[GO] Exponential Spoils

by **Qwert** on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am

As I already mentioned, the luck factor would cease to exist.

in your dream,you can cash 16 and then to lost against 5. With this spoil you can not change these big influence of luck with dices.

by **72o** on Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:15 am

qwert wrote:
As I already mentioned, the luck factor would cease to exist.

in your dream,you can cash 16 and then to lost against 5. With this spoil you can not change these big influence of luck with dices.

I meant the luck factor of having to get color-matching spoils, which currently exists in escalating and flat-rate spoils. Of course changing the spoils will not change the randomness of the intensity cubes.

by **DoomOmen** on Wed May 26, 2010 2:05 am

Why isn't this idea still being discussed or adopted? This is the best spoils idea I've heard. Completely takes the luck out of the dice. DISCUSS PEOPLE. IMPLEMENT ADMINS.

by **cosmo2377** on Wed May 26, 2010 3:22 am

I really like doom's idea best, with a 5 card max:

1 spoil = 2 troops
2 spoils = 4 troops
3 spoils = 6 troops
4 spoils = 8 troops
5 spoils = 10 troops.

This would prevent the insanity of huge 100+ troops deployments that has been discussed above and it will also reduce the luck factor of the current spoils system(s). Plus, if something completely bizarre like nuclear spoils can become a reality, why not something simple like this? Call is "ascending spoils", or "patience spoils", or maybe even "Heinz 57 spoils" because good things come to those who wait hahaha.

by **JoshyBoy** on Wed May 26, 2010 8:19 am

I must say, I love this idea.

iamkoolerthanu wrote:If we do the 8 card cap, with 8 cards giving 128 armies, that would be good. Except if I have 7 cards, and I take out the other player with 8 cards, and now i have 15 cards... which would then be way too many, once again
Just putting that out there lol

That would be pretty damned cool. Having 15 cards would then surely win you the game.

This idea would increase skill and strategy, and decrease luck. I personally think that it should be doubling, with the cap around 8 or maybe 10 cards. Sweet idea, and I encourage everyone to continue showing their support.

Cheers, JB

by **DoomOmen** on Wed May 26, 2010 10:04 pm

Eight or ten spoils would be ridiculous. Keep the spoil limit at the traditional five. I see no reason to allow someone to have 100+ troops from spoils in round eight.

by **alster** on Thu May 27, 2010 4:27 am

72o wrote:yet remove the chance factor that can be of paramount importance in determining a winner in some games.

As I already mentioned, the luck factor would cease to exist.

What do you think?

I like the idea - a good add-on setting.

However, just for clarity - the "luck" or "chance" factor (actually "random" is more appropriate as it concerns the dice/intensity cubes) can never go away.

by **Joodoo** on Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:05 am

Would be a great option for build up games.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:25 pm

I think the limit of 5 cards is the best option

by **72o** on Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:31 pm

Concise description:

A different method for playing spoils that would create the ability for the big cashes of bonus armies, yet remove the chance factor that can be of paramount importance in determining a winner in some games.

Specifics:

Instead of all the current spoils variations, where a set is always 3 spoils, a tiered value for a set based on the number of spoils you cash.
The value of a set doubles with each additional card cashed at the same time.
The 3 colors would no longer have any meaning, so you wouldn't have the 3 card cashes and 2 pair game-changers of escalating, nor the deus ex machina flat rate mixed sets.

1 spoil: 1 troop
2 spoils: 2 troops
3 spoils: 4 troops
4 spoils: 8 troops
5 spoils: 16 troops
etc. etc.

This creates a whole new level of strategy for the game.

The number of spoils is seen by your opponents, so they know your potential cash at any time.
It is exponentially more valuable to hold more spoils, yet this also makes you a prime target.
As I already mentioned, the luck factor would cease to exist.

In my vision for this spoils type there will be some coding challenges, to be sure.

First, a set can be any number of cards, so coding would have to exist to give the player the option to cash at the beginning of every turn in which they begin while holding spoils.
Second, it would have to be made possible to hold more than 5 cards at a time. In theory, there would be no limit. The value of the cash doubles each time, so if someone wants to take that 8th card, it would make their hand worth 128 troops, but it would also mean that if they are eliminated, someone else could cash them in for that or more.
Third, the 3 spoils colors would become meaningless, so there'd have to be a way to deal with that.

What do you think?

by **72o** on Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:34 pm

Soooo, anybody got anything to comment?

by **ManBungalow** on Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:00 pm

I thought this was going to be an adaption of escalating spoils.

In certain situations, escalating spoils can go stale because each player has vastly more troops than a cash is worth. Having exponential spoils of this nature could solve that problem:

4
6
8
10
12
15
20
25
30
40
50
70
90
110
130
150
175
200
etc

While not being exponential, this sequence demonstrates what I'm trying to explain.

Otherwise, sorry to hijack your thread.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:02 pm

72o wrote:Soooo, anybody got anything to comment?

