The 4 card set

I incorrectly placed my views and suggestions on this topic in the elimination and cards topic started by The_Bishop on 09 June 2012 and continued to date. I have since been advised to start a new topic for it. Below is what I posted (copied & pasted here) and what I followed it up with after no feedback was given: Post 1: ------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to put a few points of view in if I may? First, I don't recall ever playing the old card rules, so they must have changed before I joined! I have gained my rank mainly from "LIVE" Capital & Deathmatches with all variations of fog, reinforcements, and capped cards ( not "Same Time" ) and see the benefits and downfalls of the card system. First could somebody post exactly what the old rules were, to save me hunting through the thread and so I can make a comparison? On the topic of the current card rule system, all players have the same chances of obtaining cards with mostly the exception of the first player to act. The cards can be collected strategically, i.e. you can time your cards so that when you turn yours in, you get the maximum troop reward available each time, however, another player may decide to turn theirs in early due to necessity or to time their card turn-ins according to their strategy and this is where the current system can kill you, if you have been unlucky and have 4 cards with no set and 4 or more players are due to play before you, the turn in value is going to increase substantially and you are looking like a viable target for your cards and you still have to take another turn before you get a set, making you a guaranteed target. You will almost certainly have lost the game at the moment of the first early turn in. On this basis, my suggestion would be to add a card turn in feature which will save so many unlucky people from losing the game through no fault of their own and that is: Allow a 3rd combination, so not just 3 cards the same or 3 cards different, but 4 CARDS, (2 of the same colour & 2 of another colour). This combination comes up almost as regularly as 3 the same or 3 different! This would make absolutely no difference to the wild cards as they would allow a 3 card set but it would allow a player to survive when caught with 4 coloured cards and no set. You should still only be forced to turn in when you have 5 cards, as you could be losing a card unnecessarily. It would be a 'life line' turn in! As for the Early Attacker, this is something we can only combat with passworded games against the known offenders! Unfortunately, we have to discover the offenders at our loss and the wrecking of the game! Believe me I have had my fair share of these and unbelievably, some high rankers are prone to it, some Chief Warrant Officers for instance. If the 4 card (2&2) turn in was to become a feature, I believe you would see a completely fair game for both Capital and Deathmatch games regardless of the game card turn in type. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Post 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay! I hear what you are saying and have seen what the old card rules were, above. You could only turn in after killing someone IF you had 5 cards or more from the attack. Personally, I am glad that rule doesn't exist anymore, because it still allowed a player to dominate the game purely on playing position, when the card value is just right and everybody is laden with cards, this was and still is always the case when players get lumbered with 4 cards that are absolutely no good to them unless they are given a gift of an opportunity to attack another Cap without turning in and getting 7 or more cards in their stash as a result. This would lead to players taking a chance on another Cap with barely an excess of troops which we all know fails time and time again causing 2 Caps full of lovely juicy cards to become available for the next player to win the game. Both old and new card rules create this situation and I believe what I have proposed above would stop all this and all luck and gifts would be gone forever, you would now have to be strategic, strategic, strategic!!! Why has nobody even remarked on what I proposed or does everybody believe that what they think matters most and newer guys know nothing? Do me a little favour everybody in this thread, put the 3rd turn-in option (2 + 2) proposed by me above on paper and look at all the events you've all come across and tell me it doesn't eliminate most of the ones that anger us when we should have had a chance to show our worth instead of sitting at the mercy of the turn position and map position!!!!! Only seconds ago, I again had to sit looking at 2 green cards and 2 red cards with the last 2 of us in the game, saying to myself, "I bet his 4 cards he's going to have after his attack have a set in them, mine that I had before the attack don't and the next move I'll be dead as a result", as the reality was, he had just attacked and failed and yet he still gets to win as I can't turn in these hard earned, well timed cards I worked so strategically to get! GRRRRR! Please, please look at it as a possibility and not some crazy idea not really thought over, as I have put the option in place in my mind in every damn bad situation I have been forced into by start position and order luck and watched the game go the way everybody knows it's going to go because somebody was put in the lucky seat. You want to see strategic skill, you see what you great players could do with this new feature! ------------------------------------------------------------------- All feedback for this new topic will be greatly welcomed and essential to the D12 creators, programmers and administrators. Please think of the game and the influence it could have on returning strategy to the game.

