 3 in your hand, the set is worth 4, 4 in hand = 6, 5 or more in hand = 8. This would remove luck of the draw, give an incentive to hold cards, and still give players with only 3 cards a chance to cash in a last-ditch effort. Just an idea - if you don't like it, throw it out.

[TheForgivenOne]

What about removing colors from the cards completely? Turn in any 3 for a set. If you have 3 in your hand, the set is worth 4, 4 in hand = 6, 5 or more in hand = 8. This would remove luck of the draw, give an incentive to hold cards, and still give players with only 3 cards a chance to cash in a last-ditch effort. Just an idea - if you don't like it, throw it out.

I'm pretty sure something like this has been suggested.

[40kguy]

If you don't like the cards the way they are, don't use them as a game setting.
Just check this box when you create/find a game:
"No Spoils Checked"

But that doesn't logically follow at all, because there is a tremendous difference between "no spoils" and what he is suggesting.

how about esculating

[Victor Sullivan]

What's with all the "No"s in the poll?? This saddens me

[Darwins_Bane]

because the fundamental flaw is still there. it doesnt matter in your case what kind of set you get, but if i continually get 3 card sets, theres still an imbalance.

[L M S]

Just play no spoils.

Or just make it so the spoils only provide a +2 bonus on the territories you own without an option to place them yourself and nothing beyond that...that would change strategy significantly and remove a lot of the luck factor right there.

[Victor Sullivan]

That's a decent compromise. Anybody else like the idea?

[eddie2]

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

[Victor Sullivan]

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

True dat!

[Victor Sullivan]

It'd be so sad not to see this implemented. It makes sense! Several people would use it, and if other people don't want to, they don't have to!

[RedRing]

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.