[GO] Poker Spoils

[TheForgivenOne]

But that's the thing. Are we going to keep changing this site further and further until it no longer is based around what it is meant to be? We still have basics here. You cash 3 cards. There are 3 Attackers and 2 Defenders Max. For 99% of the maps, you must eliminate all your opponents. Just the few Objective maps are quirks. You are changing the way cards are cashed. Soon people will want to cash 10 cards at once. Or people will start wanting either 4 attackers or 2 attackers for holding something on a map.

[Laughing.Boy]

Well, as you correctly pointed out, the option for original settings will always be there. Regardless, as I stated before, I'm against changes for the sake of changes. Changes that offer a legitimate perk to the overall system are innovative.

Anyways, I'd argue that the Poker spoils system is more true to the original game than Nuclear spoils is. I'd put it on the same level of divergence as Assassin mode. It keeps the same flavor, but alters the tactics.

[Bruceswar]

No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

[Laughing.Boy]

No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Sacred cows and traditions. To be honest, I was hoping for something more useful. Anything not meant to be changed stands in the way of progress.

Nevertheless, to each their own.

[Queen_Herpes]

But that's the thing. Are we going to keep changing this site further and further until it no longer is based around what it is meant to be?

Yes.

Laughing boy made a great point...no need to cling to tradition. All changes to this site have been innovative and exciting. Someone, somewhere likes them. If you don't like a setting, don't play it! Understandably there are settings that would be useless like, say, "TOTAL ANNIHILATION". In TOTAL ANNIHILATION, each player cashes a set of spoils and it completely nukes the whole board. So, whoever gets to three cards first, wins.

This suggestion offers something innovative which creates a completely new environment for strategy in the game. A player who is close to obliteration can cash his or her one card to stave off certain death, or make a last-ditch effort to break an opponent. Its all a calculation and will innevitably require a new book to be written about the strategy involved with this kind of spoils group. Think about a multiplayer game where taking out your opponents for their spoils suddenly changes when the player with 2 cards cashes, and the player who follows him cashes his one remaining card. Your turn is next and you are left with a board of players with no cards, so taking everyone out becomes impossible in one turn.

I'm very excited about this option as are many other players, their comments have been posted.

ultimately, however, it is just a suggestion. Once it gets submitted, it is still a suggestion. The site may or may not go for it. If it does, it seems there is a lot of support behind it. If it doesn't, there might be some players upset about it, probably more players upset about it not being implemented than there are players who would be "bothered" by its addition to the settings.

[pmchugh]

No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Bruce you have totally lost me, can you play Speed, freestyle, foggy, 8 player, escalating on a 300 territory board in you're house?

CC isn't risk, and this is a great new strategy idea that you actually could play on a board if you wanted to

[Bruceswar]

No, I think I understood. Let me ask you this. Why is it important that players must cash in three cards at a time.

Why must each goal is soccer count as one point? or a touchdown count as 7? Just the way some things are. They are not meant to be changed.

Bruce you have totally lost me, can you play Speed, freestyle, foggy, 8 player, escalating on a 300 territory board in you're house?

CC isn't risk, and this is a great new strategy idea that you actually could play on a board if you wanted to

Speed = Yes

8 Players = Yes

300 Spot board = Yes (Printer works well)

Freestyle = Yes (but hard)

Fog = No.


While all of these may bend the rules a tad they keep the same simple concept.

[pmchugh]

First off bruce my point was combined, you can't have 8 people cashing in sets of 100+ and attacking defending all at the same time. It is nothing like the original game.

Secondly, have you recieved a heavy blow to the head any time in the last few days? Cause you're points just do not make any sense. This change keeps "the same simple concept" you're eager to protect where as the likes of city mogul, freestyle, fog and many other game variations on this site change it to the point where it's no longer recognisable. The site adapts and changes, deal with it.

[Queen_Herpes]

First off bruce my point was combined, you can't have 8 people cashing in sets of 100+ and attacking defending all at the same time. It is nothing like the original game.

Secondly, have you recieved a heavy blow to the head any time in the last few days? Cause you're points just do not make any sense. This change keeps "the same simple concept" you're eager to protect where as the likes of city mogul, freestyle, fog and many other game variations on this site change it to the point where it's no longer recognisable. The site adapts and changes, deal with it.

Well said.

[phantomzero]

If it were change for the sake of change, I'd agree that Poker spoils was nothing but rubbish. However, it isn't. In fact, it may be one of the most strategy-changing options yet. Right now, everybody cashes in three spoils at a time, and when you can cash those is is largely left to chance. With one or two spoils, you have no option and thus no strategy. You have a 1-in-3 chance with three spoils, just shy of 4-in-5 chance with four spoils, and five spoils guarantees you can (and must) act. At any point along the possible collection of spoils, one has a 42.5% chance of being able to cash, not including a person who has no spoils. (That's just the way of the game.)

