elimination and cards

I have tried to give you different reasons for my thoughts...some are not logical...my name is "Thorpe" and not "Spock".
As I have said and others have said...Caps is no longer fun...does this have to have any logical reason? I feel that I have given you logical reasons, but again you can not understand why. Try to explain color to a blind man...if you use logic, then colors can never have the power (to the blind) of what it makes you feel and does to or for you. This is like explaining the card trade-ins to you. You say that caps already is more luck then skill, but that is not based on logic just how you feel...that feeling is caused by not really understand all the aspects of "Caps" and not really wanting to learn or play them, which is fine.

Another way of putting it ...a player may think it is logical to kill a player on the first turn and feels so strongly about it that they even make a topic in the forum about it and post it in the main chat that they have a play everyone should try. Now for us older players this has some logic to it (one less player) but it just wreaks the game and you begin not to play with that player. Your statement can be used here...But this is a game called "Risk", get over it and just remember that you will have to move 70% faster when you play with this player.
My thoughts is that I never play...cause it is no fun.

The above is a point of view...no logic...just the way I feel and how others feel. How many complaints caused by this? Maybe we should ban everyone who does this? We have a option for this problem, so give us a option for cards.

I think that if you put this as a "Advanced Capital Game" and just let premium members able to make the games, then we could use invite only on it and we would be able to control and train who we let in the games. Good for the site and great for the old players.

I am done with this topic cause we are just going in circles with this and I have stated my thoughts to some-one who is blind...

If I sound mad...I am not...just upset that the game I love is gone*.

(not based on logic)
The views and thoughts are not part of Dominating12.com, Copyright 2009-2013, and does not reflect the views of the staff or any part of its members.
The word... Risk, Strategy, and World Domination. Not Associated with Risk or Hasbro®.

I'd like to put a few points of view in if I may?

First, I don't recall ever playing the old card rules, so they must have changed before I joined!
I have gained my rank mainly from "LIVE" Capital & Deathmatches with all variations of fog, reinforcements, and capped cards (not "Same Time" and see the benefits and downfalls of the card system.

First could somebody post exactly what the old rules were, to save me hunting through the thread and so I can make a comparison?


Edit: Spoiler below is about this topic.

With the old rule, you could only turn in cards if you killed someone if you got five or more cards in total. Right now [new rule] you can also turn in right after you killed someone if you have three or four, as long as you have a set.

Another point of view.

In my 8p caps on world expanded with unlimited fortification, you don't need a set when you kill a player to be safe. With unlimited fortification, you can just move all your newly acquired troops back to your capital and have a decent amount. However, a set is usually a nice thing to have, and having one with 3 or 4 cards can help a lot, especially if you want to kill one more player.

This is one instance where I think the a rule change would not benefit gameplay. Those who attack capitals in that game usually don't do it for the cards, but it is a nice perk to be able to turn in an extra set with 3 cards. If we change the rules, it would be great to keep the current rules for some types of games like this.

I really do not think the a rule change should be in the works. Just a "Advance Option" for premium. This will not make the new members that join...confused, but after they have got done playing lucky games...they will buy premium...just for this option. Sadly if they only want deathmatches...they will not care.
You really can not know what this card rule has done for the capital games ...till you play it with the old rules for awhile, that way if you get a bad game (they do happen and will happen, regardless of the rules) you will have a chance to know what I am talking about. 

I'm in support of an "advanced option" Thorpe.

like a grand fathered option. ex helmets in hockey.. those who starting playing in the NHL when helmets where not required... the rule then changed that all players must wear helmets. But if you started under the old rule you did not have to wear it.

Personally I think its should stay the way it is... adding more rules or advanced options makes things more confusing.

That is why you are still a basic?....lol

Okay! I hear what you are saying and have seen what the old card rules were above. You could only turn in after killing someone IF you had 5 cards or more from the attack.

Personally, I am glad that rule doesn't exist anymore, because it still allowed a player to dominate the game purely on playing position, when the card value is just right and everybody is laden with cards, this was and still is always the case when players get lumbered with 4 cards that are absolutely no good to them unless they are given a gift of an opportunity to attack another Cap without turning in and getting 7 or more cards in their stash as a result. This would lead to players taking a chance on another Cap with barely an excess of troops which we all know fails time and time again causing 2 Caps full of lovely juicy cards to become available for the next player to win the game.

Both old and new card rules create this situation and I believe what I have proposed above would stop all this and all luck and gifts would be gone forever, you would now have to be strategic, strategic, strategic!!!

Why has nobody even remarked on what I proposed or does everybody believe that what they think matters most and newer guys know nothing? Do me a little favour everybody in this thread, put the 3rd turn in option (2 + 2) proposed by me above on paper and look at all the events you've all come across and tell me it doesn't eliminate most of the ones that anger us when we should have had a chance to show our worth instead of sitting at the mercy of the turn position and map position!!!!!

Only seconds ago, I again had to sit looking at 2 green cards and 2 red cards with the last 2 of us in the game, saying to myself, "I bet his 4 cards he's going to have after his attack have a set in them, mine that I had before the attack don't and the next move I'll be dead as a result", as the reality was, he had just attacked and failed and yet he still gets to win as I can't turn in these hard earned, well timed cards I worked so strategically to get! GRRRRR!

Please, please look at it as a possibility and not some crazy idea not really thought over, as I have put the option in place in my mind in every damn bad situation I have been forced into by start position and order luck and watched the game go the way everybody knows it's going to go because somebody was put in the lucky seat. You want to see strategic skill, you see what you great players could do with this new feature!