No...really just tell us how you feel. I do feel your anger, cause I have it about the "New" trade-in way. Like I have said in our Messages...that I will have to get my mind around this idea. [quote=aeronautic ]Why has nobody even remarked on what I proposed or does everybody believe that what they think matters most and newer guys know nothing?[/quote] F.Y.I I can see why you might of thought you might make us anoyed...when this is so far from the truth...grrrrr I have been here for awhile and have learned that some ideas that come from left field err...off the main topic...might not get the response that one would hope for. This is the case here...let us think about this idea, but first (for me) I have not seen the reasons for this as ...again I think it would not solve the players killing for the cards hopeing to get a trade-in. I am the oldest player here (52yrs) and it takes me awhile to get some things...just take it easy and I will really look at this.

On one hand, I see the pro's you mention. On the other, this could encourage the suicidal players to be even worse when chasing cards thinking they might get a cash-in. That's about as deep as I've thought about it, though.

Well, 2 cards of a color and 2 of another color matching together which worth like a normal set of 3 cards. That's a VERY interesting idea! I mean, what one can do when (s)he holds 4 cards non-matching and the 5th card will be enough to make him/her a viable target?? It's like a sentence of death! You can do nothing to escape the sentence, just stand and wait for the rope around your neck. It is not nice to lose in such a way! Well, we are used to it and so it looks like a normal thing, like a part of the game. But well I think it's the WORST part of the game. The effect of bad luck it would be still on, because you would trade in 4 cards rather than 3 at the same price, since practically you lose one card, which is really bad when turn-in value is high, but well, at least you are not dead, you can still fight. 7 cards double turn-in would be guaranteed with that special set, I would like it. By the way it should be TESTED to exactly know what all the effects are. I have already ruined the Capitals game type so that Thorpe is not my friend anymore. I don't want to make such a mistake again! (Just joking Thorpe ;))

I would like to try this option because I think it reduces the effect of "bad luck".

I strongly believe that what most players are waiting for in all game types is that illustrious moment when a player is showing 4 cards and doesn't turn in at the moment when they out number them in troops and are due to collect their reinforcements and further outnumber them, swooping in and collecting 5 cards to add to their 3 giving them a double turn in and 2 spare cards as well as a 3rd card and possible turn in again should they wish to fortify and end their turn. It's the "WAHAY" moment. For the person who worked hard for those 4 cards prior to their turn, it was a "@%$& game over" moment the turn before and has to sit and wait and play another turn knowing they can't do anything about it, the beacon has been lit and the marauders are coming. Let's look at some stats and combinations that might help clear the mind! R = Red G = Green B = Blue W = Wild Keep wild cards out for now as they always did and always will offer turn-ins from 3 cards and I'll only show combinations of Red & Green for 2 colour combinations as all other two colour combinations are the same. The attack from Player A on Player B is an eliminating attack with Player A gaining the spoils, where Player B has no control over the situation due to their turn order and no turn in! Lets only deal with NO SET attacks and remember the actual colour combinations are 4 fold, but not required to show the base combinations. Current 3 Card Only turn in Player A (RGG) Player B (RGG).......turn-ins 1 (GGG) remainder (RRG) Player A (RRG) Player B (RGG).......turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) Player A (RGG) Player B (RRGG)......turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) remainder (G) Player A (RGG) Player B (RRGGB).....turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) remainder (GB) Player A (GGB) Player B (RRGGB).....turn-ins 2 (RGB & RGB) remainder (GG) Player A (RRGG) Player B (RRGG).....turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) remainder (RG) Player A (RRGG) Player B (RRGGG)....turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) remainder (RGG) Player A (RRGG) Player B (RRGGB)....turn-ins 3 (GGG & RRR & RGB) Now lets use the 3 & 4 card turn-in and take away all the NO SET attacks for spoils. Player A (RGG) Player B (RGG).......turn-ins 1 (GGG) remainder (RRG) Player A (RRG) Player B (RGG).......turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) Player A (RGG) Player B (RRGG)......turn-ins 2 (GGG & RRR) remainder (G) There is also the possibility of a 4 card on 4 card attack, but knowing the outcome would only give a maximum of 2 turn-ins there would be the safety requirement for Player A to turn in prior to the attack, thus gaining better chance of victory and the same amount of troops they would have had at the end of the attack regardless, with the only exception being where Player A wishes to place 2 turn-ins at a different location to continue attacking another Cap / Army in which case they would require an attacking force troop count equal to Player B's player armies + player territories + player territories/3 + 3 in order to almost guarantee success! The 3 & 4 card turn-in results show that over 60% of NO SET attacks would not take place for card spoils as the choice to remove the spoils is now available!

