the rigth/duty to turn in is just with 5 or more cards, isn't true?
  • 303 posts
  • Page 9 of 21
Matty wrote:
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).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
MuzuaneAskari wrote:
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
Gato que avanza, Perro que ladra
Thorpe wrote:
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
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
Thorpe wrote:
Her this is better:
Having two different trade in rules will introduce something new:
- 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).

---If you know what poker is...do you use the same rules in black-jack? You will know the difference.

- 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.

----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.

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.
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
Thorpe wrote:
Here is some more proof...
Game 204712 and 198162
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
SpamFree wrote:
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 good additional Option for game play settings but I am ENTIRELY opposed to replacement of current default 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 No Changem>m>[/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 Exactly 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.

lifeinpixels wrote:
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.
Cireon wrote:
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 Exactly the game they like to play: Classic, conservative, predictable, "luckless" play or Risky, Lucky, God-I-Hope-This-Works play or somewhere in between.
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, you 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.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Thorpe wrote:
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.
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
Matty wrote:
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 (click to show)
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
MuzuaneAskari wrote:
@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.
Gato que avanza, Perro que ladra
Matty wrote:
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
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?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
elysium5 wrote:
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.
"Bad Deadpool... Good Deadpool!"
MuzuaneAskari wrote:
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
Gato que avanza, Perro que ladra
lifeinpixels wrote:
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?