Moderator: Community Team
alright, so lets draw this out using the most likely possibility.Lone.prophet wrote:than the third card u need for 3 different is 33% so it evens out
you're thinking here as wrong and rather than sit here and try to explain the logic.....think about this. This is a really old board game which the rules were thought about years ago. don't go changing the BASIC rules of the game. I realize as this site grows larger and larger, we keep improvising new rules, maps, and play. However, they are all based on BASIC rules. Now, if you want to contact hasbro and debate them on probabilities, be my guest. If anything, you can look at having more realistic cards. I believe the real game has calvary, canons and infantry.dancingchiapet wrote:Change Refund Amounts for Flat Rate games
I came across this when playing risk with some friends.
In regards to a flat rate games where the pay out is 4,6,8, or 10, 10 obviously should be given to the rarest card combination. Currently, 10 armies is paid out for one color of each, but it is in fact the most likely card combination. Here is the math:
For the Classic map there are 42 territories/cards made up by 14 reds, 14 greens, and 14 blues.
Let us look at a hypothetical situation in which only one player is recieving cards and always draws the most likely color.
Player one recieves a red card. This means in the deck there are 13 reds, 14 greens, and 14 blues. This means that player one will most likely next draw a green or a blue (because there are more in the deck). Going along with that we'll say player one next draws a green card. This means the deck now is made up of 13 reds, 13 greens, and 14 blues. Blue is the most likely card to get next, which will give player one 10 armies.
There are a bunch of different senarios depending on the different number of players, but it is never harder to get one color of each, statistically speaking.
Going just by math alone it would probably make the most sense to have a set of the same color be worth the same as any other color, since they all have the same probabilitiy. So possibly 10 armies for 3 cards of the same color and 6 armies for a set of one of each color.
A very easy change though would simply be: 4 for 1 of each, 6 for 3 red, 8 for 3 green, 10 for 3 blue.
The priority is only about a 2, but it is still something that needs to be looked at at some point.
so what if i draw a reddancingchiapet wrote:alright, so lets draw this out using the most likely possibility.Lone.prophet wrote:than the third card u need for 3 different is 33% so it evens out
draw red card.
13 red, 14 green, 14 blue
draw green card.
13 red, 13 green, 14 blue.
the most likely card is blue because the are the most left in the deck, plain and simple. if i need to draw this out further, ill do it later today.
I thought it used a deck triple the standard size, with one red, green and blue for each territory?spiesr wrote:Since conquer club doesn't use a "real deck" the colors of cards are assinged when you get them so you always have 1/3 chane of getting any color.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
As I was reading this thread I was thinking that same very point. I have seen games when someone got a card as one color and the next person to get the same got it in another color.spiesr wrote:Since conquer club doesn't use a "real deck" the colors of cards are assinged when you get them so you always have 1/3 chane of getting any color.
Right on both pointssully800 wrote:No, once a card is chosen it is out of the deck until it is played. I remember lack saying that before (so you could never draw two of the same card at once). I also believe the colors are randomly assigned, which shoots this whole suggestion to hell, but I'm not sure.
This has happened to me. I trade a card, finish my turn and get the same card but I don't remember if the color was different.everywhere116 wrote:As I was reading this thread I was thinking that same very point. I have seen games when someone got a card as one color and the next person to get the same got it in another color.spiesr wrote:Since conquer club doesn't use a "real deck" the colors of cards are assinged when you get them so you always have 1/3 chane of getting any color.
There is no reason to insult me for bringing this up. This is a suggestion board for any subject that might improve upon the game and thats all I am trying to do by bringing this up. I know it's a low priority and I clearly stated that in my original post. If it's so sad to read what I've typed, just don't worry about it.boberz wrote:mathmatically dancingchia pet is correct. However i believe that in the interests of the game (for reasons stated by other people) it should not be changed. I think it was quite sad to spend quite as much time as it seems you have on this. Perhaps if you want to limit amount of luck created by cards, play no card games. However in future i agree this could be an option in creating a game (along with flat rate, escalating and no cards) but at such a low priority it would never be worth doing, sorry.
I don't believe anyone has insulted you in this thread. You opened a discussion and people gave you their input. That is what this forum is for. Most of the suggestions here get shot down so don't feel bad. I think the majority thought you were correct but didn't want to change the game play.dancingchiapet wrote:There is no reason to insult me for bringing this up. This is a suggestion board for any subject that might improve upon the game and thats all I am trying to do by bringing this up. I know it's a low priority and I clearly stated that in my original post. If it's so sad to read what I've typed, just don't worry about it.
sorry wasnt meaning to offend had had a bad day and had a short temper but the rest of my post stands, it should be another option not changing the flat rate cards themselves. Perhaps you could call the new system "flate rate version 2"dancingchiapet wrote:There is no reason to insult me for bringing this up. This is a suggestion board for any subject that might improve upon the game and thats all I am trying to do by bringing this up. I know it's a low priority and I clearly stated that in my original post. If it's so sad to read what I've typed, just don't worry about it.boberz wrote:mathmatically dancingchia pet is correct. However i believe that in the interests of the game (for reasons stated by other people) it should not be changed. I think it was quite sad to spend quite as much time as it seems you have on this. Perhaps if you want to limit amount of luck created by cards, play no card games. However in future i agree this could be an option in creating a game (along with flat rate, escalating and no cards) but at such a low priority it would never be worth doing, sorry.