The reason why I didn't react in that topic was mainly because I was already tired of reacting in that topic, and that this was something completely off topic. (Well, maybe not off topic, but a completely different approach). Also, I'm not the only person to react on things. On the idea: For one it would completely change the way risk works. And I think the effect would be kind of impredictable. It would also not fix all problems with "because of bad luck I now cannot turn in and [i]I'm dead[/i] / [i]my plan fails[/i]" Still, it is an interesting idea.

I think it would work better as long as you can ONLY do it at the start of your turn rather than after eliminating someone. That way it doesn't encourage the suicide move as much and still solves the getting stuck with 4 cards scenario

To summarise the feedback so far: Thorpe and elysium5: Both highlight the possibility of encouraging more suicidal attacks for cards. Thorpe also has not seen a reason for this additional turn in option. I say: What is different in someone attacking 4 cards now to if/when there is a 4 card turn-in, there is every chance you will get a 3 card turn in from the 4 cards and any all-out-attacker that's going to do this will do so in either set up. The problem with 4 cards only arises when values are high and you are seen not to turn them in, now making it 5 cards. The_Bishop: Highlights the benefits of the life saving turn in of 2+2, sees the current set up where a player is lumbered with 4 unusable cards as the worst part of the game, highlights the fact that you are still unlucky having to trade 4 cards for a set especially when their value is high and also the fact that you are still in the game and the next player doesn't get a 7 carder at your expense and go on to win. He also suggests it be tested. I say: This is exactly what I have expressed in my posts, albeit more long winded. MuzuaneAskari: Believes it would reduce the effect of bad luck and would like to try it. I say: Yes bad luck in dice is one thing, but cards too is just too much to keep you interested in playing another game. It would mean that when the value is high, you would never again see a player with 5 cards in hand making them a viable target. Now players get a fair chance of utilising what they worked equally hard for. Matty: Believes that it would completely change the way risk works and its effect would be kind of unpredictable. Also states that it will not solve all the problems of cries of bad luck killing their game, but still thinks it's an interesting idea. I say: It will of course alter the way risk works, but that is the point. I don't see the unpredictability of the 4 card option, as any player with 4 cards would be expected to turn-in in every current game situation and scenario apart from the first 5 rounds and the only thing that will change is you'd see they now have 0 cards (perhaps you could give an example of its unpredictability). It is still a little unfair to the player turning them in as their opponents still have 1 card in hand at the same point of the game because they were lucky enough to have a 3 card turn-in, it is there purely for necessary turn-ins. The cries of bad luck killing a players game are going to be there regardless, I've seen players cry bad luck when trying to kill my capital of 14 with 8 troops and failing by 3. Only fools cry bad luck when they know it was their own bad decision making that caused their luck to be bad. As for card colours, none of us have any control over this in any way and the cruelty of its randomness can be quite soul destroying. If you feel you are unlucky with dice, you can stop an attack and stay strong or you can choose not to use any dice until you are so heavily loaded that the worst dice luck in the world couldn't stop you. You see, you get choices and options. Sygmassacre: Suggests an improvement/amendment to 4 card turn-in option, where it can only be used before an attack and not during and feels it wouldn't encourage the suicide move and still solves the problem of "stuck with 4 cards" scenario. I say: I totally agree with this improvement to the option and hope that it can be easily programmed to act in this way. I only suggested the 4 card turn in as a survival option, not an advantage maker. See the turn in scenarios above, they are all about NO SET attacks for another players cards that the 4 card turn-in is proposed to reduce the chances of! -------------------------------------------------- I have no idea how difficult or easy this would be alter the code of the program, nor how much testing it would take to prove it works and I have no desire to put extra work on the shoulders of the staff for something I think would improve the game. Therefore it would be nice to have the thoughts of the masses. First, are the staff even looking on this as a viable option? If so, how could we go about setting up a vote available to all D12 users? Is there a way of putting Yes & No check boxes alongside each players name in the [Player Ranks] database that can only be checked by the person next to their boxes and that would return a numerical total value to the staff, with a message at the top of each page describing what the vote is for? If so, this could also be used periodically for a multitude of votes for important changes/feedback for the staffs use! Just a thought in case there is no current method of mass voting. Or would it just be a case of the staff voting on it if they so decided to?

