elimination and cards

I don't have those statistics - you are not very clear in what statistics you want to see :) You'll have to be very specific and litteraly, as I can think of at least three ways to interpret your question right now :) The main reason I don't have these statistics however is because not one of the ppl that wan't these rules changed again answered in a somehow satisfactionary way to my main concern. You all seem to ignore my point and keep repeating your arguments. (I'm actually doing the same, which is really annoying xD).

What I ask is: Total of games played in.dominating12 in a month divided for the total.of. cap games with 5 or more players in a month. Just to.compare if.people.played more these kind of games.before changing the rule. I understand your point and even I admit it might be a bit confusing I don't agree with you. As I told you I create a lot game with reinforcement adjacent and many times.it has happened as.you said about this rule that.players realized about the importance of this rule when it's too late (after killing somebody and with their cap unprotected; yes, it has happened even they played many turns before the attack to the opponents cap). Sometimes it was.quite.frustrating because.of the games ruined but I learnt to deal with, writing the rule inbthe chat or asking directly to.some players. I wouldn't mind doing this also with the cards because now I don't like so much cap games, now I just find interesting try o change cards not too late (when the set it's over 15) but some bad dice of any player can change everything. It's not anymore the game I loved to play

I thought I answered your concerns Matty, with ...we will always have complaints and I really do not forsee a problem if they are taught from day one how the game flows. I am with MuzuaneAskari on this...Capital will always take time to learn and so the first time, as it is now also, will have just as many complaints..so I disagree with your points. I thought I said that in my last post...with alot more words...lol

Her this is better: [i]Having two different trade in rules will introduce something new:[/i] [i]- Case 1: People are used to play capitals. Once they play a deathmatch, they will not go for the 4 card kill, as they think they will not get a turn in (even if they have a wildcard).[/i] [b]---If you know what poker is...do you use the same rules in black-jack? You will know the difference.[/b] [i]- Case 2: Ppl often play deathmatches. Once they play a capital, they will go for the 3 card turn in (as they have a wildcard), but suddenly cannot turn in anymore.[/i] [b]----Just see how they play Capitals the first time! They leave their caps weak and die about the 2nd turn trying to get regions. Just part of the learning curve.[/b] It is all about training and learning. To bring these points up, (I have thought about them also), as a reason, is like never learning how to drive a stick shift...cause I might forget to shift.

Here is some more proof... Game 204712 and 198162

Thorpe seems to be campaigning hard for a permanent change to the caps turn-in (I followed his link to this posted in a game that never played, 208539, and have seen it several times in other games), so I will restate my opinion on the subject. I believe it might make a [b]good additional [u]Option[/u][/b] for game play settings but I am [b][u]ENTIRELY opposed[/u] to replacement of current default [/b] trade-in settings for capitals. I know the cry "no more options" is a common one, but in that case, if I were to vote, i vote [b][u][i]No Change[/b][/i][/u]. I still think that more options are the way forward, as the greater the options, the more likely that players will be able to play [i]Exactly[/i] the game they like to play: Classic, conservative, predictable, "luckless" play or Risky, Lucky, God-I-Hope-This-Works play or somewhere in between. Not everyone plays the same way, or should be forced to. Play or don't, those are the choices. Luck is part of the game, how big a part should be optional.

I agree with spamfree. I think the new option sounds great, but I'm not sure if I want to see it replace the old one. Would a trial run work? We could inform players of the rule changes in the chat of each caps game for, say, a week. Then we can discuss how things went. That seems like a good way to gauge peoples' interest, especially the majority who don't frequent the forums.

[quote=SpamFree - Nov 9, 02:07 PM] I still think that more options are the way forward, as the greater the options, the more likely that players will be able to play [i]Exactly[/i] the game they like to play: Classic, conservative, predictable, "luckless" play or Risky, Lucky, God-I-Hope-This-Works play or somewhere in between.[/quote] I disagree. With more and more options, you have no clue what games to play any more. Every game is totally different, so if you play long term games (like me), for every turn you do you have to go through all options first to figure out what you are playing. The current interface is not too good for that, so that means we need an interface redesign for an option I personally don't even want. Sure, [i]you[/i] maybe want more options, but what about a new player coming to the website. He won't see anything through the huge jungle of options. Fortification mode, turn-in mode, victory type (notice how many problems we already have with first-time capital players!) and now even when-can-you-turn-in-cards-after-killing-someone mode. Is it so hard to understand that that is not an option (no pun intended)? Can all you guys in favour of an option please come up with a solution to solve this problem, because it will not be added until someone does. @lifeinpixels: from what I understand, the current mode was initially instated as a test run (so theoretically it still is). Making test runs back and forth is not gonna help and only spread confusion. I think a clear decision has to be made right now.

