Cards -- somewhere between Flat Rate and No Cards

[CreepyUncleAndy]

I like the cards, but I don't like how games with cards become all about the cards. How about a new game OPTION....

REDUCED RATE -- this would fall somewhere between Flat Rate and No Cards.

A Red set would provide ONE Army
A Green set would provide TWO Armies
A Blue set would provide THREE Armies
A Mixed set would provide FOUR Armies

[AK_iceman]

No.

[s.xkitten]

i vote no...

[hecter]

No.

[poo-maker]

whats the point in that? i vote no

[XenHu]

I like the cards, but I don't like how games with cards become all about the cards. How about a new game OPTION....

REDUCED RATE -- this would fall somewhere between Flat Rate and No Cards.

A Red set would provide ONE Army
A Green set would provide TWO Armies
A Blue set would provide THREE Armies
A Mixed set would provide FOUR Armies

WTF? Why?

No wait, don't answer that..

I vote no..


-X

[pancakemix]

No.

[Evil Semp]

Andy must stay up late stinking up these ideas.

[Cynthia]

yeah that's a great idea! You save up your cards and think "yay I have a set", trade your cards, and get 1 army!? yay...

[Kid_A]

gee, i wonder who the 1 vote for yes came from....

[banana_hammocks]

I would like to see a same rate card game

All sets are worth the same say 5 or 6. So it removes a large portion of the luck of the cards, while still giving a bonus for attacking play.

[Marvaddin]

gee, i wonder who the 1 vote for yes came from....

Let me try... CreepyUncleAndy?

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Wow, 100% resistance to this idea. Thank you, thank you. (Yes, my vote was the only "yes".)

With this suggestion, I merely wanted to provide the same stable environment of no-cards with a touch of spice.

You must admit that a No Cards game is totally different from an Escalation game. I say that Flat Rate games err closer to Escalation than No Cards in terms of emphasis on the cards as opposed to the rest of the game, and therefore, a Reduced Rate alternative should be instituted.

The game type I suggested would not revolve around the cards so much as it does in Escalation (or even Flat Rate), with people laying out their strategies totally around when they'll get a set to cash in.

I wanted this kind of inner monologue in the heads of players in my Reduced Rate games:

World 2.0 -- "Okay, I own Australia for two armies, India for three, I've got thirteen territories for four, so that's nine armies. Oh, and I have a set of red cards to turn in for ONE MORE army; that's nice, a little something extra."

Reduced Rate card games would result in believable force expansion without the ridiculously huge increases brought on by cards every three to five rounds. You would consistently place what your territories would allow, but every three to five rounds you would get like an extra 1d6 armies, which certainly wouldn't shift the game, but would be "nice" (especially if you really needed just a handful of extra troops to fortify a wall or push through, or get you back up off the ropes so to speak).

Due to the unanimous negative feedback I will now proposes *slightly* increasing the hand-in rates of Reduced Rate cards to exactly HALF of what Flat Rate gives you:

+2 Red Set
+3 Green Set
+4 Blue Set
+5 Mixed Set

Alternatively, I like that idea someone else had for Fixed Rate games, where all tradable card sets give you the same number of bonus armies.

[Cynthia]

nah..

[CreepyUncleAndy]

yeah that's a great idea! You save up your cards and think "yay I have a set", trade your cards, and get 1 army!? yay...

That's just it. From your reaction, I can tell you play to get cards. Apparently, so does everyone else who replied to this thread.

That's fine. However, there are those who would rather play to get territories, and in games with cards (even Flat Rate), the players who play to get cards almost always beat those who play to get territories (even continents).

Granted, there is a type of game suited to those of us who play to get territories: No Cards.

However, No Cards totally does away with one of the most fun aspects of Risklike games: the cards. I still want cards, but I want the focus (in Reduced Rate games) to shift away from acquiring cards and towards taking & holding territories.

Now, I want to have a new game option implemented that does not punish those who go for territories and continents instead of cards, but still provides cards.

Basically, I want a new game option that allows the player who starts a new game the option to nerf cards without eliminating them entirely.

I like Flat Rate games, but I feel they are still too card-centric. Reduced Rate games would give a perfect middle ground between Flat Rate and No Cards which I believe would even the playing field between land grabbers and card stealers.

BTW, I do enjoy Escalating Card Games, but for entirely different reasons than I enjoy No Card Games. When you play with cards, do you prefer Flat Rate or Escalating?

[joeyjordison]

hey i think its an alrite idea. a game like no cards but with just small perks. sounds gd to me although something a bit more precise and reasons for those values would be good.

[Cynthia]

yeah that's a great idea! You save up your cards and think "yay I have a set", trade your cards, and get 1 army!? yay...

That's just it. From your reaction, I can tell you play to get cards. Apparently, so does everyone else who replied to this thread.

