Over 700 games of this and I see no reason to continue

[LTP56]

you mean, like we didnt care you played 700 games?

Yes, just like that.

[dino_2000_22]

All I came on here to say is that the parrot is too valuable on most cards....gaining extra turns, is a huge advantage on some of these cards and the -1 point at the end of the game means nothing when that -1 point is usually gaining you 3-8 points extra when it comes up.

[ChiefPointThief]

All I came on here to say is that the parrot is too valuable on most cards....gaining extra turns, is a huge advantage on some of these cards and the -1 point at the end of the game means nothing when that -1 point is usually gaining you 3-8 points extra when it comes up.

Parrots are great but you may be overvaluing them. I also don’t know if there’s a “fix”. -2 is probably too much and that would just change gameplay by enhancing the value of monkeys.
Playing this competitively (arena) can be frustrating like any other luck based game due to the arena format not being suitable. I doubt the designers cared about it being played competitively or completely balanced when creating it though.
It is a really quick game so for those games in which you are really unlucky you can start over again in just a few mins.

One idea I just thought of while writing this is a variant in which you instantly lose once you play a 3rd parrot on the board. Or if you have 3 on board by endgame like the gunner which would be a little more forgiving.

[dino_2000_22]

All I came on here to say is that the parrot is too valuable on most cards....gaining extra turns, is a huge advantage on some of these cards and the -1 point at the end of the game means nothing when that -1 point is usually gaining you 3-8 points extra when it comes up.

Parrots are great but you may be overvaluing them. I also don’t know if there’s a “fix”. -2 is probably too much and that would just change gameplay by enhancing the value of monkeys.
Playing this competitively (arena) can be frustrating like any other luck based game due to the arena format not being suitable. I doubt the designers cared about it being played competitively or completely balanced when creating it though.
It is a really quick game so for those games in which you are really unlucky you can start over again in just a few mins.

One idea I just thought of while writing this is a variant in which you instantly lose once you play a 3rd parrot on the board. Or if you have 3 on board by endgame like the gunner which would be a little more forgiving.

Yes in the arena I have been very unlucky and continuously go up against folks who are playing between 3-6 parrots per game, and they always seem to get the monkey to continuously flip them. Your thought of the same rule as the Gunner is fantastic I think, would actually add some extra strategy to the game instead of mashing parrots and monkeys. Great idea.

[LTP56]

Yeah... 1,300 games later and I can unequivocally say this game is hugely luck dependent. If that's your cup'o'tea then it's a fine game, but it irritates me to no end that I have no control or agency to improve my position on any given game of Captain Flip.

Even worse is when you get hosed by a player that happens to land 5 swabbies straight out the gate, and then you say 'Okay, we'll go the swabbies route next game and you land only 2 or 3 swabbies and the other player plays a bunch of gunners and gets monkeys to turn them over, or worse lands 3 cartographers and then a bunch of navigators and cooks mixed in.

I will go on 8 and 10 game winning streaks against 200+ rated players, and then for some inexplicable reason lose 10 games in a row to minus-140 players. Makes no sense at all. At least in a low-luck or no-luck game I know I am losing because of my own poor play, but this game is swingier than a door hinge and I just can't justify wasting so much time when it doesn't pay off in the long run.

Thanks for the distraction, but it's time to move on. Ciao! my fellow Flippers.

[DoctorFianchetto]

That is the nature of luck-based games, neatly explained. We've all been there. Every Captain Flip player's journey is a sine wave. I've been 400 ELO Top 10 in arena several times, and I am now, but I've been 200 ELO and several hundreds in arena just as many times. It's a streaky game. I understand the frustration.

For me, I've played enough Captain Flip. Thousands of games. It was a lot of fun, and it is by far my favourite of the luck games. But it's time to move on. Play other games. I barely play any more, maybe one game a week, and even then I'm so afraid of losing that it's not that fun, just praying for good enough luck. Not healthy.

[Berthouille33]

Imagine throwing a coin 900 times, you would be really close to 450/450

That's a common misconception. The more times you toss a coin, the larger the expected difference between heads and tails will be. What happens is that the difference will become more and more insignificant in relative terms as you increase the number of tosses. So it won't be close to 450/450, but it will be close to 50%/50%.

See https://math.stackexchange.com/question ... ing-a-coin
The first graph is the absolute difference between heads and tails, it just goes up. The second graph is divided by the total number of tosses, it goes down.

Lmao I did not say anywhere that my definition of "close" was the misconception you are talking about. It's common sense that being 460/440 is much better than being 12/8 in terms of "closeness" even though the difference is 5 times higher.

[Jellby]

Well, maybe you don't have that misconception, but many people do. And since you wrote 450/450 and not 50%/50%, I assumed you were referring to absolute differences, and I'm sure many (again) think in those terms.