Conquer Club

OK there's a few things that can get under my skin while playing a game of flat rate and esc...

My biggest grief would have to be wanting to play with cards to speed up a game and having the cards awarded completely control the game. If you're playing triples and your team gets red and green sets while the other gets mixed sets then the games is pretty much completely over for your team. This tends to ruin a game for me wether I win or lose.

In esc games people tend to skip their first turn or skip their turn if they're holding 5 cards and nobody has cashed in. This can really slow a game down in an otherwise face paced game.

What I would suggest would be another option for cashing in cards. Something where the cash in is added to each time the individual cashes in a set of cards instead of it being dependant on everyone in the game.

option #1:

1rst cash in = 4 (amount is negotiable )
2nd cash in = 6
3rd cash in = 8
4rth cash in = 10
5th cash in = 15
6th cash in = 20
7th cash in = 30

so if player 1 cashes in once he will get 4 armies along with everyone else who has cashed in. The second time a person cashes in they'll get 6 cards. So if player 1 cashes two set of cards in he will get a total of 10 cards and if player 2 cashes in his first set after player 1 he will only recieve 4 cards.


or for escilating games that are dependant on everybodies cash ins

option#2:

1rst =4
2nd =5
3rd =6
4rth =7
5th =8
6th =9
7th =10
8th = 12
9th = 14
10th = 16
11th = 18
12th = 20

Then have it keep going up by 5 so the early stages of the game aren't decided by which order you cash in but instead mostly just there to help speed up the game.

I like it the way it is.

Escalating +1 & Player Specific Cash-Ins is *Pending* on the To-Do list.


--Andy

i like option 1 i think i would play that because it makes for more of a fair game because evryone has to get the same amount the first time thye turn in i think it deifnately deserves a chance

Molacole wrote:OK there's a few things that can get under my skin while playing a game of flat rate and esc...

My biggest grief would have to be wanting to play with cards to speed up a game and having the cards awarded completely control the game. If you're playing triples and your team gets red and green sets while the other gets mixed sets then the games is pretty much completely over for your team. This tends to ruin a game for me wether I win or lose.

In esc games people tend to skip their first turn or skip their turn if they're holding 5 cards and nobody has cashed in. This can really slow a game down in an otherwise face paced game.

What I would suggest would be another option for cashing in cards. Something where the cash in is added to each time the individual cashes in a set of cards instead of it being dependant on everyone in the game.

there are so many logical problems with this post it is hard to find a starting place; i'll just ramble off a few. if your problem in flat games is the random color of cards awarded and the huge impact this has on the game, then neither of your ideas actually address that problem in any way. in esc games in which players skip their first turn, it is irrational and misleading to state that this strategy lengthens the game. am i crazy here? if players dont attack in their first turn but only fortify, the first turn actually goes faster. the real time this might add to a game is negligible. further, player specific cash-ins will add a hell of a lot for us to keep up w/ in games. we will have to keep up w/ how much each player will get on their next turn. the strategizing involved here will actually add at least a little time to a game.

finally, if you want to speed games up, why are you suggesting that trade in awards be reduced? none of it adds up to me. a regular esc game rewards patience; forcing people to trade in earlier won't even speed the game up very much, as they will still be getting less armies for the trade. if you want a faster game, i'd recommend just playing rt w/ veteran players. you can't make people play faster w/ rules, it's totally unpredictable. noobs are liable to do anything; vets are likely to play fast.

cheers

Nephilim wrote:

Molacole wrote:OK there's a few things that can get under my skin while playing a game of flat rate and esc...

My biggest grief would have to be wanting to play with cards to speed up a game and having the cards awarded completely control the game. If you're playing triples and your team gets red and green sets while the other gets mixed sets then the games is pretty much completely over for your team. This tends to ruin a game for me wether I win or lose.

In esc games people tend to skip their first turn or skip their turn if they're holding 5 cards and nobody has cashed in. This can really slow a game down in an otherwise face paced game.

What I would suggest would be another option for cashing in cards. Something where the cash in is added to each time the individual cashes in a set of cards instead of it being dependant on everyone in the game.

there are so many logical problems with this post it is hard to find a starting place; i'll just ramble off a few. if your problem in flat games is the random color of cards awarded and the huge impact this has on the game, then neither of your ideas actually address that problem in any way. in esc games in which players skip their first turn, it is irrational and misleading to state that this strategy lengthens the game. am i crazy here? if players dont attack in their first turn but only fortify, the first turn actually goes faster. the real time this might add to a game is negligible. further, player specific cash-ins will add a hell of a lot for us to keep up w/ in games. we will have to keep up w/ how much each player will get on their next turn. the strategizing involved here will actually add at least a little time to a game.

finally, if you want to speed games up, why are you suggesting that trade in awards be reduced? none of it adds up to me. a regular esc game rewards patience; forcing people to trade in earlier won't even speed the game up very much, as they will still be getting less armies for the trade. if you want a faster game, i'd recommend just playing rt w/ veteran players. you can't make people play faster w/ rules, it's totally unpredictable. noobs are liable to do anything; vets are likely to play fast.

cheers

*if your problem in flat games is the random color of cards awarded and the huge impact this has on the game, then neither of your ideas actually address that problem in any way*

how so? it eliminates 1 player getting 10 cards and another player getting 4 cards for do exactly the same thing.


*players skip their first turn, it is irrational and misleading to state that this strategy lengthens the game. am i crazy here? if players dont attack in their first turn but only fortify, the first turn actually goes faster.*

what I was pointing out is that a lot of people skip their frist turn completely in esc games. This puts them at the bottom of the rotation of cards being cashed in and also gives them a double bonus of troops +6 to place on their very "first" turn(actually second but first troop deployment). At the same time nobody knows where to place troops to prevent them and it actually puts everyone a round behind that player in a lot of cases. it is also dependant on which cards the players get and how fast they get their sets.


*we will have to keep up w/ how much each player will get on their next turn*

compare and contrast? I don't use greesemonkey or any other script to play this game so I honestly can't relate to your problem here.

anyone else want to vote?

i think option 1 is good . . . i do like the current option in escalating though where it takes skill to decide when to cash in cards

can i suggest an new option for the flat rate...

just let every set be worth 10.

it is fair and it keeps people willing to fight.

for the people who prefer flat rate and dislike to depent on luck this is a nice option

Spritzking wrote:can i suggest an new option for the flat rate...

just let every set be worth 10.

it is fair and it keeps people willing to fight.

for the people who prefer flat rate and dislike to depent on luck this is a nice option

What about the luck of the dice? If every set is worth 10 do you automaticly get +2 on the 3 cards you turn in? What about the color of the cards to make a set? Is three cards automaticly a set? Like you said lets no depend on luck.

Option #1 looks good
22% [ 14 ]

I don't like either option
38% [ 24 ]
Looks even better.

Option #1 looks good
20% [ 14 ]
Option #2 looks good
13% [ 9 ]
I like both options
26% [ 18 ]
I like option #1, but not #2
0% [ 0 ]
I like option #2, but not #1
2% [ 2 ]

43>26

Aren't the voting options a little repetitive? 1 is equivalent to 4 and 2 is equivalent to 5

mach wrote:Aren't the voting options a little repetitive? 1 is equivalent to 4 and 2 is equivalent to 5

option 1 and 2 are aimed to people who are undecided on one of the options. It gives them a chance to vote for one and not consider the other. 4 and 5 are for people who agree with one, but disagree with the other. I was trying to see what people prefer while leaving them with the option to ignore the one they were uncertain of. I probably should've worded it better.

thanks for all who have voted!