#Progressive Fixed Cards?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

dark karma
#

Fixed cards or progressive cards? How about both at the same time?

Fixed card players maybe like the card values to matter with trade-ins. However, they may not want to deal with potential stalemates. Progressive players maybe like the pace of their games. Yet, they would like turn order to matter a little less.

Let's shake up the deck and do something wild with trades.

Just like with fixed cards, the value of a set will matter. Though, just like progressive cards every trade-in will raise the bar on how many troops you can get.

Do you think it would work?

ProgressiveFixedCards.png
quaint scaffold
#

Would everyone build their sets up on own?

dark karma
quaint scaffold
#

Im sure either would be fine but I like the idea of everyone having to build their own dudes trades up

raven hemlock
#

I love this idea

dark karma
quaint scaffold
#

Yeah definitely all 3 the same

slow kite
#

if you have to build up each type then trades will end up varying wildly. "one of each" might be at 50 while the dude trade could be 6

#

it also means card blocking kills you quicker. you lose both the income and the card progression. that's probably a good thing

graceful lily
#

looks ok to me BUT the more modes you have the more the community is splitted
we need less not more modes

dark karma
#

@graceful lily I don't see a problem with adding options for card types and dice. They aren't full modes. They add some things that introduce new gameplay scenarios. So, why not?

graceful lily
#

its already impossible to get higher skilled lobbys full because the playerbase is completly splitted.

#

If you split more you will wait half an hour to fill even a mid skilled lobby

dark karma
#

I really think that is more the size of the player base to be truly honest than different customization for games.

graceful lily
#

its both

quaint scaffold
#

A lot of good players dont play ranked or atleast not much

#

And just stick to tourneys and pwf

graceful lily
#

true,
because you cant play highskilled in public lobbys,
because not enough players in each discipline,
because community is too splitted for the total numbers of players

quaint scaffold
#

Theres plenty of players the ranking system is just bad

graceful lily
#

maybe

boreal cargo
dark karma
#

Thanks, @boreal cargo! This is where I wanted this discussion to go. I was curious how you guys would react to the image that I provided showing the trade in increments.

I'm interested how you are getting an infantry trade at 100 with the next one-of-each trade at 150. I'm guessing you think the spread continues to increase after trade 9? This spread between trades remains at 20 from there on from my suggestion. This is a 5 troop difference of each trade value equaling a total difference of 15 per increment. So, yes, I guess you could have someone trade in infantry for 130 troops and the next player get 150 troops.

I have thought about keep the initial difference of trade values at 2 (Total difference of 6 per increment) throughout. This would be closer to having something between fixed cards and progressive cards. I have also thought about having a longer run of a value difference of 4. I feel like that isn't needed.

boreal cargo
# dark karma Thanks, <@1029430894844444672>! *This is where* I wanted this discussion to go....

I’ll be honest and I slightly misunderstood how this system was working. So the 100 to 150 wouldn’t be accurate. Although it wouldn’t be too far off if it wasn’t capped. A cap of 20 would make sense but would quickly become irrelevant.

I do want to ask what issue this would be solving exactly. U mentioned stopping stalemates but I don’t see a difference of 20 troops mattering even the slightest in a true stalemate. And this wouldn’t change turn order advantage at all since the trades are still increasing once the previous player trades in

analog pivot
#

Personally I’d like to see a new “progressive” card system that goes up exponentially rather than linearly before something like this

dark karma
#

The entire thought of my idea is to add some card luck, I guess. I'm interested why this seems to be a point?

tiny sail
analog pivot
tiny sail
analog pivot
#

The only luck involved in the progressive system is having a set before 5 cards. That doesn’t change having an exponential increase

tiny sail
#

@dark karma is it even possible to play in ways that aren’t already built into the official game?

analog pivot
#

That said - sets in 3/4 could be more critical. But I think the exponential increase could start when the trades reach the 80+ range. At this point you are to the through the third trade sequence and are at the point where stalemate is likely.

4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75… 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000 etc.

In this way, card blocks in a caps game would become more impactful in the late game. Things would be accelerated in a sense

tiny sail
# analog pivot The only luck involved in the progressive system is having a set before 5 cards....

If you have a bonus starting at 4
just to map it all out assume you start with 1 troop per player, and I will just give the 3 extra troops you get by default every turn.

Initial
P1:1
P2:1

p1 turn
turn in cards

P1:8
P2:1

p2 turn
Turn cards

P1:7
p2:20

p1 turn.

P1:11
p2:19

p2 turn

P1:10
p2:23

p1 turn

P1:14
p2:22

p2 turn

P1:14
p2:26

p1 turn
Turn cards

P1:273
p2: 25

I think you can see the problem at this moment lol

#

I made the assumption of a successful attack on a 3rd player to keep this from getting too subjective. So each attack I lowered the count by 1 to simulate occupying a new territory

dark karma
tiny sail
dark karma
# analog pivot I’m all for keeping things as competitive as possible. Adding something that add...

I did figure you were looking at it from a tourney perspective lens. Not really suggesting this from that type of angle or trying to solve any problems in the game. Just a thought of adding some potential new strategy by adding a new dynamic with cards. I don't claim it to be balanced or competitive.

Definitely not trying to replace anything with progressive cards. Balanced blitz dice (at least when fixed) with progressive cards I guess will always be the go-to for reduced rng and luck.

However, does this mean true random dice can't be competitive with it's inherent rng? Can this not be fine tuned to be somewhat competitive?

tiny sail
#

@dark karmasorry to bothr you but did you see my last message?

dark karma
#

I read it. Sorry. I do not know of any platforms.

tiny sail
#

dang ive wanted to play risk but actually be able to text chat with people lol

analog pivot
dark karma
# analog pivot That said - sets in 3/4 could be more critical. But I think the exponential incr...

I wonder if a more progressive cap condition might work better to solve stalemates with capital conquest. After a set number of turns the amount of troops a cap rewards increases. This could be exponential over time.

Turn ............. Cap Condition

1-3 ............. +2 per Cap Bonus
. 4 ............... Capitals Activate
.5-7 .............. +2 per Cap Bonus
. 8 ................ +3 per Cap Bonus
9-11 ............. - - - - - - - - - -
. 12 ............... +5 per Cap Bonus
13-15 ............ - - - - - - - - - -
. 16 ............... +10 per Cap Bonus
17-19 ............. - - - - - - - - - -
. 20 .............. +15 per Cap Bonus
21-23 ............ - - - - - - - - - -
. 24 .............. +20 per Cap Bonus
25-27 ............ - - - - - - - - - -
. 28 .............. +30 per Cap Bonus
...
It can just get crazy after that, I guess.

-# I also apologize for that ghost ping, btw.

tiny sail
analog pivot