It's been an hour!! Simmer down!

Anyway, I don't think it can go above 5 cards unless someone is eliminated, but that would really put a premium on eliminating someone. Especially if you can do it without trading your cards first. Cashing a set with 9 or 10 would basically be game over.

It's interesting...I would try it.

by **gv1974** on Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:16 pm

I liked it

by **72o** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:32 am

chapcrap wrote:
72o wrote:Soooo, anybody got anything to comment?

It's been an hour!! Simmer down!

Anyway, I don't think it can go above 5 cards unless someone is eliminated, but that would really put a premium on eliminating someone. Especially if you can do it without trading your cards first. Cashing a set with 9 or 10 would basically be game over.

It's interesting...I would try it.

Yeah, I am excited about the idea. I saw that quite a few people had read it with no replies.

The idea would be that you get the opportunity to cash at the start of any turn in which you have at least one spoil, and get the opportunity to cash after each elimination in which you reap spoils.

The coding would have to allow for exceeding 5 and not being forced to cash. Of course, if I don't cash when I have five, I know have 16 troops waiting to be stolen, or many more if the eliminator already has spoils.

I don't think you'd realistically get people cashing 9 or 10 at one time because of the risk associated with ending a turn and waiting, with potentially scores of armies stashed away in spoils waiting to be taken from you.

by **72o** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:35 am

ManBungalow wrote:I thought this was going to be an adaption of escalating spoils.

In certain situations, escalating spoils can go stale because each player has vastly more troops than a cash is worth. Having exponential spoils of this nature could solve that problem:

4
6
8
10
12
15
20
25
30
40
50
70
90
110
130
150
175
200
etc

While not being exponential, this sequence demonstrates what I'm trying to explain.

Otherwise, sorry to hijack your thread.

That's also part of what this would attempt to do, eliminate stalemates. In a 4 player game, if we all have about 200 armies, a cash of 80 troops isn't enough to make me attack you. So we stack and stack and stack. Generally until someone gets fed up and attacks someone. But if we weren't forced to cash, and kept stacking spoils also, my 7 cards are worth 64 armies, but add that to the 4 you've already got, and boom, game over. It would make things interesting, that's for sure.

by **sirgermaine** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:23 am

It would be tricky for this not to get out of hand for large (6-8) and especially Battle Royale (!) games, since spoils get awfully out of hand there as things stand now. Especially in sequential games, it's a big dice roll as for where you stand in the cashing order.

by **skychaser** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:04 pm

I like the idea. Thumbs up.

by **72o** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:10 pm

sirgermaine wrote:It would be tricky for this not to get out of hand for large (6-8) and especially Battle Royale (!) games, since spoils get awfully out of hand there as things stand now. Especially in sequential games, it's a big dice roll as for where you stand in the cashing order.

That's why it would be interesting from a strategy perspective. What this would take away is the luck of the draw when it comes to 2 pair and 3 card sets, which are both huge game changers in a late game singles escalator.

I don't think any idea should be scrapped because of its potential to get out of hand in a battle royale, those games are basically like playing bingo anyway.

I think it's fine in a 6-8 player game, since the value of another player's potential spoils will necessitate aggression fairly early in the game.

by **sirgermaine** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:45 pm

I assume as a game mechanic you basically get the option to cash spoils (or one spoil) at the beginning of your turn, and any time you eliminate a player. This would be crazy in battle royale games, particularly in sequential ones. You probably wouldn't even get to the last player before the game was over, because so many troops would be available so quickly if someone had good dice.

by **72o** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:08 pm

I really don't care about battle royales. I do care a lot about the game we all know and love, which is standard escalating. This would just be that on steroids.

by **agentcom** on Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:39 pm

Suggested before:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177563
viewtopic.php?f=471&t=149355
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164420

By you in fact:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=109230

I mean, seriously?

by **agentcom** on Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:42 pm

There's not really any explanation why any of those are in rejected. Also, some of those suggestions mentioned above aren't exactly the same. Another thing to put on my to do list, I guess. I'm not opposed to bringing this out of rejected given that there's not really any reason given for it being there.

Anyone know or want to guess why it's been rejected before? Too similar to escalating to justify a new game type would be my guess.

by **72o** on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:29 am

That's why I reposted it. It's been more than 2 years, no one ever explained why it was a bad idea, most of the comments were positive.

Sorry if that is inappropriate, but I want to see this happen. It took "adjacent attacks" a couple of years to become "trench".

Probably rejected because it would be too hard to code, is my guess. But I still think it would be awesome.

by **72o** on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:34 am

Also, those other 2 suggestions are nothing like this one. I don't want the same old escalating with larger numbers. I want a totally new and strategic game play, which removes some of the luck and replaces it with the true "risk" of holding your cards for a bigger payday, while also representing a sumptuous target to your opponents.

[GO] Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Re: Exponential Spoils - Awesomeness Inside

Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Re: Exponential Spoils

Who is online