The solution... Make it a premium option, that way the newbies will not have access to it. No problems, no huge jungle of options for them. As for long-term players...if you join different games now...you still have to know what your options you are playing with now...no difference or just do not join those games with any different options then the rest of the games you are currently playing with. As for giving players a option you do not like...sounds like map making...I like something and others do not, I still change it (as those mountains in Middengeard)...so why change it? As for the current mode (it has been a year) as a test run...it works well with deathmatches...though I do not play many games with that "option"...speeds the games up. As I stated before...it really speeds "Capitals", so much that it is hard to get past the fourth turn! I was against the "Test Run" in the first place...cause I agree going back and forth is not good for the site...but is the "Test Run Mode" as we have it good for the site? Good: -Quick games for those on a time limit. -Not hard to learn Capitals -Standard playing around the board -354 long term games...that you can blow through playing them. -a lot of "Cap" games in 'Live Games' -Newbies get a taste of what "Caps" are, without having to learn to much -Great for Deathmatches..solved the problem of longer games -No huge jungle of options Bad: -354 long term games -Older players leaving the site -No brain games..more luck than skill(Caps) -A lot of older players that started playing after the "Test Run" have to set password games to hopefully avoid the players that do a "Killer Card Run"...more long term games -Older players not helping train the Newbies, cause even some of the older Newbies, do a "Killer Card Run" -A lot of complaints on "Killer Card Run" players -Older players saying "Caps" is no longer fun -Players that want a "skill" game need to join a deathmatch game to even get any chance of a good skill game...and hope to get a good placement -Capitals that you know who will win in turn one...if players do not have someone do a "Killer Card Run" -Quick games -Low options -No need for a trainer...I love training I have missed some other points, but just put the big ones.

I adressed all your points one by one below (in the spoiler), but ill give a small version here, as it's quite lengthy ;) - Allow only premium players to create weird rule games will not make it more or less logical, as anyone can join them. Allowing only premium members to join certain games is something I am very much against. - The rule change was made because it's more logically, and it makes games (in general) more interesting. - It is not bad to go for a 70% kill instead of a 90% kill, as skillfull people understand the probability. (yes, 60% kills or lower have their own problem, the perfect percentage is somewhere between 60 and 75 I think). A side effect of this is that games in general are more based on luck, as the skill of ppl increase. - Most of your points actually have nothing to do with the rule change, but are side effects from alot of things (most notably: back then we had alot less active players). [spoiler] [b]Good points:[/b] - Quick games for those on a time limit. True, but this is only a small side effect, no big deal. - Not hard to learn capitals This is not true, it's pretty hard to learn to play capitals well. Harder than without this rule, as there you only needed patience. - Standard playing around the board What do you meen with this? No confusion? Because that's a really good thing yes. - Alot of LTG's. This has nothing to do with the rule, it has everything to do with alot more players being on this site. - A lot of "Cap" games in 'Live Games' I don't know, possibly. We always had alot of cap games, also before the rule change I believe. - Newbies get a taste of what "Caps" are, without having to learn to much False, this has nothing to do with the rule change. If you play with good players (and don't suicide yourself), you will get the taste right away. If you play with suicidal players, you will never get the taste. Both happen with the old rule change and with the new one. - Great for Deathmatches. Solved the problem of longer games Well, it is great, yes, but was there ever a problem with long games on deathmatches (increasing ones of course, fixed was long, and still is long)? - No huge jungle of options This has nothing to do with the rule change, this is speculation on what, according to you, should happen. I miss the point why this rule was there - because the rule makes more sense, and because it makes games much more lively, much more intense, much more interesting. [b]Bad points:[/b] - 354 long term games How exactly is this bad? And how exactly does this have anything to do with the rule change? (see above). - Older players leaving the site They already did that before I even joined this site, only a very little bit might do it because of this rule. Well, maybe this rule might be one of the reasons for them to leave, I haven't heard of anyone so against this that it makes them leave the site, not even you. - No brain games. More luck than skill. False. Skillfull players will not wait untill they have 90% chance to win, they will go earlier. And since everyone does that, the percentage gets lower and lower. So more skill actually means more dependency on luck. This holds for both capitals and deathmatches. Risk is called risk for a reason, remember? - A lot of older players that started playing after the "Test Run" have to set password games to hopefully avoid the players that do a "Killer Card Run"...more long term games (More long term games is not bad, right?) I know that alot of players also did that before the test run. Of course, there are more players now then there where back then, and yes, that also meens more newbies. So its more nescessary now than then, but that has nothing to do with this rule. - Older players not helping train the Newbies, cause even some of the older Newbies, do a "Killer Card Run" The fact that some players are on this site for a long time, and that these players are still noobs has nothing to do with a rule change I think??? - A lot of complaints on "Killer Card Run" players. We had that before (but now there are more players, so more complaints). Also, if these are getting options, there will be confusion (and thus complaints) about weird rules. - Older players saying "Caps" is no longer fun I am one of those - and I already said this before the rule change. Sorry. Capital games simply are more simple than deathmatches, as there you can 'move your cap' and 'split your cap'. Alot more skill involged in DM's than in caps. But that was true before this rule change. - Players that want a "skill" game need to join a deathmatch game to even get any chance of a good skill game...and hope to get a good placement Well, you can play domination games too, they can be fun and require lots of skill. But it's true that the capitals options is somewhat simpler than the other two. This was true before the rule change as well, so not a good point again. What does placement have to do with this? A good placement helps in all types of games, has absolutely nothing to do with a rule change again. - Capitals that you know who will win in turn one...if players do not have someone do a "Killer Card Run" You do realize that no player can get a turn in with two cards right? So if ppl kill someone in the first turn, than either version of this rule has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the game. - Quick games I don't see how quick games are bad - suicides make for quick games, and suicides are bad, but not all quick games are. If ppl play capitals decently than you don't have suicides, with or without new rule. If ppl play capitals bad, than you will have suicides, with or without new rule. - Low options What does this have to do with the rule change. It's not so much about the amount of options, but about whether or not they are confusing. Adding more makes things more confusing, but some are more confusing then others. Why is this at the bad side? - No need for a trainer...I love training People still need a trainer, it's just that there is no trainer at the moment willing to teach players how to play games properly. Apart from that, not all players are willing to let someone else teach them. P.S. A nice fact that you apparenly do not realise: Players with skill are better in capital games than players without skill - I pretty often see Antonis_xania playing capital games, if they were all about luck, he wouldnt be general right now. [/spoiler]

