Woodruff wrote:jak111 wrote: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.
m=0
Moderator: Community Team
Woodruff wrote:jak111 wrote:but if that happened then it wouldn't be like normal risk at all >.>
You mean like "nuclear spoils" is?

 Metsfanmax
				Metsfanmax
			























 
		Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:jak111 wrote: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
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			
 Army of GOD
				Army of GOD
			




















 
		
 rdsrds2120
				rdsrds2120
			






















 
		rdsrds2120 wrote: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
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			Victor Sullivan wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote: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
				rdsrds2120
			






















 
		

 safariguy5
				safariguy5
			



















 
		safariguy5 wrote: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 wrote:
- 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.

 Victor Sullivan
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			
 gordon1975
				gordon1975
			










 
		Victor Sullivan wrote:safariguy5 wrote: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 wrote:
- 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.


 safariguy5
				safariguy5
			



















 
		
 Victor Sullivan
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			
 MichelSableheart
				MichelSableheart
			

















 
		
 SirSebstar
				SirSebstar
			



















 
		

 drunkmonkey
				drunkmonkey
			


















 
		drunkmonkey wrote: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
				TheForgivenOne
			



























 
		Woodruff wrote:ManBungalow wrote: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.



 40kguy
				40kguy
			



















 
		

 Victor Sullivan
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			 Darwins_Bane
				Darwins_Bane
			














 
		
 L M S
				L M S
			

























 
		
 Victor Sullivan
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			Army of GOD wrote: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.

 eddie2
				eddie2
			




























 
		eddie2 wrote:Army of GOD wrote: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
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			
 Victor Sullivan
				Victor Sullivan
			

















 
			 RedRing
				RedRing
			




 
		Users browsing this forum: No registered users