Letting Time Run Out to Avoid Cards

[timogl]

Maybe the way you choose to play, it isn't a reward. It is still called a spoil though. I find it very rewarding to own a card with a territory that I know will not be blown up. That's a good place to keep a stack of troops.

i don't understand. i play in nuke spoils games and draw cards with the same tert on them several times. are you saying, the tert on the card cannot come out again until the card is cashed in?

(because that is awesome if true. i just did know this was true if it is true.)

[gimli1990]

i say that if you take a region in a turn automagically you should get a card that is the way nucleur was intended and that is why i refuse to play nucleur until something is done about this very cheap tractic.

[Roussallier]

It's really cheap. Deploying and passing the turn is one thing, but that player should be forced to take a spoil if he attacks.

[TheForgivenOne]

Maybe the way you choose to play, it isn't a reward. It is still called a spoil though. I find it very rewarding to own a card with a territory that I know will not be blown up. That's a good place to keep a stack of troops.

i don't understand. i play in nuke spoils games and draw cards with the same tert on them several times. are you saying, the tert on the card cannot come out again until the card is cashed in?

(because that is awesome if true. i just did know this was true if it is true.)

Basically, Yes. The only time that 2 of the same cards will be in play at the same time, is when there are more cards in play then territories. Say 6 players each have 4 cards on Doodle Earth. DE Only has 18 territories. So all 18 territories will be in play, plus 6 duplicates.

[DJPatrick]

It's a WR game pps...annoying if it happens to you but LEGITIMATE...the rules can be re-written AFTER someone has been killed by strtegy...quite a few posters have described the tactic as "dirty/unfair"...lol...what IS unfair is CC letting cheaters back into the games if they pay their subs again...this, and many other tactical technicalities reflect true combat...the other reflects only commercial imperative...

[Viceroy63]

It's a WR game pps...annoying if it happens to you but LEGITIMATE...the rules can be re-written AFTER someone has been killed by strtegy...quite a few posters have described the tactic as "dirty/unfair"...lol...what IS unfair is CC letting cheaters back into the games if they pay their subs again...this, and many other tactical technicalities reflect true combat...the other reflects only commercial imperative...

The point in letting cheaters back is not to give them a chance to learn from their lesson and rejoin the fold as a re penitent individual but the potential profit loss that could probably measure in the tens of thousands of dollars. With profit/loss margins like those I also would not care if I allowed cheaters back into the site again and again and again and again....

786

[Sey69]

I agree with macbone, but one man's utilization is another's exploitation

and, it seems no worse than intentionally missing one's turn. (Also, not against the rules).

[ZeekLTK]

The solution is to fix what is CAUSING the problem, not try to stop people from doing it.

The problem is that people sometimes DON'T WANT cards, especially in nuclear games where cards (which are completely random) can hurt you. In these cases, there should be an Option to DISCARD unwanted cards. If this were possible, no one would let time run out anymore because they would have an easier solution to their problem (which is they don't want to have to use the cards they have).

I mean, how stupid is it to have a rule that a player has to do something that will hurt their chances of winning? No one is going to want to follow that rule, they are going to find ways around it. So if your rule is that players have to nuke 3 of their own territories just because they happened to RANDOMLY get those 3 cards, then they are going to find a way around that. The best way to "fix" it is to not make them do that. Again, put an option where they can throw out the cards rather than play them. How is that hurting anyone else? Player A got 3 turns worth of spoils and doesn't want to use any of them, why can't he just throw them away and try to get other cards, why does he HAVE to use them? How is that giving him any type of advantage over another player? He's not able to use the cards he has, isn't that a fair trade off - he doesn't nuke his own territory, but he also doesn't get to use his spoils at all - seems fair.

[SirSebstar]

i support the option not to get a spoil over being forced to cash and destroy yourself.
incidently you can join a social clan if you manage to nuke YOURSELF out of the game. there is even an unofficial scoreboard..

however, being able to hold 4 territs with spoils so they cannot be bombed can be a huge, HUGE advantage...
in fact the more i think about it, there is no good way to deal with this. all it needs is some confirmation that like diplomacy this is allowed, or we need to make the system so it cannot happen. the moral ambiguity is spoiling a bit of my fun ( pun intended)

[trevor33]

[quote="pearljamrox2"[/quote]

Maybe the way you choose to play, it isn't a reward. It is still called a spoil though. I find it very rewarding to own a card with a territory that I know will not be blown up. That's a good place to keep a stack of troops.[/quote]

What do you do when you have 4 cards but no set and a stack of troops on a territory with everyone else after you ready to cash? Only a complete idiot would take a card. Take a card without moving the troops and you run the risk of having to duke your own troops next round, move our troops and they could be nuked by an opponent about to cash. Nothing wrong with the way it is at the moment in my opinion... luck has a big enough roll to play in games the way it is.

[ZeekLTK]

i support the option not to get a spoil over being forced to cash and destroy yourself.
incidently you can join a social clan if you manage to nuke YOURSELF out of the game. there is even an unofficial scoreboard..

however, being able to hold 4 territs with spoils so they cannot be bombed can be a huge, HUGE advantage...
in fact the more i think about it, there is no good way to deal with this. all it needs is some confirmation that like diplomacy this is allowed, or we need to make the system so it cannot happen. the moral ambiguity is spoiling a bit of my fun ( pun intended)

I think that would be part of the strategy of allowing discards. You can hold onto a territory so that your opponent can't nuke it, but when you get 4-5 cards, you should be able to discard that card so that you don't have to nuke your own territory.


Basically, I think this could easily be implemented by changing the rule as follows:

FORMER RULE: You MUST cash in a set when you have 5 cards.

NEW RULE: If you do not cash in a set at 5, you must discard one of your cards so that you start the turn with 4.



AKA - when you have 5 cards you should be able to cash OR throw one away. No one would ever let a turn run out again if this were possible.

[Gillipig]

It's within the rules I think. Deadbeating obviously isn't but missing a turn strategically is just that, strategy.