Not saying this is a good or bad idea. My point was in encouraging more suicidal attacks because even though as you point out there is already a possibility of someone getting a three card turn from four cards, with a 4 card trade in option more players will go for it knowing for sure you will get a trade in from having four cards.

Aero, if you want people to respond to this thread, you need to learn how to write concisely, especially your "summary" which is longer than all of the comments combined!! :) That begin said, I think there are too many unknowns to be able to determine how well this would work. If it's not too hard for the staff to create, I suggest a trail run with only a few users across all types of gameplay to test whether this is a viable option. I think it definitely has potential though.

In reply to elysium5: I hear your valid reservations on the increased possibility of players going for your cards knowing there will definitely be a turn in from 4. However, I don't think you have noticed the proposed amendment to the use of the 4 card turn in by Sygmassacre above. I believe that with this in place, the 4 cards could quite easily be 2 Reds + 2 Greens (as before) and the attacker would be unable to use them immediately (as before) and so they would as a result become the next target (as before), making it not a good option to go for 4 cards with 0 cards already in your hand. An attacker with 1 or more cards attacking 4 cards is the same outcome as it has always been, a guaranteed turn in and continuance and that is just part of the game. So to conclude, it is just as likely that an experienced attacker will not go for just 4 cards with the new turn-in option (as before), as there is still a likelihood that they will indeed die straight after. Having said that, there will always be novices and spiteful players that will attack another player, whether it be for their cards or just to take them out of the game and as I've said before, there are options available to avoid these players, such as password and minimum points.

@ lifeinpixels: LOL I know it seems like I've summarised in longhand, but actually what I did was place everybody's summarised views from the whole thread in 1 box and place a reply / explanation against each one to save everyone rummaging through 1000's of lines of text to see who said what and why aeronautical is saying this! Thank you for the feedback, it is very constructive and yes, I think a trial run would be a very good idea.

I can't say I am a huge fan of such a change but can see where it gives hope to those who have none. I feel the only way it might work is with the amendment proposed by Sygmassacre, but by the same token, I [b]abhor[/b] that such an amendment makes turn-ins less straightforward. As it is now, a set turns in and no set does not. Universally applied, easily understandable turn-in rules by default make for more consistent play. (This is part of my issue with Thorpe's suggestion for changing Capitals turn-ins [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=631&board=19&lastpost=1#post-16507]http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=631&board=19&lastpost=1#post-16507[/url]) Again, I [i]might[/i] use something like this as an option but I tend to think it muddies the rules.

I support any idea that adds new and interesting variables to this game. It would be fun to try as an option. One issue with Risk is that after you have played it several hundred times, you can pretty well predict how games are going to go. If this site wants to have longevity, it is paramount that changes are continually being adopted (which they have been). And, what better changes are there to make than those suggested by the very members who invest in the site?