Turn in cards increment

  • 12 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
anuorre wrote:
The turn in card increment stops after 15. From then on it's +5 more for each turn in till eternity. I would like to bring this debate up again.

I would like to suggest that, in an increasing card turn in game, the card turn in increment should always been min 12.5% of the preceding turn in bonus (applicable after the 10th card turn in). Thereafter the increment will always be doubled.

Eg Last card turn in was +40. Next will NOT be +45 (since +5 is less than 12.5% of 40) but SHOULD be +50. The increment should increase once we reach +80, the increment will be +20. Again the increment will hold till +160 thereafter the next turn in will be +200 (40 increment)

The +5 cards just doesn't work when the game is drawn out in an increasing card game.
The_Bishop wrote:
I agree, have been think to something similar for long time.

Mine first idea was:
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
12, 14, 16, 18, 20,
25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50
(then repeat multiplying by 10)
60, 70, 80, 90, 100,
120, 140, 160 ... and so on

Recently I thought a different version:
4, 5, 6,
8, 10, 12, 15,
20, 25, 30, 35,
40, 50, 60,
80, 100, 120 ...
and so on repeating the loop multiplied by 10

However I think we have to keep the original rule and add an option for a new one, let's call it accelerated cards or super-increasing.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
anuorre wrote:
@bishop I would prefer the increments to be more formulaic, since +10 also becomes insignificant at very high turn ins.

At the moment, shouldn't this be the default rather than optional? I like to that this a flaw with the original game (is this the turn in of the original game?).

Currently with a min 12.5% increment that doubles we should see (starting from 4):
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128 (improved)
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 (original)

The increments are about the same till the 14th turn in, that's when the improved increment kicks in. The gradual increase in turn in means that in a 9 player game, you don't die (so quickly) just because you're the last player to do a turn in.

Admin? How do you prioritise dev? :)
Cireon wrote:
Moved this thread to suggestions and feedback

We prioritise Dev based on how many people want it and how strongly the programmers feel about a feature. Since the coding is done by volunteers, they get a lot of freedom in choosing what they want to implement.

Given that only two people have currently voiced their support, this is not very high on our list. Especially adding yet another option, i.e. another dimension to games, is something we want to be careful with to avoid the number of options getting out of hand.
“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:
@Cireon: Don't worry we will not force you to do anything, we are just discussing things. Right decision to move this thread to Suggestions/Feedback. :thumbs:

@anuorre:
In principle we have the same idea. Let me do a comparison also for my own curiosity:

Standard  -  mine..#1  -  Anuorre's  -  mine..#2
4644
6765
8886
109108
12101210
15121412
20141615
25162020
30182425
35202830
40253235
45304040
50354850
55405660
60456480
655080100
706096120
7570112150
8080128200
8590144250
90100176300
95120208350
100140240400
..

Anuorre's proposal is in the middle of the 2 of mine. Any of the 3 will be fine for me, still keeping the original as a standard option.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
sfclimbers wrote:
I think that all of the proposals have a critical flaw: Nobody is going to have a clue how to project what a future turn-in will be! Nobody is going to be able to follow the math in order to make the decision whether to cash their cards this turn vs. wait for the next turn. The formula would have to be dirt easy to calculate in their head, despite playing the game on a giant calculator :)
The_Bishop wrote:
My proposal #2 is hyper simple:
  • Between 4 and 6 you got a 5
  • Then everything's normal up to 35
  • Repeat 4-to-35 steps with a 0 on the right, so you go from 40 to 350
  • If someone is still alive repeat again from 400 to 3,500. I dubt it will ever happen!!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
Vexer once had a suggestion for exponential cards. Can't find the thread though :(
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
anuorre wrote:
It's a good point about how to project future turn ins! We could make easier formulas then, and say the card turn will double after x turns (on the 5th turn in and every consecutive fifth after).

Not too sure how to put a table but here's comparison:

Original Improved (?) Bishop (#1) Bishop (#2)
4                 4               6               4
6                 6               7               5
8                 8               8               6
10               10               9               8
12               12               10               10
15               15               12               12
20               20               14               15
25               25               16               20
30               30               18               25
35               35               20               30
40               40               25               35
45               50               30               40
50               60               35               50
55               70               40               60
60               80               45               80
65               90               50               100
70               110               60               120
75               130               70               150
80               150               80               200
85               170               90               250
90               190               100               300
95               230               120               350
100              270               140               400

anuorre wrote:
I would love to see the card turn in numbers change :) makes deathmatch less likely to draw
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
My issue is in a nine player game in the second set of nine turn ins(everyone has turned in once, no one has died, and everyone is turning in on the same round) I know this doesn't happen often but still it's an issue that the first player could get up to 120 troops less than the last player. Which makes me slightly more inclined to bishop's first proposal... personally I don't have a big issue, and I don't think it will prevent deathmatch draws as effectively as you want it to as I find most deathmatch draws to be on capped or fixed cards(I can only recall 4 or 5 in my 1700 games)
Eat my dust.