However, your ability to choose a strategy is less than that, since you must act at five spoils. Unless you have three of one type and one of each other type, thus giving you a binary choice, (statistically happening less than 25% of the time you gain five spoils) you have no real option at five spoils. In reality, you have a choice to act strategically about about 27.5% of the time, or about 11-in-40. With Flat-Rate, Escalating and Nuclear, that is.

With Poker spoils, you have the option to act strategically 100% of the time. (Again, discounting a person having no spoils.) There is still chance, but you always have a choice. Players can act with cool, calm collective strategies, saving spoils and pruning their collections for the optimal cash-out; or they can spend what they have right away for a desperate gamble or last-ditch effort. A player can not be sitting on four cards and have no way to act.

I was actually agreeing with Bruce about not adding this as an option until I read the above quote. If it is added it will make for some better strategy than Nuclear Spoils and provide some very interesting cashing strategies.

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

So really in the end I'm split. I think if more options are going to be added, this is a very decent option, but at the same time, I'd be quite happy with just keeping the existing game options.

[pmchugh]

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

[JoshyBoy]

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

This presents a very strong case for the suggestion that we should limit recruits to certain maps and settings and unlock them over time.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

[JoshyBoy]

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

That suggestion is good but I personally believe that some of the specifics should be changed.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think the biggest issue is whether CC should continue to add more and more and more options. The Start a Game page is getting busier to navigate with all of the options that are being implemented. I think this makes is difficult for new users who visit the site to try and find an online version of a popular board game. Yes this site has evolved from the old Classic map, but it should still stick close to it's roots.

I hear you. I love more and more options, but for the new users it may complicate things and put them off.

Which is why this suggestion... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=102006 ...should be implemented.

That suggestion is good but I personally believe that some of the specifics should be changed.

PLease...suggest your beliefs...in that thread...

[Bruceswar]

First off bruce my point was combined, you can't have 8 people cashing in sets of 100+ and attacking defending all at the same time. It is nothing like the original game.

Secondly, have you recieved a heavy blow to the head any time in the last few days? Cause you're points just do not make any sense. This change keeps "the same simple concept" you're eager to protect where as the likes of city mogul, freestyle, fog and many other game variations on this site change it to the point where it's no longer recognisable. The site adapts and changes, deal with it.

If you will read my post on city mogul I have motioned that map to be removed over and over again. And even with freestyle you have the same simple rules.

1: Takes 3 Cards to make a set
2: Bonus cards still work the same way as seq.
3: You still roll the dice.
4: The only thing changed is the play order. And for an online game it works great since many people prefer the speed of freestyle rather than seq. With freestyle you are sure to have a turn every 24 hours. With seq it could take 6 or 7 days before you get another turn. It is not like you are all sitting around a table taking turns one after another. People have 24 hours to make a move(and rightly so) so with that said Freestyle offers a bit more real time feel that seq most times.

[Laughing.Boy]

If you will read my post on city mogul I have motioned that map to be removed over and over again. And even with freestyle you have the same simple rules.

1: Takes 3 Cards to make a set
2: Bonus cards still work the same way as seq.
3: You still roll the dice.
4: The only thing changed is the play order. And for an online game it works great since many people prefer the speed of freestyle rather than seq. With freestyle you are sure to have a turn every 24 hours. With seq it could take 6 or 7 days before you get another turn. It is not like you are all sitting around a table taking turns one after another. People have 24 hours to make a move(and rightly so) so with that said Freestyle offers a bit more real time feel that seq most times.

From a game design perspective, choosing sequential versus freestyle has no small difference in outcome. It goes well beyond the convenience of timely turns. It affects how you play down to some amazing minutia. Some examples...

In the realm of strategy computer games, you have two distinct categories. RTS vs TBS. RTS, or Real-Time Strategy, is you basic Command & Conquer or Warcraft. As fast as resources allow, you may act. There's no time to plan excessively and carefully once a game has begun, and the difference between winning and losing can come down to a fraction of a second it takes to click the mouse. TBS, or Turn-Based Strategy, is a different beast. Games like Heroes of Might and Magic or the very excellent Civilization series. You can plan with the utmost detail, and the outcome of a game hinges on making the correct decisions.

Real-time versus turn-based is also a large distinction among the RPG category. Compare Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. The mechanisms of playing are totally different. (Even discounting Fallout 3's FPS aspects, which are kind of necessary for the real-time aspect.) Or compare Fallout 2 to Diablo 2. One is a paced game of chess with time for consideration, the other is a click-fest of do-or-die hotkeys, respectively.

No, real-time versus turn-based is no small consideration for a game. It affects everything. If I played Risk in the same manner that I played a freestyle on Conquer Club, the game would resemble less the organized rules of baseball and more the chaos of Calvinball. Realistically, to play freestyle on a board game with the same results as Conquer Club is impossible.

