Conquer Club

Rodion wrote:I might need help from someone with phrasing the idea, as people seem unable to understand something that is pretty obvious in my eyes.

a) capped version - forced to cash (from 9 to 6) for 8 armies, then forced to cash (from 6 to 3) for 8 armies and then cash or not (from 3 to 0) for 4 armies -> you'll get between 16 and 20 armies
b) uncapped version - forced to cash (from 9 to 6) for 20 armies, then forced to cash (from 6 to 3) for 10 armies and then cash or not (from 3 to 0) for 4 armies -> you'll get between 30 and 34 armies

I like the b idea.

The capped version will be the same as flat rate without the luck of the colours.
I think a new type of spoils should add something more.

I think the B idea is great. Holding a lot of spoils is a big disadvantage. Anyone want to eliminate you and you do not have as many troops as the people who cashed before you etc

Rodion wrote:Tkr4lf, trust me, I know that.

That's part of the reason why I'm suggesting colourless ( ) spoils.

But it doesn't make sense. You're suggesting that colorless spoils will solve problems in a no spoils game. In a no spoils game, there wouldn't be any spoils. So I don't see how mentioning no spoils games is even relevant to your suggestion.

tkr4lf wrote:

Rodion wrote:Tkr4lf, trust me, I know that.

That's part of the reason why I'm suggesting colourless ( ) spoils.

But it doesn't make sense. You're suggesting that colorless spoils will solve problems in a no spoils game. In a no spoils game, there wouldn't be any spoils. So I don't see how mentioning no spoils games is even relevant to your suggestion.

It makes sense once you understand what I'm trying to say.

I said I wanted to create a new spoils that would minimize the role luck plays into games. Then I went to explain why nuclear/escalating/flat rate were settings in which luck played a big factor. I also said no spoils can be seen as a lucky setting if you consider 2-sided games (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4): once someone gets a protected bonus, it gets extremely hard for the other team to make a comeback (I said that in order to get that well-protected bonus you usually need a good dose of luck on start/drop/dice, so whoever has the luck in the first rounds reaches a nearly indestructible position).

The idea of the colorless spoils is to reduce the luck that can be seen in flat rate/escalating/nuclear while also allowing a team that had a bad start to comeback and win the game (something that you don't see everyday in no spoils games).

While I'm at it, of course I'm not proposing to end all other 4 spoils options to have this as the only one. It will just be a 5th option, that can be used by those who want it.

Mc, I prefer the uncapped version as well.

Rodion wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

Rodion wrote:Tkr4lf, trust me, I know that.

That's part of the reason why I'm suggesting colourless ( ) spoils.

But it doesn't make sense. You're suggesting that colorless spoils will solve problems in a no spoils game. In a no spoils game, there wouldn't be any spoils. So I don't see how mentioning no spoils games is even relevant to your suggestion.

It makes sense once you understand what I'm trying to say.

I said I wanted to create a new spoils that would minimize the role luck plays into games. Then I went to explain why nuclear/escalating/flat rate were settings in which luck played a big factor. I also said no spoils can be seen as a lucky setting if you consider 2-sided games (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4): once someone gets a protected bonus, it gets extremely hard for the other team to make a comeback (I said that in order to get that well-protected bonus you usually need a good dose of luck on start/drop/dice, so whoever has the luck in the first rounds reaches a nearly indestructible position).

The idea of the colorless spoils is to reduce the luck that can be seen in flat rate/escalating/nuclear while also allowing a team that had a bad start to comeback and win the game (something that you don't see everyday in no spoils games).

Ok. I guess I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were trying to apply the advantages of your colorless spoils to no spoils games.

Carry on, sir.

But seriously, I may not be a big fan of this, but good luck with it anyway. Hopefully it will make it into submitted suggestions.

I think this is a good suggestion. Just because players who post aren't all that interested doesn't make it a bad idea or an idea that the whole community would enjoy. In my opinion the more options the better.

It is an interesting suggestion definitely, I think. I'm not sure 'Colorless' is the best titular description for what this spoils process is really doing---since it rewards holding your Spoils. I don't think I can come up a with a descriptive name though either. But cashing spoils is a lot like using a lever to open a valve---letting out pressure/water/what have you. Flooding. Hoarding. Etc.


--Andy

I gave that name because they would be always cashable (as long as you have at least 3), meaning colors are irrelevant. It could possibly have a financial name to explain that you get more for waiting ("interest spoils"?). Back to color-theme, white spoils? Black spoils? Pure spoils? Exponential spoils (it's not really exponential, though)?

One quibble I have is that, with the system you have, you should have to cash all of your spoils to get the bonus. Not just 3, that would be ridiculous. So, use the same cash bonus you sketched up, but with the stipulation that you have to cash all of your cards to get the bonus.

As for names, I agree, colorless is bad. Maybe something like, Stamp Spoils (in reference to stamp collecting), Star Spoils, Unlimited Spoils, Banana Spoils...

Victor Sullivan wrote:One quibble I have is that, with the system you have, you should have to cash all of your spoils to get the bonus. Not just 3, that would be ridiculous. So, use the same cash bonus you sketched up, but with the stipulation that you have to cash all of your cards to get the bonus.