@Matty, we have a very different approach to this topic. You keep saying: "- It is not bad to go for a 70% kill instead of a 90% kill, as skillfull people understand the probability". What I mean and I think Thorpe agrees) it's that attacks are not made at the 70% of changes just because the reason you say. Let's see with an example. Imagine we are in a 7 players Cap game. When my first turn for changing cards arrives sets are in 10 troops. I change them and if it's a normal game I probably already lost. Because the player that gets the set in 15/20 knows as you said that some players will try his chances with a 70% so he won't play another turn, so he will try his 25-30% of chances; and I cannot blame him. It's the logical movement. I hardly play 7/8 players games (actually, not even 5) and I used to love them. I know that you are not going to change a rule just because a few players are disappointed with a new rule, fair enough, but what I cannot say it's that the gameplay has improved with this change (from my point of view, obviously), and it's sad because I cannot play anymore the kind of games I liked most.

[quote=MuzuaneAskari - Nov 11, 07:43 AM]Because the player that gets the set in 15/20 knows as you said that some players will try his chances with a 70% so he won't play another turn, so he will try his 25-30% of chances [/quote] This is true alas, but what I really wonder is this: do ppl only do this at capital games? You can do this just as well with deathmatch games (and domination games too for that matter). What is so different in capital games that this happends so much more there?

What is so different in capital games that this happends so much more there? I don't think the arguement is that it happens more in capital games than in other games. I think the arguement is that with the old rule capital games relied more on skill than on luck than the other games and now all games seem to be more luck than skill with no refuge so now ALL games are more luck based with no good skill games left as an option to play.

The difference it's than in Cap games you have your troops more concentrated than in any other kind of game (as the other players have). Besides this, In Deathmaches some players can "defend" some troops of a weak player trapping them. I never thought I had to tell you the differences between Cap games and Deathmatch ;-) Now seriously, the main difference is that once you have your troops concentrated and you just have to focus on the other caps players now that somebody will try it, that's why it doesn't make sense (at least for me) play a 7 players game

Just a quick clarifying question, if a player with 1 wildcard goes to kill a player with 2 cards, can that player turn in his set of 3 since he knew it would make a set before he attacked?