Conquer Club

I wanted to get some feedback in the general forum before I submitted a suggestion in the proper forum I'd like to get as much feedback as possible and I will consider all suggestions before submitting one.

I personally think that there should be at least 1 wildcard in every game. Once it has been drawn by any player, the wildcard can be used and once discarded it cannot be drawn again.

Do you think a wild card should be implemented into game play?

alright, its already been suggested though

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4008

Wildcards allow the flow of the game be broken and the possibility of chance to increas too much to keep everything at an even keel.

and we cant get wildcards until we get an actual deck

I voted for the second option - which I assume was 2 (albeit typoed?)

There are 2 in the original game... 2 in this one sounds good...

Although I do think that perhaps escalating games should do without them...

Out of curiousity... will this change the percentages of getting sets? (I know the answer is yes - but I'm hoping Tahiti will give a nice statistical breakdown on what and how much etc...)

C.

LOl the last option of the poll was too funny so i voted no but u still look sexy

IronE.GLE wrote:I wanted to get some feedback in the general forum before I submitted a suggestion in the proper forum I'd like to get as much feedback as possible and I will consider all suggestions before submitting one.

I personally think that there should be at least 1 wildcard in every game. Once it has been drawn by any player, the wildcard can be used and once discarded it cannot be drawn again.

Do you think a wild card should be implemented into game play?

and yes if its only 1 in all the game or every 15 rounds its a very good idea

sorry to butt in but this is the wrong forum for this,
should be in suggestions and bug reports.

But if you go look on lackattacks to-do list you will see this idea is already pending.

the lesson of our story,
1) look to see if the idea has already been suggested or you will look like a dumb ass

2) put it in the correct forum or you will look like a dumb ass

3) polls with silly options are just good times, vote still sexy for you

dominationnation wrote:and we cant get wildcards until we get an actual deck

Yes and no. The best way to implement it would probably be a virtual deck as you suggest.

But an alternate way to implement it would be as follows:

There is one card per country in the game. Let's say there are 42 countries in the game (as there are in Classic). Now add two wildcards.

So, the probability of getting a wildcard is:

2 / (42 + 2) = 4.55%

The probability of getting a regular card of a particular color is:

(42 / 3) / (42 + 2) = 31.82%

So, it could be done without implementing a virtual deck. But you would only guarantee an average of 2 wildcards per every "deck-full" of cards.

If wildcards were added it would be better to implement it with a virtual deck.

Tahiti...

Do you own the BoardGame?

Out of curiousity is there a pattern of what each colour is across the continenets?

i.e. are there more "higher" cards on the harder to hold territories (Asia,Europe,NA) than on the easier continents (Aus, SA, Africa)?

Or does the spread appear to be random?

C.

yeti_c wrote:I voted for the second option - which I assume was 2 (albeit typoed?)

There are 2 in the original game... 2 in this one sounds good...

Although I do think that perhaps escalating games should do without them...

Out of curiousity... will this change the percentages of getting sets? (I know the answer is yes - but I'm hoping Tahiti will give a nice statistical breakdown on what and how much etc...)

C.

First, I would need to know more about the wildcard. For instance, while it seems obvious that a wildcard doesn't have a color, does a wildcard specify a country name or not? In other words, can a wildcard get you a 2 army bonus for owning the country named on the wildcard.

As you suggest the addition of wildcards will make it easier to get a set.

It would have other interesting effects also.

If you hold a wildcard it would guarantee you a set if you held any two other cards.

On the other hand, you would probably not want to cash in a set with a wildcard (in a flat rate game) unless it was a mixed set. So players would wisely either tend to wait for a mixed set if they held a wildcard, or cash in a non-mixed set that didn't involve the wildcard.

This would make calculating the probabilities more complicated, but if it's every actually implemented I'll figure it out.

yeti_c wrote:Tahiti...

Do you own the BoardGame?

Out of curiousity is there a pattern of what each colour is across the continenets?

i.e. are there more "higher" cards on the harder to hold territories (Asia,Europe,NA) than on the easier continents (Aus, SA, Africa)?

Or does the spread appear to be random?

C.

I do not, but it's an interesting question and I hope someone who does responds with the answer.

tahitiwahini wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I voted for the second option - which I assume was 2 (albeit typoed?)

There are 2 in the original game... 2 in this one sounds good...

Although I do think that perhaps escalating games should do without them...

Out of curiousity... will this change the percentages of getting sets? (I know the answer is yes - but I'm hoping Tahiti will give a nice statistical breakdown on what and how much etc...)

C.

First, I would need to know more about the wildcard. For instance, while it seems obvious that a wildcard doesn't have a color, does a wildcard specify a country name or not? In other words, can a wildcard get you a 2 army bonus for owning the country named on the wildcard.

As you suggest the addition of wildcards will make it easier to get a set.

It would have other interesting effects also.

If you hold a wildcard it would guarantee you a set if you held any two other cards.

On the other hand, you would probably not want to cash in a set with a wildcard (in a flat rate game) unless it was a mixed set. So players would wisely either tend to wait for a mixed set if they held a wildcard, or cash in a non-mixed set that didn't involve the wildcard.

This would make calculating the probabilities more complicated, but if it's every actually implemented I'll figure it out.

In the board game wildcards are basically colourless (they have a cannon, cavalry & infantry icon on (direct translation would be red = infantry, green = cavalry, Blue = cannon) and it does NOT have a territory name on the card. So it's a double edged sword... you get whatever you want - but lose the chance of getting the 2 army bonus on the territory.

C.

The colours and countries you get on your cards are already as random as you can wish for. And about 2 out of 3 voters are against it.

jaydog wrote:sorry to butt in but this is the wrong forum for this,
should be in suggestions and bug reports.

But if you go look on lackattacks to-do list you will see this idea is already pending.

the lesson of our story,
1) look to see if the idea has already been suggested or you will look like a dumb ass

2) put it in the correct forum or you will look like a dumb ass

3) polls with silly options are just good times, vote still sexy for you

Well color me stupere.


Would the people against wildcards be willing to have it as an option in the game creator?

IronE.GLE wrote:Would the people against wildcards be willing to have it as an option in the game creator?

This one would.

of course i still think you are sexy