Conquer Club

I've often wondered if the current system of escaling spoils is the best?
I think the system could do with a tweak.
I believe that the first set of cashed spoils should be worth the amount of the cards cashed in. I.E. rrr=4, ggg=6, bbb=8 & rgb=10.
Furthermore, I think that all subsequent spoils could also increase using the same logic argument.
We would no longer see the next set worth but would now see the last set worth.

I think I may have oversimplified a little but sometimes simple ideas are the best.

Would the spoils game be improved with this tweak to escaliting games or should it get a new title entirely if it indeed warrants a chance?
What do you think?

I think at the least the initial spoil cashier may get a slightly better benefit, however I am unsure how the the game would be affected in the earlier rounds...

I don't think so. Escalating spoils should not be changed in that way.

It's just making them more like Flat Rate.

chapcrap wrote:I don't think so. Escalating spoils should not be changed in that way.

It's just making them more like Flat Rate.

i think he means to increase it not by a fixed ratio, but by the result of each set.
so a mix set followed by a red ret would get the red set (10+4= )14 armies, instead of the regular 6.

I also see this as an interresting proposal, and some playbook need to be rewriten, but most of all the potential for abuse comes to mind.
freestyle quads could field 10+20+30+40=120 troops in turn 4 on a single payer....

If its not broke dont fix it.


Everyone knows how esculating spoils work and they work very well.

Maybe as a new setting? But I don't see the site changing how Escalating works.

The PoD likes to know exactly how much calories a player contains before deciding whether to gobble them up.

I think in the future, we are interested in adding another option for spoil settings. I know I am particularly fond of 'revolving' spoils...essentially it acts like your regular escalating until you hit some level (lets say 30 troops). Two interesting variants are instead of the next cash being 35, it flops back down to 5, and goes back up the mountain to the upper limit again.

Another variant twist on dramatic drop off (think cliff) described above, is the "mountain ascent and descent' variant---essentially, more like you are just going down the backside of the mountain---so if you get to 30 troops, the next cash would be 25, and so on down the line.

I know I like the first idea of Revolving quite a lot, it could make for some strategic cashing, and it would be a cool optional alongside regular escalating spoils and our other options.


--Andy

the up and down the mountain idea with a peak of 35 sounds fairer. It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

being allowed to change number of army raises per next trade would be cool. (but keep it between sensible amounts 3/4-6/8 otherwise it could be a nightmare for trapping people and lead to a whole new level of bogrolling)

Pedronicus wrote:It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I don't understand why that is better...

chapcrap wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I don't understand why that is better...

Have you ever played a real game of risk? from memory, the esc. increments were 3 not 2, then going up to 5. a more even and constant increase in armies makes for a fairer game

Lets imagine that in a game everyone gets a set with three cards every time and red goes first and we add up bonus armies for 2 rounds of trades. (a 40 / 45 trade is normally enough to win an esc game) totals in bold

Current

red 4, 20 24
Green 6, 25, 31
Blue 8, 30 38
Yellow 10, 35 45
Pink 12, 40 52
Cyan 15, 45 60

with 3 army increments

red 3, 21 24
Green 6, 24 30
Blue 9, 27 36
Yellow 12, 30 42
Pink 15, 33 48
Cyan 18, 36 54

red has more chance of living because all following players have less armies.

Pedronicus wrote:the up and down the mountain idea with a peak of 35 sounds fairer. It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I'm not sure I'd say it is fairer, it just makes strategic cashing different. I'm afraid that the Ascent-Descent mountain scheme would just lead to more escalating game stalemates than normal escalating already does.

Hm, but all of it is food for thought!


--Andy

Pedronicus wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I don't understand why that is better...

Have you ever played a real game of risk? from memory, the esc. increments were 3 not 2, then going up to 5. a more even and constant increase in armies makes for a fairer game

Yes, I have played a real game and escalating spoils on CC is how the real game works.

I just went and checked by board and it even has the numbers for the cashes at the bottom of the board so that you can see what they are.

Although, I don't argue that a smaller increment would not be more fair. However, I think that the difference is not that much between the two. And people can strategize to trade cards differently anyway.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:the up and down the mountain idea with a peak of 35 sounds fairer. It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I'm not sure I'd say it is fairer, it just makes strategic cashing different. I'm afraid that the Ascent-Descent mountain scheme would just lead to more escalating game stalemates than normal escalating already does.

Hm, but all of it is food for thought!


--Andy

More esc stalemates?



Kindly point out some esc stalemate games in play right now and I'll shut up

Pedronicus wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:the up and down the mountain idea with a peak of 35 sounds fairer. It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I'm not sure I'd say it is fairer, it just makes strategic cashing different. I'm afraid that the Ascent-Descent mountain scheme would just lead to more escalating game stalemates than normal escalating already does.

Hm, but all of it is food for thought!


--Andy

More esc stalemates?



Kindly point out some esc stalemate games in play right now and I'll shut up

Too easy.

Game 10511575

Pedronicus wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:the up and down the mountain idea with a peak of 35 sounds fairer. It's even better if the increase in armies is 3, so make the peak 36.

I'm not sure I'd say it is fairer, it just makes strategic cashing different. I'm afraid that the Ascent-Descent mountain scheme would just lead to more escalating game stalemates than normal escalating already does.

Hm, but all of it is food for thought!


--Andy

More esc stalemates?



Kindly point out some esc stalemate games in play right now and I'll shut up

I'll point out just one, which held up one of my tournaments for a month:
Game 10230966

Actually, I'll throw in a second one. Just in case you think 41 rounds is not enough to call it a stalemate, here's the oldest one on the site: Game 3852526

Anyway, I'm not supporting this suggestion, because I honestly think that my version is better:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164420 for anyone who hasn't noticed it.