I disagree whole-heartedly. I don't see what makes the current proposal 'ridiculous'.

Victor Sullivan wrote:One quibble I have is that, with the system you have, you should have to cash all of your spoils to get the bonus. Not just 3, that would be ridiculous. So, use the same cash bonus you sketched up, but with the stipulation that you have to cash all of your cards to get the bonus.

That's basically what I THOUGHT was the original suggestion, which I supported. I thought that sounded like a tremendous advance in the game.

I don't really support this one, simply because I don't see it as being anything special or particularly different.

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:One quibble I have is that, with the system you have, you should have to cash all of your spoils to get the bonus. Not just 3, that would be ridiculous. So, use the same cash bonus you sketched up, but with the stipulation that you have to cash all of your cards to get the bonus.

That's basically what I THOUGHT was the original suggestion, which I supported. I thought that sounded like a tremendous advance in the game.

I don't really support this one, simply because I don't see it as being anything special or particularly different.

Are you talking about a spoil system where once you get a spoil, the next turn you can cash it? Or if you hold, you can cash two? And the more you wait to turn in, the better?

So say, I got a spoil, next turn I'll cash it for 2 troops because I need the troops. However, the game has progressed some in later rounds, and now I've two spoils banked, which I'm going to cash for 6 troops. My opponent has 4 spoils to cash in his turn though, so he could get something like 15 troops or some number to make it worth while to hold? And every turn---you have to cash in all your spoils if you are going to cash any, no holding back 2 spoils to cash in 2 for 6 troops or something like that.


--Andy

I've played this way before, and while I prefer the standard esc, flat, none choices, I fully support this as an option.

It would make a fantastic addition to the site.

I think it's a very good, and a very well put idea.

All or Nothing spoils

It sounds very cool to me as well. Could you call it no limit spoils since there is no limit to when you can cash them or of how many?

All or nothing may make it sound like you can either cash all of them or none of them, but maybe people would just figure it out anyways lol.

Mine is no good either since I just noticed someone else already suggested unlimited as a name (missed that lol)

I got it!
Hoarder's Delight .

Funkyterrance wrote:I got it!
Hoarder's Delight .

hey funkyterrence

double and triple posting is considered spamming, it is right there in the Forum Guidelines

it is best to edit your post otherwise you run the risk of a warning, then a vacation.

btw, welcome to CC

You already posted this on my wall so why post it here lol?
I did not know this rule but now I do.... twice.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:One quibble I have is that, with the system you have, you should have to cash all of your spoils to get the bonus. Not just 3, that would be ridiculous. So, use the same cash bonus you sketched up, but with the stipulation that you have to cash all of your cards to get the bonus.

That's basically what I THOUGHT was the original suggestion, which I supported. I thought that sounded like a tremendous advance in the game.

I don't really support this one, simply because I don't see it as being anything special or particularly different.

Are you talking about a spoil system where once you get a spoil, the next turn you can cash it? Or if you hold, you can cash two? And the more you wait to turn in, the better?

So say, I got a spoil, next turn I'll cash it for 2 troops because I need the troops. However, the game has progressed some in later rounds, and now I've two spoils banked, which I'm going to cash for 6 troops. My opponent has 4 spoils to cash in his turn though, so he could get something like 15 troops or some number to make it worth while to hold? And every turn---you have to cash in all your spoils if you are going to cash any, no holding back 2 spoils to cash in 2 for 6 troops or something like that.


--Andy

That's what I was thinking, yes. Sort of like as you hold more cards, each one becomes worth more, for example, 1 card might be worth 1 troop, 2 worth 4 (2 each), 3 worth 9 (3 each), etc. Obviously the bonus would increase very rapidly that way so you'd have to do a system like this:

• 1 spoil - 1 troop
• 2 spoils - 3 troops (1.5 troops/spoil)
• 3 spoils - 5 troops (1.67 troops/spoil)
• 4 spoils - 8 troops (2 troops/spoil)
• 5 spoils - 11 troops (2.2 troops/spoil)
• 6 spoils - 14 troops (2.33 troops/spoil)
• 7 spoils - 18 troops (2.57 troops/spoil)
• 8 spoils - 22 troops (2.75 troops/spoil)
• 9 spoils - 26 troops (2.89 troops/spoil)
• 10 spoils - 30 troops (3 troops/spoil)
• 11 spoils - 35 troops (3.18 troops/spoil)
• 12+ spoils - increments of 5.

How about this system? Thoughts?

it would make for waiting and bomb games till you know you can hit a homerun... could be nice, I dunno. certainly not appropriate for certain maps and settings though, but hell, could be fun. i'd support that

CUMULATIVE SPOILS

Bam.

Wasn't the idea of this to make it less luck based?

How about leaving the rules as is with 5 spoils max, needing 3 to cash in, but make them colourless and regardless of when you cash them in and how many you are holding, you always get X amount of troops. You could even make X dependent of the size of the map. A map like Doodle Earth it would be 4, and a Hive game you would get 10.

DarthFrog wrote:Wasn't the idea of this to make it less luck based?

How is the current set-up any more luck-based than what you proposed?