Furthermore, fog of war is a huge change. Knowing exactly where and how strong your enemy stands will affect your style of play. Image playing laser tag, knowing one person guarded the entrance and two were inside. You knew exactly where they stood and where they faced. You'd have a decent shot of storming the place. Now imagine you could see the one guarding the door, but had no idea how many or where, if any, they stood inside. Suddenly any plan goes out the window.

[Bruceswar]

You do understand that Risk is not any of those games you mentioned. Also you do understand that in real life you play each turn 1 after another. Not up to 24 hour later. Sans a real time game or a speed game then you are not playing close at all. Freestyle speeds up the game. Sure it is a slightly different, especially in speed games, but that is something else.

BTW the strategy changes little from seq to FS. I play both and it is not that different. Sans a block here or taking a shot there, it is all the same.

And as to your fog statement... That is one of the beauties of online games or PC / Console games in general. While it is impossible to do this in real life, you can do this online or on the PC. If you could do it in real life people would do it.

But you know what ... All these games still follow those same simple rules I mentioned.

[pmchugh]

You do understand that Risk is not any of those games you mentioned. Also you do understand that in real life you play each turn 1 after another. Not up to 24 hour later. Sans a real time game or a speed game then you are not playing close at all. Freestyle speeds up the game. Sure it is a slightly different, especially in speed games, but that is something else.

BTW the strategy changes little from seq to FS. I play both and it is not that different. Sans a block here or taking a shot there, it is all the same.

And as to your fog statement... That is one of the beauties of online games or PC / Console games in general. While it is impossible to do this in real life, you can do this online or on the PC. If you could do it in real life people would do it.

But you know what ... All these games still follow those same simple rules I mentioned.

You have picked a few stupid rules to safegaurd, rolling the same number of dice yeah thats a fair point but cashing different numbers of cards is perfectly legit.

Freestyle is entirely different, i could not win a game on fs at first and even now i still suck at it. In fs timing/speed are vital in seq they are non existant factors.

Deciding whether to cash 1-5 cards is barely even different

[Laughing.Boy]

You do understand that Risk is not any of those games you mentioned.

Indeed. Do you understand that Conquer Club isn't Risk?

You ballyhoo the sanctity of three-spoil cashing and for no other reason than "there are some things that are not meant to be changed." I have no misconception on the similarities, but I'm also aware of Conquer Club being what Risk isn't. We're talking about two games set half-a-century apart. Conquer Club is technology-enabled, as you correctly identified in your post.

When Risk was made, why do you think they instituted the cashing system with three cards? Was it because three is the magical number (not being sarcastic here, three really is a revered number ingrained in multiple cultures) or because they play-tested various systems and found the three-cash the best and most fair? Maybe it was neither of those reasons. Maybe it was suggested and just worked, and no other idea was pursued.

In fact, if I had to bet, I'd say that last scenario was the most likely. (In combination with the magical number explanation.) Someone probably made up the cashing system of escalating rewards as a sort of game ending guarantee. The rewards were probably futzed around with, but three cards was likely the first and only solution. Then the rule of a maximum five-card hand was put in place to keep people from holding out indefinitely for the larger numbers.

But that doesn't even matter. Nothing about Risk matters, because we're technically not playing Risk. We're playing a game based upon the basic game mechanisms of Risk, and we're not the first or last to do it. (Online or off) What was done in Risk is only a platform from which to build, not restrict. Refusing to integrate an optional system has the same sense as refusing to build hybrid cars today because the Ford Model T was gas-powered 100 years ago. Gas-powered cars worked and continue to work today and, all things considered, are quite an efficient system. That does not mean it's the best or only system. Furthermore, building hybrid cars certainly doesn't bar anyone from buying a gas-powered car.

It's clinging to the past for the sheer sake of the familiar.

[Bruceswar]

We keep going back and forth and likely it will all be for nothing. I just do not see this one happening on CC. BTW can we use a desk of cards and not dice? High card wins low card loses? And while we are at it, lets just go ahead and make an idea where cards count as 100 men for each card cashed!

[JoshyBoy]

We keep going back and forth and likely it will all be for nothing. I just do not see this one happening on CC. BTW can we use a desk of cards and not dice? High card wins low card loses? And while we are at it, lets just go ahead and make an idea where cards count as 100 men for each card cashed!

That rates about 9.0 on my sarcasm scale. Submitted. There is plenty of support for this idea and we'll leave the final word to lack.

Cheers, JB

[pmchugh]

We keep going back and forth and likely it will all be for nothing. I just do not see this one happening on CC. BTW can we use a desk of cards and not dice? High card wins low card loses? And while we are at it, lets just go ahead and make an idea where cards count as 100 men for each card cashed!

Nah i much prefer the idea of getting rid of no cards/esc games, aswell as every map except classic the game has just changed toooo much!

[JoshyBoy]

Please do not post in this thread unless you have something relevant to add to the topic.

[ender516]

Am I correct in assuming that a player would still be forced to cash something once he had collected five spoils?