That's fine. However, there are those who would rather play to get territories, and in games with cards (even Flat Rate), the players who play to get cards almost always beat those who play to get territories (even continents).

Granted, there is a type of game suited to those of us who play to get territories: No Cards.

However, No Cards totally does away with one of the most fun aspects of Risklike games: the cards. I still want cards, but I want the focus (in Reduced Rate games) to shift away from acquiring cards and towards taking & holding territories.

Now, I want to have a new game option implemented that does not punish those who go for territories and continents instead of cards, but still provides cards.

Basically, I want a new game option that allows the player who starts a new game the option to nerf cards without eliminating them entirely.

I like Flat Rate games, but I feel they are still too card-centric. Reduced Rate games would give a perfect middle ground between Flat Rate and No Cards which I believe would even the playing field between land grabbers and card stealers.

BTW, I do enjoy Escalating Card Games, but for entirely different reasons than I enjoy No Card Games. When you play with cards, do you prefer Flat Rate or Escalating?

But there's not point in cards if you get one army.. Might as well play No Cards then I like the cards the way they are

[CreepyUncleAndy]

yeah that's a great idea! You save up your cards and think "yay I have a set", trade your cards, and get 1 army!? yay...

That's just it. From your reaction, I can tell you play to get cards. Apparently, so does everyone else who replied to this thread.

That's fine. However, there are those who would rather play to get territories, and in games with cards (even Flat Rate), the players who play to get cards almost always beat those who play to get territories (even continents).

But there's not point in cards if you get one army.. Might as well play No Cards then I like the cards the way they are

But that's just it! There is a point; it's merely diminished enough to be equal with the point provided by territorial play. Right now, I feel they are not in proper balance (for my eccentric tastes) to one another; cards are more valuable than territories.

I know not everyone appreciates what I propose in the same way, but is it so much to ask for a simple option to be patched in?

[Cynthia]

Lol it's okay, I get it.. I just found it amusing that you underlined the world "card" all the time

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Lol it's okay, I get it.. I just found it amusing that you underlined the world "card" all the time

Oh, you noticed that? Thank you! It just goes to show you how frequently the issue of cards comes up in the game.

[billval3]

I would like to see a same rate card game

All sets are worth the same say 5 or 6. So it removes a large portion of the luck of the cards, while still giving a bonus for attacking play.

I agree with this. Why introduce the random numbers into it. Flat rate should be flat rate. Any set = 5 or 6 armies or whatever you want to make it.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

I would like to see a same rate card game

All sets are worth the same say 5 or 6. So it removes a large portion of the luck of the cards, while still giving a bonus for attacking play.

I agree with this. Why introduce the random numbers into it. Flat rate should be flat rate. Any set = 5 or 6 armies or whatever you want to make it.

Maybe a Fixed Rate card game option can be implemented as re-suggested above. I still like my Reduced Rate, tho.

The following quote from another thread I started (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15390) clearly illustrates why I am not alone in feeling that a new Fixed Rate or Reduced Rate game card option needs to be implemented:

....cards can already decide a game...a team that gets two mixed sets on the third round is highly favored over the team that gets a red set and a set on round 5... turns it into a card game.....

[joeyjordison]

i'm with you all the way andy. the more options the better.

also andy u mite want to check out:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15448

[CreepyUncleAndy]

First, let me just say that I believe cashing in a set of cards should give you about the same number of armies as owning a continent. Because most continents are worth only 2, 3, 5 or rarely 7 armies, but Flat Rate card exchanges are worth 4, 6, 8 or regularly 10 armies, cards trump continents in terms of impact. Now, if a Reduced Rate card exchange was worth 2, 3, 4 or 5 armies, that brings cards into line with continents, such that the importance of both becomes better balanced.

hey i think its an alrite idea. a game like no cards but with just small perks. sounds gd to me although something a bit more precise and reasons for those values would be good.

Precision? Reduced Rate set values equal one-half the corresponding Flat Rate set values.

Reasons? By reducing the value of card sets by half, focus should switch away from collecting cards and more towards collecting (and holding) territories, which IMO should be the more important facet of the game. (How many games have you left your borders practically undefended in order to spend those armies to eliminate another player just so you could take their cards, in both Escalation and Flat Rate games?)

Card set army trade-in value tables for Flat Rate & Reduced Rate:

FLAT RATE
+4 for Red set
+6 for Green set
+8 for Blue set
+10 for Mixed set

REDUCED RATE
+2 for Red set
+3 for Green set
+4 for Blue set
+5 for Mixed set

i'm with you all the way andy. the more options the better

Word up!

[Kahless]

I'd like a compromise between flat rate and escalating, where card values rise, but not to ridiculous levels, something like one army extra for each additional set.