Bismarck more perfect
Read by 178 users
This will cause some problems. For example, all Bismarck rankings (most points scored, longest games, etc.) would be automatically invalidated. There is no problem with bringing the Ace to Six stack, but free ,ang would cause problems (it will be very laborious to develop).
Ruut could donate a few thousand euros to the bird - then it would definitely be done :)
[i]posted by Meikop[/i] This will cause some problems. For example, all Bismarck rankings (most points, longest games, etc.) would be automatically invalidated. There are no problems with bringing the Ace to Six layout, but free, but it would cause problems (developing it will be very laborious).
If both game versions were to remain, the old data would also remain, although I don't think it matters much, most people would start playing the correct version and a new ranking would be created
[i]posted by Mets58[/i] Ruut could donate a few thousand euros to the bird - then it would definitely be done :)
Do you think, Mets, that only money makes the wheels turn???
One more question - will more people really play Bismarck if this ace-to-six stacking is done? Is it a matter of principle or will this addition provide any real benefit?
Meikop, this is pretty much the same thing as Sasku's offer. If there's no offer, it seems silly...if there's no ace-down, it also seems strange and silly...but you get used to everything. It's like Sasku or Bismark Meikop and that's how it is. If you have a choice whether to play or not, then...you still play. It was completely strange at first, but...now we're adjusting. Not that we want it, but...that's how it is.
So, it's still a matter of principle. Bismarck has been played in Vint for four years 50,000 games. I don't think this number would be that big if there was something seriously missing there:) Free play goes to stacking in 90% of cases and now the main question: Would the share of luck in the game increase if there were 6 more stacks (from ace to six free play) or would the share of luck decrease? Which of the games depends more on the card run, taking/dealing or stacking, or is there no difference? If stacking reduced the share of luck in the outcome of the entire game, I would agree with the idea. Unfortunately, I'm not sure about that at the moment. Having played a large number of games myself, I got the impression that the results of the stacks ultimately determined the fate of the game. If the maximum result in taking/giving is -6, then I have, as far as I can remember, gotten 60 by stacking 6. The maximum result of taking/giving in six rounds is 30. Maybe the stacking results are not in proportion to the rest of the game. And in order to maintain this proportion a little, I left out stacking from ace to six. In conclusion: if we have 12 rounds of taking/giving, where you can earn 60 points, and there were 12 rounds of stacking, where you can earn 120 points, then the name of the game could be changed - stacking game. The first 12 rounds would simply be a warm-up for the main game. At the moment, this balance is a little better - the first 12 rounds max 60 points, the last 6 rounds also max 60 points. The fact that it has been played the same way for decades does not mean that it is the most ideal form of the game. We should not be afraid of changes and label them as stupid.
[i]posted by Meikop[/i] So maybe it's still a matter of principle. Bismarck has been played in Vint over the past four years 50,000 games. I don't think this number would be that big if there was something seriously missing:) Free play goes to stacking in 90% of cases and now the main question: Would the share of luck in the game increase if there were 6 more stacks (from ace to six free play) or would the share of luck decrease? Which of the games depends more on the card run, taking/dealing or stacking, or is there no difference? If stacking would reduce the share of luck in the outcome of the entire game, I would agree with the idea. Unfortunately, I'm not sure about that at the moment. Having played a large number of games myself, I got the impression that the results of the stacks ultimately determined the fate of the game. If the maximum result in taking/giving is -6, then as far as I remember, I got 60 with a stack of 6. The maximum result of taking/giving in six rounds is 30. So the stacking results are not in proportion to the rest of the game. And in order to maintain this proportion a little, I left out the stacking from ace to six. In conclusion: if we have 12 rounds of taking/giving, where you can earn 60 points, and there were 12 rounds of stacking, where you can earn 120 points, then the name of the game could be changed - a stacking game. The first 12 rounds would simply be a warm-up for the main game. At the moment, this balance is a little better - the first 12 rounds max 60 points, the last 6 rounds also max 60 points. The fact that it has been played the same way for decades does not mean that it is the most ideal form of the game. We should not be afraid of changes and label them as stupid.
I think that the correct version of Bismarck is more reasonable. The Vint version also worked and had to work because there was no alternative and at the time the only reason was that the original version turned out to be too time-consuming. I am convinced that the original version will definitely be played more willingly because it is with the Vint system that the game's scoring system goes out of place. Considering that there have been people who wanted to play the original Bismarck in the past and there are still people who want to, this option should still be offered. Let's leave both, the Vint version and the original version, for now. You can also close the one that is not played or is played little. If Bismarck was consciously created like this at the time, we would not have the right to simplify it.
[i]posted by Meikop[/i] So maybe it's still a matter of principle. Bismarck has been played in Vint 50,000 games in four years. I don't think that number would be that big if there was something seriously missing:) The fact that it has been played the same way for decades doesn't mean that it is the most ideal form of the game. You shouldn't be afraid of changes and label them stupid.
In a certain sense, it's also a matter of principle, but ....since there is nothing better, people are satisfied with it, not that it is the best option. I don't think that anyone has called this half-baked version stupid, they would rather have a correct and good version of the game. This number is so high precisely because there is no other:) Meikop, but do a survey...either the longer and so-called full version or the quick and short or half-hearted version. Well, if you want democracy:) Currently, people have adapted to this version, and maybe young people don't know that this game is actually longer and more thorough. Once again, the same topic as with Sask...you learn to play trump without the possibility of beating/shouting and you think that this version is the one and only right one. You can always make things easier and simpler, but I don't know if this is the best solution. Maybe not always.
[i]posted by Nurme[/i] [quote][i]posted by Meikop[/i] So maybe it's still a matter of principle. Bismarck has been played in Vint 50,000 games in four years. I don't think that number would be that big if there was something seriously missing:) The fact that it has been played the same way for decades doesn't mean that it is the most ideal form of the game. You shouldn't be afraid of changes and label them stupid. [/quote] In a certain sense, it's also a matter of principle, but ....since there is nothing better, people will be satisfied with it, not that it is the best option. I don't think that anyone has called this half-baked version stupid, they would rather have a correct and good version of the game. This number is so high precisely because there is no other:) Meikop, but do a survey...either the longer and so-called full version or the quick and short or half-hearted version. Well, if you want democracy:) Currently, people have adapted to this version, and maybe young people don't know that this game is actually longer and more thorough. Once again, the same topic as with Sask...you learn to play trump without the possibility of beating/shouting and you think that this version is the one and only right one. You can always make things easier and simpler, but I don't know if this is the best solution. Maybe not always.
That's exactly why we need the correct version of Bismarck, because the younger ones don't know the original Bismarck. Meikop approaches the topic strangely again,,, referring to the fact that there have been about 500,000 games and everyone seems to be happy. If there were both game versions side by side, I would understand, but there is only Libabismarck and to draw any conclusions based on that, so forgive me;D