that analogy isnt perfect...its true that no cards can resemble the trains for a 100 or 200 rounds or so...but at the end of the runway, they often fall off a cliff and accelerate rather dramatically...he who stays on the cliff lives...
there is a certain excitement of winning a game that 5 other people have been trying to win for the last five months... with each passing day the stakes are higher...the points are irrelevant because hundreds or thousands have been exchanged in the interim... theres just winning...or the pain of realizing you just deployed 300 times and lost 30 points to boot
Funny Robinette, how you prove my point, while saying you don't care.
I'm perfectly willing to say both ways of playing are fun for those who enjoy it, you can't even acknowledge that, needing to insult the kind of game I enjoy.
There is something ever so sad about your need to needle...
insomniacdude wrote:Meh. I'm not saying taht escalating games require no strategy, it's just such a different strategy that I'm used to playing. I hate escalating games BECAUSE of the required strategy. I can't wrap my head around it
At least I have the intelligence to avoid them. If people don't like escalating, then don't play. Simple as that.
AAFitz wrote:that analogy isnt perfect...its true that no cards can resemble the trains for a 100 or 200 rounds or so...but at the end of the runway, they often fall off a cliff and accelerate rather dramatically...he who stays on the cliff lives...
there is a certain excitement of winning a game that 5 other people have been trying to win for the last five months... with each passing day the stakes are higher...the points are irrelevant because hundreds or thousands have been exchanged in the interim... theres just winning...or the pain of realizing you just deployed 300 times and lost 30 points to boot
My last victory (and yes, it was a long time ago) was a no-cards game, 280 or so rounds... so yes, i understand what you are saying...
It was, in a strange sort of way, actually fun... but the odd thing I observed is just how fast these 'putt-putt' flat rate/no cards games can be played since there is far less time devoted to strategy, while the escalating turns are very slow as they typically require considerable thought at each turn...
I can almost guarantee that someone will misinterpret what i just said... just wait... it's coming
insomniacdude wrote:Meh. I'm not saying taht escalating games require no strategy, it's just such a different strategy that I'm used to playing. I hate escalating games BECAUSE of the required strategy. I can't wrap my head around it
At least I have the intelligence to avoid them. If people don't like escalating, then don't play. Simple as that.
It was a tournament. It's three rounds, one game per round. I didn't expect to play beyond the first round. I joined the tourney to try and hone my escalating skills a bit. Apparently it worked to a degree because I'm int eh second round now. Yay!
I definitely prefer Flat Rate, but I don't want to be limited to those games, even if I'm not a fan of escalating right now.
In no cards and flat rate, if u get a bad drop at the start u are basically screwed, espcially against good players, in escalating, if u play it right u still can have a chance . Personally I love escalating, and there is a good degree of strategy in it. I palyed a W2.1 game where the sets went over 100, the game was in the balance till the the last 2 turns.
graeme89 wrote:In no cards and flat rate, if u get a bad drop at the start u are basically screwed, espcially against good players, in escalating, if u play it right u still can have a chance . Personally I love escalating, and there is a good degree of strategy in it. I palyed a W2.1 game where the sets went over 100, the game was in the balance till the the last 2 turns.
the no cards thing isnt totally true, i am in a game where i had a bad position, got beaten up by all the other players but persevered and now im the main target due to strength
I do like Flat and no cards for variety but I just find the "end game" too difficult. They all too often just turn into stalemates. At some point you have to take on 2 or more players at once to win a standard game which I find almost impossible to do without escalating cards.
Maybe Flat rate works better as a terminator game?
And No cards may be the best option for assassin?
Piestar wrote:I followed the threads you offered AA, but neither seemed to 'discuss' the idea.
Much like the 'broken format' mindset, they were offered up as either/or propositions.
I'm not trying to 'suggest change', or fix anything, I'm suggesting that might be simple ways to offer new and interesting games, each with their own strategic solutions.
Obviously I am going to be more careful in my game options. Playing RISK with it's original rules was obviously not the preperation for the Escalating games that I thought it was, so I am experimenting with other options, and maps, looking for a mix I enjoy as much as you enjoy your favorites.
I'm just not certain why my suggestions are so commonly responded to by defensive comments, or outright antagonists fervor.
It's a game, geez...
With that in mind, does the ignore function work in the forums? I hope so...
i just wasted a few minutes looking for what I thought i must have written