The old D12 rule was more suitable for Caps. There were more "epic battle" games and less "sudden death" games. Unfortunately the newer players can't know it.

Aeronautic's idea is very interesting but I think it should be another topic, just to not make confusion. Even if you allow 2+2 sets the question still stands: free turn-in after kill or only with 5 cards?

I apologise for putting my proposal in this thread, I thought it was relevant to it, but it seems I have a completely different suggestion to those suggested here, so I have made a new thread called "The 4 Card Set".

I welcome any feedback on this, good or bad!

Please feel free to delete my posts from this thread, they have been copied and pasted into the new one.

Thorpe, you don't have to be logical  Logic is just a set of patterns that we pile on top of our lived experiences (with exception of deductive logic, it requires abstract universals and is irrelevant to lived experiences). So, you don't have to feel like your opinion needs to be "logical" in order to be valid. You just need some reasons that we can identify. 

I think, with a topic like this, there are viable competing views for what the "best" way to set the card turn in after a kill is. I personally have no problem with either option. It would be nice, as an option, instead of a particular rule that is set in stone. 

It would also be nice to construct an algorithm for the card turn ins that increased the card value proportionate to the number of troops remaining on the board. It is a bummer when someone runs the table because of someone else's mistake. It is also a bummer to play a 500 round game because the card value is capped. 

I am not entirely opposed to the idea of having "Advanced Capitals" mode. It is the best solution I have seen so far. However, calling something "Advanced" while the only change is the way cards turn in might be a bit overkill. We could even consider making more changes, or call it "Old-fashioned Capitals", "Retro Capitals" or something of that order.

Making something completely premium or invite-only is something that has not been done in the past. Premium-only options usually allow only premium members to make those games, but anyone can join. The prime reason for that being that it would otherwise take (too) long to fill up games with these options.

How would people stand if there was a public poll which option should be implemented. Would that leave everybody happy in the end, or would there be people that still want a change.

Okay, now that I realise my topic was for a different discussion, on this discussion you will see above that I remarked:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I am glad that rule doesn't exist anymore, because it still allowed a player to dominate the game purely on playing position, when the card value is just right and everybody is laden with cards, this was and still is always the case when players get lumbered with 4 cards that are absolutely no good to them unless they are given a gift of an opportunity to attack another Cap without turning in and getting 7 or more cards in their stash as a result. This would lead to players taking a chance on another Cap with barely an excess of troops which we all know fails time and time again causing 2 Caps full of lovely juicy cards to become available for the next player to win the game."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The current and old game play still and always will make me feel like this as, turn order and start position, although randomly given, decide the fate of many a player and add to it the fact that you may have been attacked by many players before your first turn, you only need bad dice on your first turn and your game is possibly over. You are left trailing the rest of the game or an easy target in turn 2 so your only strategic option in turn 1 and most of the game is to reinforce and forfeit a victory card.

Here is where I make my 'Con' comparison to the old and new card rules.
For 'Pro' see further below!

Having held no cards of your own, you may have been allowed to grow strong enough to have a chance of attacking another player for their cards and continue your victory quest with a little card luck to attack others again collecting sets, increasing sufficiently as you go around the map via the routes you worked out in your plan and why shouldn't anyone have the right to do this, as they are an equal part of the game and the whole point is to try to win without giving yours and or somebody else's game away in the process.

Old Rules:
Attack nearest viable 'Player B' for 4 cards.... sorry not allowed, you would need 5 at least or you can't turn in!
Next turn, the opportunity has passed and the onslaught has begun, where your hour of patience has become a wasted hour that could have been spent doing something more constructive with your life, as any player with at least 1 card could make the same type of attack and get the spoils!

New Rules:
Attack nearest viable 'Player B' for 4 cards... collect a lucky turn in, add it to what troops are remaining, continue to your next target or fortifify with now 2 cards in your pocket.

If you weren't strong enough to attack another for their cards, you wouldn't and as luck had dictated, you'd have to sit and wait for your demise! The winner of that game would normally be as a result of their start position and turn order, not necessarily through strategy or skill. The skillful player would have managed to survive against the odds, but only survive long enough to be killed by an overwhelming force in the closing stages of the game. There are not many worse feelings than 'Powerless throughout a game' and a player in a central map position who is last to act will be just that!


Now let's look at a 'Pro' for old card rules.
Scenario:
Everybody got a fair start position where the last to act was in a fortified corner of the map and each player got a victory card from turn 1 onward without weakening any other players Cap or total field troops.
Each player is working out when they should take or forfeit victory cards in order to be in the attack position at x point in the game. Somebody realises they will be the lowest troop count when it happens and decides to go for an earlier attack on Player B for the chance to be the victor. The Player stats are viewed and everybody has 2 or 3 cards! That player would have to think twice before even considering it as there could be no turn in allowed by the 2nd or 3rd attack and no way of fortiying.
If all the players in the game are playing to win, there will be no sudden premature attacks, which the new rules might offer a faint chance of success with, but which the old rules offer no chance of success with.

As for all-out-attackers, these are just either team pawns, revenge attackers, spiteful people or novices and we have a way to combat these, password and minimum points!!

I think you are missing something Aeronautic. I mean Capitals game type, as it is now, is mostly based on keep your cap strong, calculate odds and... bet on your luck! With the old rule it was strictly similar but there were some tricks more, strategic tricks!

The rhythm of the game was also different. As I said there were more "epic battle" games and less "sudden death" games. You see, not completely different, just a bit more and a bit less.

I vote for a very normal option available to everybody, in the way I suggested in this thread at page #8. It looks like many agree to have an option.