Moderator: Community Team
nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking
Gillipig wrote:nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking
Until there's 3 or 4 players left
ProStrategos wrote:Gillipig wrote:nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking
Until there's 3 or 4 players left
Yes, but by then someone's bound to have the upper hand, and can easily win, unless everyone else does something - either way, loads of action!
Gillipig wrote:ProStrategos wrote:Gillipig wrote:nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking
Until there's 3 or 4 players left
Yes, but by then someone's bound to have the upper hand, and can easily win, unless everyone else does something - either way, loads of action!
You know this from having played one game? I wish I had your talent man!
72o wrote:No spoils is boring. I prefer the nail-biting, stomach-churning large escalating game where getting that crucial elimination is tenuous, and when it works out you cascade cashes into a glorious single turn victory.
Kaskavel wrote:It gets more and more pointless to watch people arguing again and again about escalating vs flat/no spoil types of game. They are just two different type of games, with different characteristics.
What is certain and all top players would agree I think, is that playing non escalating games with more than 2 "players" leads to frustrating stalemates. I would even go much further and say that ANY non escalating game with 3 or more players or parties that play reasonably enough will always lead to stalemate unless fog,trench and map objectives create dangerously dynamic situations.
The round limit option boosted non escalating games. There is much more sence to play those games now. In my opinion, fog is necessary. Being the last to play offers a considerable advantage otherwise in my opinion.
Jippd wrote:I think there is a difference in the amount of luck involved in the different types of spoils games.
Risk is determined by four things: Dice, Drop, Strategy, Cards.
If you take away the cards then only three things influence the game. If you control 1/3 as opposed to 1/4 I feel like there is more strategy involved and you yourself have more control over the game.
I do also agree though that they are very different games depending on what you are playing and that they do have different characteristics and play styles/strategies.
I would also agree though that in a no spoils game strategy plays a bigger roll than a spoils game.
Nuclear often plays like no spoils, but cornering your enemy onto certain territories so you can cash and nuke does play a roll.
However comparing flat rate and esc. I would say flat rate is more luck based. With Esc cashes are predictable and I agree that usually the team/person that gets that first lucky 3 set is often the one that comes out with the win.
Flat rate I think is more luck based because if a team/player is getting or gets lots of 8/10 sets at 3 cards that can drastically make or break games often.
Walthobum wrote:if you play escalating games mostly i think it means you don't really like 'playing' the game so much as rolling the dice and seeing if you've won.
maxfaraday wrote:Nothing like sweeping the map in an esc speed game with your victims as the audience.
Almost as good as sex.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: jusplay4fun