Forum
2 changes needed: allow surrender at onset, last player at onset gets more armies
|
yellow bazooka wrote
at 7:04 PM, Monday September 10, 2007 EDT
3 changes need to take place
1. allow immediate surrender. if you initial draw completely sucks, why should you be forced to keep antying up until the flag comes on screen so you can bail? poker does not work this way. you can fold right away. sometimes you get a band hand. why should you be forced to play it? 2. the people who go at the end of the first round are often terribly penalized by losing half or more of their dice by the players who went before them. this is stupid. give the later ones more armies. or somehow compensate, such as giving them better geography. 3. allow 1 score per day to be erased if we chose to have it erased. this would take care of a worthless score due to lag. thats it ;p |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 12 of 12
|
JKD wrote
at 10:08 AM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT There's too many newbies and people playing with friends for reliable statistics. I tried to collect some once and it seemed going last was a disadvantage.
|
|
ma1achai wrote
at 11:33 AM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT I think this is not a good idea. If we are comparing this to poker, then there would be soooo many games that had only 1-2 players after the first round. Why play your 10-8 offsuit when you can see there is an Ace on the board?
My point is that if I had to give up 0 or even 2 points at the start of the game... why not keep 'folding' my hands until I get a winning start? There would be few players that stayed around for a game and the 'pot' would be almost nothing. If you want to think of it in poker terms... consider the three antes a 'blind' that everyone at the table has to put up before the cards are dealt. Posting a blind gives you more incentive to try to make your hand work... even if you were dealt 7-2o. |
