For when you really, really need a set
  • 11 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
vikingo1337 wrote:
Anonymous card trading. Could it work?

The idea would be to give players the chance of a 'Hail Mary' when they need a set badly, but don't have one. For instance if they're stuck with two pairs, as most players experience at some point. In that case, a player could choose to swap cards – in a new 'Black Market' menu in the game – with another player who is in the same predicament. Anonymously, but visible for all to see in the new menu as well as in the game log.

It could be an optional setting, similar to 'Advanced Cards', thereby adding an entirely new dimension to the game. It could help the player win, but he could also risk handing the game to the anonymous player he traded with, as he may or may not move first.

Since a lot of players, especially newbies, play with their friends, we would need some rules, however...
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
How would it work, at what point would you swap the card, after your turn on receiving the 4th card?
This would essentially say that, if a player hasn't got a set by the 4th card, then they are automatically given a set.

I addressed the dilemma of 4 cards and no set, many years ago, but my solution was met with a small amount of support and a lot of opposition.
To this day, I still don't understand why, as my suggestion was simply to be able to turn in 4 cards instead of 3. This would ensure your continuation in the game.
Cards would be exchanged at the same time, before your turn as they would if you had a 3 card set from 4 cards held.

Here is the link to the old forum thread.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
It wouldn't necessarily be after the fourth card. The Black Market would open for business during the whole game. The 'two pairs' dilemma is just a recurring thing that most people can relate to, and so I used it to exemplify my suggestion.

No, the player only receives a card if he trades in a card himself. And there is no guarantee that the new card matches his other cards for a set. So he could just be making life easier for someone else in the game. And vice versa.

Whenever a card is up for trading, the next one to be offered concludes the deal instantly. So there is never more than two cards in the market at any one time. That's how I imagined it at first, anyway.

An alternative could be that the cards are added to the market, and then you have to actively select the one you wish to trade with. They all look the same, as everyone is anonymous, so it would be a matter of luck whether the player gets a useful card or not. But, it would add to the suspense of not knowing who you are trading with, and what would have happened if you had selected a different card. It would also provide players, who would obviously want to trade, with a cover story.

I suppose that trading cards could also offer a pleasant distraction from the board if the game is going badly. It could even be used strategically by players who like to use disinformation as part of their strategy as in: 'The card in the market is mine, so I don't have a set, FYI (or maybe I do?)'.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
vikingo1337 wrote:
would be open for business during the whole game*
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
Here's the thing though. In multiplayer games where the second exchange can be the game winner, this is the point where being left with 4 cards (2 pairs) and no set, usually happens to one player and they are then the main target to win the game or become very powerful and in contention to win.
At that point, nobody is going to offer a card in the market, as nobody will want to jeopardise their set or help the guy they aim to kill for cards.

My suggestion was to never throw any player to the wolves, when they played just as well if not better than everybody else, just because the cards that they received were not lucky like everyone else's. All the opposition that my suggestion received was from those who enjoy the ability to kill a player for 5 cards because they had 2 pairs when everyone else exchanged, leaving them weak and loaded full of loot to pillage.
Personally, I think it is very unfair and it spoils a good game !
They would even have to sacrifice 1 more card than everyone else, why shouldn't they stay in the game?

I think the card market suggestion is complicated and would be very difficult to program.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
I have no idea if it would be difficult or not to program. I'm just suggesting it because I think it could be a great addition to the game.

I think the two pairs dilemma, as frustrating as it is, is part of the game. But that doesn't mean we can't offer a way out of it. So if you trade with someone who has four cards, well, then that's your decision, right? And it works both ways. A player with four cards, who tries to trade, could also blow his 'cover' in that he implicitly discloses he does not have a set, thereby painting a target on his own back. So it's risky for him too.

And then there's the less risky way to do it: trade a card early. Obviously with an enemy, as you wouldn't be able to trade with a teammate. Trading early could give you a card with a territory you own for that extra sweet +2. So trading when you only have 1/2/3 cards would be a thing too.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
There is always a tendency to fight for your own suggestion / idea with bias, so I am trying to separate myself from the "4 card exchange" to concentrate on your suggestion.

The Black Market
You suggest it being open throughout the game.

My concerns and questions:
Nobody will ever swap a card until they have received 3 cards.
If the first 2 cards are the same colour, the 3rd could well be the same colour for a set.
If the first 2 cards are different colours, the 3rd could well be a different colour for a set.
Once a player has 3 cards and NO SET, they will feel certain that they'll get the set on the 4th card and will still be in the game.
Only when a player receives the 4th card will they know if they will be forced to 5 cards rendering them a target.

