the rigth/duty to turn in is just with 5 or more cards, isn't true?
  • 303 posts
  • Page 13 of 21
Thorpe wrote:
Well now...we are done with this. Thank-you all!

Boy what work this has been. I would have gave-up on this a long time ago if this was not close to my heart. 

Thanks to the great and powerful programming staff for sticking in here and if you had "Paypal" I would give you all my money I make on this site for being part of the other staff....lol
LOL
There is one rule in web development: people are stupid
...just look at this thread...and then look @ "Thorpe's-brain-is-stuck capitals".
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
aeronautic wrote:
Congratulations for eventually finishing the topic with a result!
My apologies for intervening at perhaps inappropriate junctures in the discussion. I only wished to show support for what I know so many feel strong about!

@Thorpe, I don't know exactly what protocols are involved, but I used to be a Graphic Website Designer and if you ever want any help making Graphic Maps, I will be only too pleased to help? I am only an email attachment away!
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Vexer wrote:
Well it looks like I got around to reading this thread a bit late. Since it seems like a solution has been found I am willing to go along with it but this is not the solution I would have come up with.

I would have thrown aside the actual arguments and only considered that there were a lot of arguments on both sides. The new way is not obviously better than the old way. There is no clear winner. Therefore I would have called the experiment failed and reverted to the original rules. The original rules are how the game is played everywhere else we were only going to be different if the new rule proved to be better. If it was better I would expect to see a majority arguing against a minority but it looks more like 50/50 to me.

I personally don't like the idea of adding another option for the same reason as have been already given but I'll let my opinion go as long as you all are together on this.
elysium5 wrote:
I haven't commented in a while on this topic because it became so heated and started to not make much sense and was getting confusing. I wholeheartedly agree with Vexer's point of view; if it was an experiment or trial, it didn't seem to prove one way or another which is better so a reversion back to the original rules would make the most sense. However, if some sort of compramise has actually been established that keeps everyone happy, I do not have a vested enough interest to argue with that either.

My prior contributions to this thread were intended to engage other posters and to try to bring up any pros or cons I could think of so as to put on the table what might need to be considered when making a decision.

Honestly, my main concern was how strongly Thorpe felt about the situation and I wanted to see if there was any way to help with that while making everybody happy at the same time.

I had no wish to create extra work for anyone and only wanted to help find the easyist and best solution to an apparently polorizing topic:)
"Bad Deadpool... Good Deadpool!"
Cireon wrote:
I would also be fine with going back to the old rule, though it seems there are people who don't want that?
“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
The_Bishop wrote:
We had just found a solution! Now we are back to the starting point! Let's argue what rules is better! Crazy... Clearly we will never all together on this.

You are just going to make the same mistake for the second time! It will be the hell!

I have already been accused to be the one that caused the rule change and now? With a second change I will be probably accused again. Really I don't have any culpability!

I only asked for an option and I guess 95% are in my side, but that route is not travelable for many reasons.
Since what? "Old school Caps" was the compromise!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Axobongo wrote:
 If its an ''old rule' for a single 'classic map' especially, then i say respect the amendment ,, the fact that its old tells me it is an outdated rule,,

Taking in consideration all the variety of maps, game play varies alot, underdogs can turn the tables because of the combination of map uniqueness, dice luck and cards as they are now with the default setting.

i can only seeing a 5 card to turn in rule as helping the one that gets the early advantage, further disadvantaging the underdog

If your only hope & last gambit is to turn in your card in a bid to win 3 cards that may get you a set,, that wont be an option if you cant turn them in,,

Also, its more in a concern of 'increasing' games than the others.

More game -options- would be great however.
But please dont do this to the default setting
The_Bishop wrote:
I guess it is not clear what we are talking about.

From an historical point of view, what we call the "old rule" is modern and what we call the "new rule" is ancient. We call them in that way because the "old" one has been the previous rule adopted by the site until some months ago, the "new" one is the rule we are using now.

All this is about turning in after a kill, and the most of the difference in game-play concerns "increasing" games. The opinions you can read on this thread, many from the very best players of this site, are quite opposing on defining what rule is the best.

I will try to give a clarification but I'm going to tell you that really the rules are three:

A = Ancient Rule After a kill you are free to turn in if you can, doesn't matter how many cards you have. You clearly must trade if you have 5 or more cards. We call it the NEW RULE. Actually very old but still common in the board game.

B = Modern Rule After a kill you are free to turn in only if you have 5 or more cards. In case you have 5 or more, then you can turn in every set you want. We call it the OLD RULE. I guess not very common on the board game but you can see it in other sites. By the way I have found it in an English version of Risk dated 1992.

C = Common Rule After a kill you can turn in only when you are forced to do it, so having 5 or more cards. If you have turned in one set and then the number of your cards has been reduced to less than 5, then you must stop trading. This is the most common in the board game, but also the most stalemating. Double turn-ins are almost impossible with this rule, they require 8 cards!

"A" gives easier turn-ins, "C" harder, "B" is a middle way. The debate here is between A(=new) and B(=old). Someone, for example Matty, loves the new rule in Deathmatch, because it avoids stalemates and predictable games. Someone hates the new rule in Capitals, especially Thorpe that did quit to play from the rule change, because it cause very short games based on luck more than strategy. Personally I agree with both.

I'm going to tell that I have recently discovered how interesting is to play Domination game-type with increasing (or high capped) turn-in values. But also in that case I think the new rule doesn't work properly. Domination is interesting for me as long as the game is based on conquer territories rather than be based on kill an opponent for get his cards. I think the harder is the turn-in rule, the nicer is the effect in game-play, since I would suggest "C" for Domination.

Is it possible to have 3 different rules for 3 different game-types? In that way:
- A for deathmatch;
- B for capitals;
- C for domination.

This is just the best tuning of the turn in rules in my mind.

In case the answer is No, it is not possible, and we have to pick one rule, then I don't have any doubt to pick in the middle: the "old Dominating12 rule", just the best middle way!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
We are defenitely not getting C for domination.
Domination simply is not only about not losing too many territories, it's also about not dying :)

Apart from that, domination games can stalemate too - so if you go for C that chance will increase.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
The_Bishop wrote:
@Matty about Domination - I mean when the turn in value reach high enough if you kill one and you get a double turn-in then the game is over, you can just finish it conquering the territories you need... in total relax! With a wild card you easy have the game. With the "C rule" would be harder. Yes there's the risk of a stalemate, but maybe Not. I think it could turn more in a "territorial mode" rather than a "killery mode". Plus, at the moment I have only seen sudden ends, I haven't seen any stalemates with these settings (domination increasing). Most of players fails on the concept of keeping their own territories protected.

Apart from Domination that is surely a minor problem... Is it possible to have "A rule" for Deathmatch and "B rule" for Capitals? People will understand the difference? Or is better to go on with the "Old school Caps" plan? Or we are definitely going back to the old D12 rule?
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
We are going back to dice B, and add A as option.

However, the option is going to be limited to password games only, so that no confusion can exist.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Vexer wrote:
The staff have discussed this at length in private staff forums and have unanimously agreed to what Matty just posted.

There isn't a timeline for when this change will occur though.
The_Bishop wrote:
Great news! I'm glad for that. The old-rule party won then, but really the option-party won! Forgot to comment yesterday but I think it's fine.
As for the timeline, 1 January 2014 maybe? But wait there's a tournament on going, so I don't know, when it finished I think it would be fine.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein