Popularity of No Cards Games

[Optimus Prime]

I've been wanting to do a little study to determine how worthwhile it would be to start a usergroup focused around getting players who play primarily No Cards games together for an easier avenue to finding games to play in. I have been playing in more and more No Cards games, especially in the 1 vs 1 arena, but also some 4 and 5 player as well. Mostly, I'm just wondering if there are a lot of players who play No Cards as a mainstay, or just as an occasion change of pace.

I'm looking to start focusing on No Cards as my primary skill set in the future when I finish playing in some current tournaments, and was wondering how many players might be interested in a group that would set up regular games for that purpose.

What does everyone know about No Cards popularity? Is it a hidden community, or just not that popular?

[jiminski]

Ahh if you mean Singles then about 1% but it is likely a fraction of that.

Team games however probably register around 95% of games as no cards.

[owenshooter]

tons of people play no cards games. i don't think it is a hidden community... i mostly play no cards doubles, and there aren't any shortage of available games, ever... i think i have played one card game in about 6 or 7 months...-0

p.s.-uh oh, is my premium almost up?!!!

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Most of my games are no cards - the majority of my 1v1s, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 games.

However I have stopped playing no card standard games with more than 2 players.

[Optimus Prime]

So it appears that No Cards is definitely a popular choice for team games then.

If you don't mind me asking, Benji, what is the reasoning behind your dislike for single over 2 players nowadays? Just the length of time it takes them to complete?

[killmanic]

yeah i really like no cards, but i am in a lot of tournaments which are esc which is also fine.

[Herakilla]

i play almost only no cards when its standard but for team games i usually prefer card games because it adds a new level to the strategizing with your partner(s)

[Timminz]

No cards are almost the only setting I play for 1 v 1 and 2 v 2, but when it comes to multi-player singles, I only play no cards when it's mandated in a tourney.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

If you don't mind me asking, Benji, what is the reasoning behind your dislike for single over 2 players nowadays? Just the length of time it takes them to complete?

Time taken / time between turns is a factor, but the main factor is that I have become tired of the politics (explicit or not) that are involved in multiplayer games. This happens much less in high ranking escalating games, which are the only ones I play other than team games.

In 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4, you can be very aggressive, because you get to avoid the entire issue of the power balancing that needs to occur in 3-8 player standard no card/flat rate games.

I also enjoy the duel-like quality of 1v1.

[Optimus Prime]

If you don't mind me asking, Benji, what is the reasoning behind your dislike for single over 2 players nowadays? Just the length of time it takes them to complete?

Time taken / time between turns is a factor, but the main factor is that I have become tired of the politics (explicit or not) that are involved in multiplayer games. This happens much less in high ranking escalating games, which are the only ones I play other than team games.

In 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4, you can be very aggressive, because you get to avoid the entire issue of the power balancing that needs to occur in 3-8 player standard no card/flat rate games.

I also enjoy the duel-like quality of 1v1.

All good points, Benji. Thanks for that. Now, if only I was ranked enough to get in on some of those high-rank games.

So, I plan on letting this thread keep going for a while before making any decision, but would any of you see a usergroup as a worthwhile endeavor, or not? I'm looking for answers on both sides, and reasons why or why not.

[bbqpenguin]

unless it's a team game, no cards game tend to drag on to ridiculous lengths, especially those with more than 2 players. lots and lots of building, not so much action. i prefer no card team games though, they require more teamwork and strategy whereas in card games, especially escalating the game can still be won by just won person (though i admit, it is fun wiping you teamates out for their cards to start off a snowball)

[Iron Butterfly]

At first I really liked no card games as it was about conserving armies and being smart in when to attack. But I then found that more often then not they turned into political alliances, which is part of risk. After awhile they became tedious affairs especially when down to the last three players. The two weakest team on the strongets until the strongest becomes the weakest or even worse dead locked stalemates with each side refusing to attack for fear of becoming to weak.

Teams is another story altogether. Single team play is really about TEAM play and not two players playing on the same side. The game is won or lost by how well they play together.

[Kemmler]

I hate no cards games. They last for ages (100+ turns) and even if you win its not worth the points. They're boring.

[lord voldemort]

i will play almost exclusively no card 1v1
every day i tend to play more and more no cards. including team games
if its singles i will rarely play no cards. mostly esc

[Incandenza]

While I enjoy 1v1 no cards, I can say with all assurance that you'd have to hold a gun to my head, and probably shoot out one of my kneecaps, to get me to play a singles no cards game ever again. I had one that lasted over a year. Let's repeat: OVER A YEAR. And ultimately the only way I could finally get out of it was craven deadbeating, something I'm neither happy about or proud of.

So yeah, no cards singles games can sit and spin as far as I'm concerned.

[/rant]

[owenshooter]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

[White Moose]

I play quite a lot of no card games, but that is only becuase it's the best way to play AoR: M & M.

For normal games as Classic, British Isles etc etc. i don't like no cards at all.. It only gets to a situation where everyone just defends their bonuses and the one with the most luck with the dices from the start win.

[Top Dog]

Team games prolly 80-90% regular usually are flat rate.... 2/5 right now so 40-50% currently but that's high cuz I don't normally have team games...

[Timminz]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

Compared to flat rate, no cards put the emphasis on the luck of the dice only, instead of the dice and the cards.

[greenoaks]

just over 950 of my 1500 games are no cards.

[nagerous]

No cards only works for teams and one vs one. Its a no go zone for single player games and large maps.

[Incandenza]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

Ah, that old chestnut. That's perhaps the most flagrantly untrue myth we have around here, for about a half-dozen compelling reasons.

[Herakilla]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

Compared to flat rate, no cards put the emphasis on the luck of the dice only, instead of the dice and the cards.

not really, the luck is actually incorperated into the skill factor because those who know which risks are worth it and which arent are generally the ones who win so the luck is part of the skill

[Kemmler]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

Ah, that old chestnut. That's perhaps the most flagrantly untrue myth we have around here, for about a half-dozen compelling reasons.

yeah, owen's an idiot. jsut what i thought

[codeblue1018]

no cards are more about skill and less about luck. period.-0

Hmm, is that so? Owen, it all boils down to what the good old dice gods bring you. I would tend to say that luck is greater than the skill in a no card game at least from the ones I played in. Although, who am I to say.