At this point, they will have ended their turn to receive the 4th card, so are you saying that they can exchange a card in the Black Market at the start of their next turn and exchange a set if they get one?
This is the only way it will work to resolve the issue of 2 pairs, keeping you in the game, using the Black Market.
Therefore, this is the only point at which the Market will need to be used.
Who do you swap with?
Who will have put a card into the Market unless they too had 2 pairs? Perhaps a person with less cards (3) who have 2 of one colour and 1 of another colour.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
Yes, chances are most trades would be initiated by players stuck with two pairs and trying to trade cards for a set. They would attempt to trade right after ending their turn, and if someone traded with them afterwards, then they would have a set ready to go the following turn. Instead of going to five cards and waiting an additional turn.

Some may trade for the +2 though, as I mentioned earlier. I don’t see how it could affect their chances negatively of getting a three-/four- card set. So saying that noone will trade except for those stuck with two pairs – is a stretch I think. It would have to be put to the test.

Others may trade, or pretend to trade, to mess with the heads of their opponents.

Fog could also be added to cards, so noone would know how many cards the trader has, or who he is.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
It would be quite blase to state with confidence that, players holding 4 cards with a set would exchange the card that is not required for the set... it doesn't yet hold any value in it's colour, only in owned/not owned and if exchanged, could cost them their next set and run them to 5 cards.
Cards are a special kind of creature in the game of Risk, one card can make or break a game !

This all seems very complicated to solve the 2 pairs problem, which BTW is considered by most to be part of the game... as I found out when I first tried to solve it with a 4 card set suggestion. You couldn't get a more simple, fair and 'easy to program' solution than adding 2 pairs to the exchange conditions and yet it got rejected many years ago.

I have noticed that nobody else is entering the discussion, which further suggests to me that there is little interest in neither the problem nor the solution. I would go as far as to say that most people don't see a problem with 4 cards and no set, in fact most welcome it.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
That’s not what I said at all, aeronautic.

You seem somewhat annoyed by my suggestion, and that is the opposite reaction of what I was hoping for.

I still believe that card trading would add a much needed extra dimension to the game, but the lack of replies is indeed proof that few, if any, agree with me, so there’s no point in taking this any further. Especially not if it causes a rift between us.

Peace.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
Sorry, I haven't looked at this thread for a while.
No, I am in no way annoyed.
It's just my pragmatism, when I see a statement:
So saying that noone will trade except for those stuck with two pairs – is a stretch I think.
I wholeheartedly disagree, nobody will willingly exchange cards when they don't have to, unless helping a friend, which is very much frowned upon and against the "Play to win" rules.
I gave reasons for why, in the value of card colours, nobody knows what they will get next and will be reluctant to chance messing up their next possible set.
The only time it will be used is when two players have 4 cards and no set.

I agree that both of those statements can't be guaranteed without testing, however, I don't ever see this suggestion being tested, due to it's lack of discussion and support.

Card colour examples:
Player A - Red Red
Player B - Blue Green
Player C - Blue Blue
Each player will be completely unwilling to chance losing their next card for a set and each has exactly the same chance of making a 3 card set.

Player A - Red Red Blue
Player B - Blue Green Green
Player C - Blue Blue Red
Each player will be completely unwilling to chance losing their next card for a set and each has exactly the same chance of making a 3 card set from 4 cards.
Each can make 3 the same or 3 different colours.

Player A - Red Red Blue Blue
Player B - Blue Green Green Red
Player C - Blue Blue Red Blue
2 players have a set from 4 cards and 1 player has 2 pairs, there is no reason or advantage to trading the spare card (underlined), it has no bearing on the next 2 cards from the pack and nobody would want to chance fate, so they would want to keep them.

There is one rare instance that I can think of where in the mid game where exchange values are reasonably high and Player B can kill Player A for 5 cards and win, then Player C would want to help Player A get a set, however, nobody would know that Player A was going to be stuck with 5 cards apart from the fact that Player A proposed a Card Swap.
Therefore, only a guessing Player C would assume that Player A will go to 5 Cards and Player B will exchange, as they wouldn't know about Player B at the moment that the card swap was proposed and if it turned out that Player B also went to 5 Cards, Player C just blew their chance to win the game by helping Player A to get a set.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.