Nuclear Spoils (and more!)

[cyrenius]

This new option is great, how about making a medal for it?

[Bruceswar]

Gotta say after finally getting to test this one out. I really enjoyed it. Thanks for a cool update!

[machrs]

I like the Idea of Nuclear BUT.... you have to Nuke your own Positions....kinda silly to do that.... I wish CC would adjust this...........

[soundman]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I intended to address previous concerns about the game layout, but it seems like the extra tweaks I threw in didn't go over well. In 3 weeks I will start another feedback topic with mockups to vote on (and I will stick to the mockups when making the next update )

You almost got those mockups done?

[isaiah40]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I intended to address previous concerns about the game layout, but it seems like the extra tweaks I threw in didn't go over well. In 3 weeks I will start another feedback topic with mockups to vote on (and I will stick to the mockups when making the next update )

You almost got those mockups done?

He's on vacation.

[Mr_Adams]

Has it yet been observed what possibilities are now present in assassins? has there yet been a game where two people's last territories are nuked simultaneously?

[j35t3r.us]

In a terminator game, if you cash in a set of Nuke cards and it eliminates YOURSELF from the game, who gets your remaining cards? And who gets your points?

I'd like to see it where nuking can't hit yourself. Would simplify everything.

[eddie2]

nuclear is okay but not when players start to abuse timing out to stop having to cash in as what is hapening in game Game 6255223 not only they have 2 v 1 but also playing reinforcing but not finishing shot to stop themselfs getting card 5

[Queen_Herpes]

Put an end to the new endless scrolling format and change it back.

When Coca-Cola came out with "New Coke" in the 80s, they realized their mistake and changed back to the old formula.

Be like Mike. Like Mike, if Lack could be like Mike. (another 80s song advertisement) Michael Jordan changed sports. Lackattack changed the site. Change it back.

[captainwalrus]

When people say change it back, does that mean change it back to what it was before there was the statistics for everyone, or to what it was like when they were first added?
I like the statistics, but not the layout.

[j35t3r.us]

HAHAHA Game 6246450, I just nuked myself when I had one territory left and had the nuke.

I eliminated myself and scored no points and I kept my cards I had left over...

I wonder if the winner gets my points?

Kinda like if someone leaves in Terminator and then at end of game you count as eliminating them....

/sigh


Nuked myself? LAMZORZ, I had 5 cards and had to turning....

[Mr_Adams]

It gives you credit, in the log, for the nuking, but it gives your elimination to the "neutral player".

[j35t3r.us]

Yeah, but does that mean the same thing as deadbeating? Where the points go to the winner of the game? That would suck.

[drunkmonkey]

I may have missed the response, but I mentioned earlier that the game stats now tell more information than the log in fog/nuc games in the territory colum. you can't tell who lost terrs by a cash in nuc games by the log, but it is taken into account in the statistics.

Came to the thread to say this. Is anything being done about it?

[drunkmonkey]

Has it yet been observed what possibilities are now present in assassins? has there yet been a game where two people's last territories are nuked simultaneously?

I brought this up in Q&A, and was told whoever's card was "first" was eliminated first.

[pacmule8]

Sounds great! Will have to try!

[conquerhero]

I sending this regarding nuclear: nuclear is fun! great to knock off an opponents armies! however, there is 1 drawback: since no new armies are received, once you get behind in a game, you can't catch up. consider having nuclear and giving armies at a flat rate also. thanks for your consideration!

[Teflon Kris]

Nuking yourself is so stupid!!

Can we not at least have the option to not nuke ourselves? I'm sure it wouldn't take much coding?

Even a war monger as stupid as George Dubya wouldn't nuke his own troops!

[natty dread]

But you have the option not to nuke yourself.

a) be smart enough not to leave your troops to a territory you are going to nuke

or if (a) proves impossible,

b) don't play nuclear games.

[DJPatrick]

Question for the masses...was recently in an escalating terminator nuke game...I had one territory left but could cash...I owned the territory so I wld have nuked myself...given that you can nuke your own territories, does this version of CC allow you to nuke yourself out of existence and if so, do you get points, or at least no point loss, for taking yourself...
I know I should have just done it to find out these answers but hey, I'm not emo enough to take that step yet...lol!!!

[nippersean]

DJ look a page further up the thread, somebody did this. Looks like you get no pts and kill goes down to neutral player Game 6246450 not sure if winner of the game got them tho - it's terminator i assume

[DJPatrick]

6246450...sorry don't know how to make this active...looks like you lose no points by eliminating self...
there are other precedents which may be set with this one; it hasn't finished yet...but anyone playing a lot of NUKE games should keep an eye on it...
thanx nippersean

[2dimes]

Better names for that option would be. Freindly fire spoils, Suicide spoils, Rebellion spoils, Repeating cards spoils...

[joriki]

I may have missed the response, but I mentioned earlier that the game stats now tell more information than the log in fog/nuc games in the territory colum. you can't tell who lost terrs by a cash in nuc games by the log, but it is taken into account in the statistics.

Came to the thread to say this. Is anything being done about it?

I was also going to say the same thing. The information gap only lasts until the player's next turn, since then the log tells you the territory count, but still, it might be valuable.

On the other hand:

When statistics were introduced, they were designed to only contain information that could be deduced from the log, in order not to change any of the existing game types. But nuclear spoils didn't exist then. So the requirement that the statistics don't contain any extra information isn't as important in this case -- the statistics don't "change" how the game with nuclear spoils works; there was a choice what the statistics would contain when the nuclear spoils were introduced, and it wasn't constrained by backward compatibility. Given what the log says when you nuke, there were basically three options for the statistics:

a) always display the territory count (the current behaviour)
b) never display the territory count in fog+nuke games
c) display the territory count in fog+nuke games whenever it can be easily deduced from the log

Both options b) and c) have disadvantages -- b) is a bit of an overkill, and c) would involve more programming and would lead to the territory count column being an ever-changing mixture of numbers and question marks. Another solution would have been to put more information in the log. The straightforward way of doing this, saying for each card whose region it nuked, like for a bombardment, would actually have disclosed even more information; to disclose only the information that's currently being disclosed in the statistics, the log would have to say something like ", annihilating A's troops in two regions and B's troops in one region", which again would involve more programming and would seem a bit artificial -- tayloring the log to correspond to the statistics rather than putting what one would naturally put there.

So all options had some disadvantage, and it might be argued that violating the principle that the statistics shouldn't disclose more than the log (the main reason for which had been not to change existing game types) was the least of them.

I'd be interested to know what others think about this. If you want something "done about it", please specify what exactly should be done. The only option that wouldn't change the game now (in the same sense in which introduction of the statistics didn't change the game at the time) would be the one putting something like ", annihilating A's troops in two regions and B's troops in one region" into the log -- every other option (in particular every option that would change the statistics so they don't reveal more than the log) would now, somewhat ironically, violate the principle underlying the principle "statistics shouldn't go beyond the log" -- namely, "the game shouldn't change"

[j35t3r.us]

DJ look a page further up the thread, somebody did this. Looks like you get no pts and kill goes down to neutral player Game 6246450 not sure if winner of the game got them tho - it's terminator i assume

Hey that's my game, hahahaha!

I have a World Famous game!!! I'm a Celebrity!