The dreaded 4 cards of 2 colours that have no value whatsoever to the holder only!
  • 82 posts
  • Page 5 of 6
naathim wrote:
I've played risk style games before where any three are a set. Doesn't matter type or color, three cards is a set and you can turn in. There's already the 'advanced' turn in thingummy, I suppose there could be more options :P

I know, I know I said the dreaded 'o' word :D
Vexer wrote:
I haven't had time to read all of this thread and I haven't been keeping up with it but I had an alternative idea that would be quite simple. If I'm getting it correctly some players are getting frustrated because they are stuck with 4 cards and no set too often. Instead of making a player turn in 4 cards or letting them turn in at the end of their turn why not just add more wild cards? That would certainly lower the probability of not having a set.

Actually there was a glitch in the code that made it so that some of the maps only had one wild card. It's been fixed now and I wonder if it has already been changed enough to help with this problem.
Matty wrote:
More wild cards will also greatly improve the chance on a 3 card turn in.
I sometimes really depend on the other person not having a 3 card turn in...
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
MuzuaneAskari wrote:
More wildcards are also a possibility, anyway, I prefer the Defensive 4 cards set; but I would be fine with your suggestion Vexer
Gato que avanza, Perro que ladra
Vexer wrote:
Yeah, I'd rather not increase the chances of getting a 3 card set too.

Lets wait a bit and see the effect of now having the proper number of wilds on each map.
Clarke wrote:
I just don't like the idea of a 4 card set. Getting 2 red and 2 blue is a part of the game. Deal with it. This is part of the game.

If the staff DOES decide to implement them, please make it an option requiring password just like advanced cards. Should NOT be the new standard please.
tramadol wrote:
I have just ready the entire thread and know that Vexer is inclined to wait and see what the correct number of wild cards do for the game first, but I think Muzuane Askari's suggestion is very good.

Muzuane Askari's suggestion and more... (click to show)
I too have noticed a lot of 4 cards (no set) killing my game and also giving me an easy game when others suffer it.
tramadol wrote:
Can I just add, I just finished another 2 games (2 for 2) {8 player & 6 player} where I got 4 useless cards at the critical point and lost both as a result. This happens far more frequently than most will admit.
Not a wild card in sight in either.
SpamFree wrote:
I like MuzuaneAskari's suggestion:

Once you start down the rank path (of any color), forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will. Welcome to Dominating12. Have fun:pirate: Try the Kool-Aid;)
12 Feb, 03:52 elysium5: SpamFree is correct!
Axobongo wrote:
lets not be putting 'password' blocks on any more, please there is wayyyyy too many password blocks on options as it is
Axobongo is online.
tramadol wrote:
Okay, as Vexer suggested "Lets wait a bit and see the effect of now having the proper number of wilds on each map".
I have given it 3 months and monitored how many DM & Caps games I get 2+2.
It is very close to 90% that I get the 2+2, but luckily I have had many in the first turn-in, I have had some in the 25+ turn-in values and been lucky to be too difficult to kill, but have lost about 10% of my games due to being a low capped card target!
Not to mention that in 5% of games I have had 2 lots of 2+2.

Just so that everyone is aware, I feel the black cards are doing their job correctly now, as I see them a lot more and there has been 2 occasions where my first 2 cards have been the only 2 Black cards on that map, I know that this has also happened to jonboy1967, as we were wowing about it once... it's something like 0.25% chance.
But alas, in my opinion, the black cards do not eliminate the 2+2, nor even improve it.
Matty wrote:
I've also played some games where my opponent not being able to turn in at 4 cards was the only way to win.
The first one would stalemate otherwise (but he got 5 cards, so I could win - albeit barely), the second one I lost.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
cbt711 wrote:
I think it's just part of the game honestly. And if it wasn't there, then there would be 10 times the stalemates. Yeah it sucks when it happens to you, but if it never happened to anyone, all players being relatively good, every game would stalemate. It's luck just like drop and dice. If you take all luck out, it's a different game.
MuzuaneAskari wrote:
@cbt711, I guess you are right we need some luck to avoid the stalemates, but in Long Term games, after a couple of months with the same game it hurts ae lot if you lose because you had 4 cards and no set.

Anyway, I also think that this option it's quite interesting for Live Cap Games; I have played some games where the Big Attack started with sets of 10, so I am already aware of not keeping cards if I don't have enough troops in my cap; this option not only would save me (in case I had 4 cards and no set) but also the game.
Gato que avanza, Perro que ladra
Matty wrote:
Yea this is a difficult thing to decide on.
Usually I hate it when ppl (me or others) cant turn in with 4 cards. But stopping that would also have blocked some jewels, like that genius move from Cireon depending on Vexer not having a 4 card turn in (too bad he could turn in :P).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria