elimination and cards

thats the problem, the perspective of those who find the current way exciting is different from the club that knows another way. 
But this is now 'another way' , and the issue to me is making it an option or changing it for everybody and making the current way an option,, and i vote for the low impact way,,making it an option.

and also sometimes i think the energy towards more bigger maps is a better issue to apply energy if there is energy to spare,, pass the turnips please, i have cunning ideas

The old rule is the official way it is supposed to be played so it should be the default. What is so hard about setting a game up the way you like to play it?

Axobongo ... when this was talked about...more than a year ago... I knew what would be the out-come, yet because of what you like to call the club, I said let us try it. Well I ate my veggies and 1 1/2 years later ... we found out that it was not vegies we were eating...so many weeds with those veggies.

Just relax and enjoy...I will ask you in less then 1 1/2 years to see if you like your veggies with-out the weeds.

Dead Horse.

Well honestly, i dont think the exciting turn around element of capped-capital game on weird maps is being considered ,,

,,And as i once said, that this current default seems more accessible to drawing in people, maybe it does give some advantage to those on lower skill levels,, ? ,but thats good. Do you want to attract people and not lose some due to the high impact changes to the default?

Where as we all are impressed when a new option comes on board

i am convinced this new old rule gives advantage to whoever has the advantage in the game, is that debunked yet?

Anyways, with great appreciation of all the effort in site improvement you folks put into this, i look forward to playing the new way, but have concerns about changing the default, and more so when i put myself in your shoes than my own.

i dont think it will positively effect membership enrollment.

I asked the same thing Axobongo...this topic has been given a lot of thought and I must say that truly your concerns have been voiced in the staff forum and we take all comments to heart and do not want to jump into this quickly.

If you can bring some-thing else to the table then it will be heard.

Trust me when I say that this is a dead horse...unless there is something else.

Here is the rule:

Default will be:
 - if you have 5 or more cards, you can turn in a set, after a killing a player, but not limited to one, during your turn. *normal turn-in at the beginning of your turn if you have a set.

Option will be:
 - if you have a trade-in set of three cards, you can turn in after a killing a player, during your turn. *normal turn-in at the beginning of your turn if you have a set.

I don't like this
That is not anything new. I just needed to say it again.

If it is indeed a dead horse, it stinks as one would expect and should've already been eaten.

Seems its still a horse , even on the thread vexer just referred to there are new posts and recent posts by bluebird that made alot of sense.
And seems there is still time to consider it as an option rather than as the default and see then if it outgrows the default in popularity.

i think i have said all i have in the subject, but hope the time left in adding the option is enough to sway that it not become the default at first , (1 1/2 years is a long time , i imagine the % of players that came in that time is larger than old players, so ,,) let it grow the gentle way, not the dramatic way.  

Where are these options accessed?

The options will be accessed in the create a game page (beta and old).

But they aren't there right now. Im going to look at it today, but no promises.

Take your time Matty, especially when it comes to changing the default, maybe another 18 months or so would be fine.


Then everyone can vote again

Say i have 2 cards , gambling on taking person A or B, A has 3 cards ( a sure set) B has 2 cards,, but B is easier to beat, or closer , shall i gamble on the 4 card set? and maybe a turn in? or gamble on the lower odds kill sure 5 card set?

 This makes for an exciting match.... the other makes for another type of intellect challenge, valid, but potentially more sterile, move/choice options just weeded out
.
We who advance tend to like challenging limitations, obstructions , fog, maps with odd limitations (Euro 1814), and playing against experienced opponents.
 The newby responds to the excitement.

i cant put my finger on all the potential scenarios that may change, but i sense many,,
and i can't put my finger on why D12 gameplay is usually more exciting Risk than others, maybe the current default has much to do with the reason

Both moves are risky. It's rare to have some real conveniences to kill a player holding less than 4 cards. If you wait one round you will probably able to kill both players. Because you will have 3 cards, B also 3 cards and A probably 4. You first kill the easier player ( getting 6 cards then you turn in 3 cards, the other 3 staying in your pocket, so you go to kill A getting 7 cards, then with a double turn-in you will probably run the map and win the game.

Axebongo is right - with experienced players the advanced cards rule gives for better gameplay, more options, harder to predict games.

The problem is in the experienced players part - if there are noobs playing as well, they can very easily ruin the game, without knowing they actually ruin it.

The default card rule has been changed - in all new games you can only turn in after a kill when you have 5 cards or more.

All old games keep the advanced card rule.