[Official] "No Cards" Change - pls give feedback

[lackattack]

How about this:

A 5 army mid-turn bonus upon eliminating an opponent in a No Cards game.

Still keeps out the luck factor, and should make them more interesting, no?

And for the sake of discussion, please pretend it's impossible to make it a separate option Thanks!

[misterman10]

meh, I dont like it if its not a separate option. I think no cards should mean no cards and no bonuses for eliminating an opponent.

[soundout9]

I think its good and makes the game more interesting.

[reverend_kyle]

I don't like it. I like how in no cards you can be down to 1 army and come back and win the game.

[Optimus Prime]

I'm a fan of the idea. I think you should go with it lack. It doesn't give that much of an edge to the player and perhaps it will be a small incentive to keep the no cards games from becoming quite as big of build games.

I wouldn't mind having it as an option across the board either though. Just click on the box that says "Elimination Bonus Armies" in the process of creating a game.

[sfhbballnut]

well darn i read it wrong and voted no, I really like the idea we should do it

[Fircoal]

I feel you should be spending less time trying to fix stuff that isn't broken and more time programming new stuff for us.

[misterman10]

I feel you should be spending less time trying to fix stuff that isn't broken and more time programming new stuff for us.

such as the new phpbb

[Bad Speler]

I vote no, even though I don't play many no cards games, part of the strategy in no cards is wether or not to eliminate your opponent, it will waste your armies, but will it aid in that you will have less opponents to fight?

[dcowboys055]

And for the sake of discussion, please pretend it's impossible to make it a separate option Thanks!

Bah! You had to add that didn't you?

Well I guess for the sake of discussion I would say no, but that it wouldn't be a big deal if it was implemented.

[lackattack]

You see, I'm proposing this because in the no cards games I've played it rarely aids me to kill. One less opponent for me is one less opponent for my opponents.

I'm interested in hearing from from the people who actually do play no cards. Of course, there are so few of them. Only 15% of games are no cards.

[misterman10]

You see, I'm proposing this because in the no cards games I've played it rarely aids me to kill. One less opponent for me is one less opponent for my opponents.

I'm interested in hearing from from the people who actually do play no cards. Of course, there are so few of them. Only 15% of games are no cards.

I used to play no cards a lot. Mostly, I play no cards in 1v1's as they are already super dependent on luck, and cards makes it even more of a luck game. That was the main reason I didn't like the suggestion to begin with, because it wouldn't really affect 2 player games. For 3+ player games, I think it would either

a: help, since I've played games where nobody can get any armies without cards, and the game lasts FOREVER

b: hinders game strategy, as playing the current no cards requires a different strategy than getting a bonus for eliminating an opponent

[thedude13]

Yea, so far I mostly only play 1v1 "no cards" games, where obviously, it wouldn't really do anything. Sorry, but I think the idea would only be good if the bonuses were proportionate to the number of players; or just was a lower amount period, like 3.

Only because, in the couple of three-for-all "no cards" games I've played, 5 extra armies can make a huge difference if your already winning or evenly matched. Where as 3 armies, not so much; but is enough to make a world of difference if your right behind the other player. Kinda like how holding Africa in "Doodle Earth" can mean a Big "V" for you in the end. If your way behind, then chances are you haven't eliminated anyone in the first place, right.

Now, I know you said no options; but it's not really a totally different option, just a revamp of the main one...yea...a revamp.

So, if you change it to 3 armies, then you got yourself a deal, bucko.

thedude13

[AK_iceman]

I play a lot of no-cards games, and I don't really like this idea. (Where did it come from btw?)

That's part of the strategy of the game... unless you play equal teams such as 1 vs 1, 4 player doubles, or triples, then you have to use diplomacy and common sense to win the game. You don't want to get too strong, and you don't want to fall behind or else you'll get attacked by everyone. Fighting over continents and territory bonuses is enough IMO.

[Aerial Attack]

I just did a count and found out that 54 of my 360 completed games are No Cards. Puts me exactly in the 15% range you mentioned.

I think this would be a definite incentive to eliminate someone. I'm not sure that 5 is the correct number. As someone else indicated, it should probably be dependent on # of players and/or territories (map size).

The vagaries of the dice typically reward the more patient player - who builds enough to guarantee you take the territory. Whilst the dice are supposed to favor the aggressive player, such players tend to overly rely on the "odds" and deploy/strategize in such a way that a few disadvantageous rolls are extremely costly.

No Cards increases the reward for patience in that armies are even more precious - so you don't want to lose armies "needlessly." The problem with all this patience is that no one wants to attack/lose armies. This results in games with huge armies on each territory. S/he who attacks later gets a chance to see who has weakened themselves (and someone else) in making attacks.

There really isn't a problem with this except for the # of rounds involved per game. For premium players, this is not a problem. But, for freemiums - extended games eat up available slots.

So, in effect this change would positively affect two audiences:

1. Freemiums (shorter game times)
2. Aggressive Players (not as much of a disadvantage for attacking first)

[AndyDufresne]

(The idea was suggested long ago, lack must've thought about some game play changes while doing the freestyle. Sometimes he checks his old notes.)


--Andy

[rabbiton]

How about this:

A 5 army mid-turn bonus upon eliminating an opponent in a No Cards game.

Still keeps out the luck factor, and should make them more interesting, no?

And for the sake of discussion, please pretend it's impossible to make it a separate option Thanks!

no. the lack of reward for eliminating a player is an implicit and important part of the game and one reason why i find it so challenging. the terminator option does introduce an incentive to eliminate if you need that.

[Skittles!]

From someone that plays no cards somewhat every 8 or so games.. I don't like this idea.

Please.. No. No cards - no cards. A bonus of 5 armies after eliminating an opponent? I don't like it. It'll take the pleasure away from it.

[DiM]

the idea is interesting as it would make people more aggressive and reduce the chances of no cards turning into stalemates BUT a 5 armies bonus can make a HUGE difference or NO difference at all.

i like doodle earth with no cards. on that map 5 armies count as a lot so one will think twice before trying to eliminate someone else because if they fall short then another person will come and eliminate them and with the use of the new 5 armies they will probably win the game. so it might even have the opposite effect and turn doodle earth games into mroe stalemates.

i also play AoM with no cards. the problem is that by the time you can eliminate an opponent on that map 5 extra armies don't really make a difference.

so my first thought would be to come up with variable army bonuses, let's say 2 for doodle earth 10 for AoM and 25 for world 2.1.

the main issue is this. if the bonuses are too small there's no incentive and the game plays as usual. if they are too big then it might turn into some for of escalating strategy, eliminate get bonus, eliminate, get bonus and so on.

at this point i'd like to see more discussion but i'm mostly inclined to vote no.

[firstholliday]

i play 90% of my games with no cards. And it would only make sense as a seperate option.


No cards = no cards.

As an extra gamestyle it is worth a try.

[chessplaya]

i like the idea


Edit: does that involve team games???

I mean in standard i back u up 100% .... but in team games i am against this idea

[Ishiro]

I don't like it. No cards should remain no bonus.

However, if you wanted to do a new "card" type, call it "Eliminator", have a card set be worth 5 armies and the only way to get cards is by defeating another player, which gives you three cards, all the same color. In this way a player could hold on to one card set, but if he gets a second he'd be forced to cash in. Defeating a player who is holding a set would net you 2 sets (his set, plus the set you get for killing him).

[lackattack]

Alright, thanks for the feedback guys. The proposal is canned. I'll consider it or something similar as an option in the future

[insomniacdude]

The proposal is canned.

I could kiss you right now.

[lackattack]

Please do.