Secret Diplomacy Possible multis? [cleared] BG

[king achilles]

If win-lose statistics will be a basis for blocking players, then there should be a rule or a code to prevent people from playing a certain number of games together then. So if player A and player B are always playing games together with other people and if one or both of them gets a good percentage of winning, then does that mean they are cheating? If they have been losing a lot from them, then that is fine? So in order for them not to be suspected of cheating, they need to lose. Or is it just for the mere fact that 2 or more players play a lot together, it automatically means there is some cheating going on.

Like what BGB said, we need specific games that show them behaving as though they have a secret alliance.

[afroaction]

I need something like specific games that show them behaving as though they have an alliance.

The statistics are intriguing but I can't bust people for secret diplomacy just because someone wins too much.

right, like I said it's late and I'll finish this tomorrow with game chat, games and them behaving with a secret alliance, the stats are there to show you the pattern of that if they didn't have a secret alliance the win ratio would way lower.

I really don't care that they are friends, and want to play together, but they should not be allowed to create games or join games and have a 3rd or 4th player... join it and get slaughtered and have no chance of winning.It's not fair for the other players and ruins the game for everyone.


I realize you're New BG, and with time, people won't have to spell out so much of what's going on, all i did was a game finder check to find those stats and knew that they were in Ka-hoots!

[kuma32478]

I wasn't going to give Afroaction the time of day, but figured I'd at least pipe up since he appears to hold the biggest grudge for a loss that I've ever seen.

rjhankey and I were in the LOTZ clan together. We play a lot of games together. We've even run a tournament together. When I first started playing Conquer Club, I play private games with some friends from church, Tez being one of them. In the beginning it was me, him, and another friend from church berg3family. We got setup with a 4th, spongejoe and just set out playing four player games together. Berg quite CC and spongejoe fell off the face of the earth. At that point, I joined a clan, and began playing three man games with Tez and RJ. Three man just aren't as fun, so we posted in our clan forum that we were looking for a fourth person who was addicted to taking turns during the work day as we were. Looking back at some of our three man games, you'll see a lot of turns quickly. No one could give it the same amount of time as we were so we set up random games and just let a fourth person join in hopes of getting a good 4th person.

The closest we've found is seambot so we invited him to a 2nd game with us.

Note game # 11516882, where I went to setup the random settings and found someone already with a game waiting on those. We joined that game.

The game that Afro was upset, I attacked a large stack of his, and he got all up in arms and tossed a curse word at me. I find it funny when people don't play exactly like your style that you get upset. If you don't like me or the way I play, foe me and never play with me again, but don't drag my name through the mud. That's bush league, dude.

[rjhankey]

Exactly -- Kuma, Tez, and I haven't been farming anyone, in fact we could in theory move to a 5- or 6- player format where it would increase the likelihood that the statistics wouldn't even be close to insinuating that we're somehow ganging up on other players. The whole point though has been to play fast 4-player games, and as Kuma mentioned we don't have a regular 4th to include, so have just been leaving a spot open for someone to join us. Look a little deeper at the statistics, we don't jump all over the 4th player, and knock him/her out first, if you look at the strategy in our games, I'm sure the pattern would show that normal game strategies are applied, attacking the troop/terit leader first, eliminating the player who's weakest with the most spoils, etc.

Game 11516882 -- a very even battle so far where most of the attention has been on tez (yellow) who established an early bonus

Game 11364891 -- round 91, ask DTT if he feels like we're ganging up ... this one is a close battle too, where he (yellow) has the advantage at the moment, and potentially a large stack lurking out there.

Game 11180759 -- game won by the "4th" player, who collected 76 points ... seemed to enjoy the game with us too, and we could have prevented the loss if we truly were working together as a team of three.

Game 11127054 -- round 107!!?? Surely the three of us could have knocked off the 4th player here by now?

Game 11081553 -- most interesting game chat of them all, we came out and let the 4th player know that we know each other, and yet it still looks like a clean game was played where he was interested in playing with us again.

Oh, and then there's a whole series of 3-player games where we only played against each other. These should in no way be considered part of the statistical analysis, they're a whole different type of game.

Is afroaction suggesting we need to post a disclaimer in all of our games ... something along the lines that the three of us know each other, and we are in no way acting in collusion to knock off whoever joins our games? Kuma, Tez, and I could be a formidable force if we set up trips games and just camped out waiting for unsuspecting trips teams (or random singles) to join those games. I'm sure there are plenty of other dubs/trips/quads who do exactly that -- they've played countless games together and will win a majority of their games played. For that matter, that's exactly how clan wars work, the same teams will undoubtedly play many many many games with each other, and you could probably build a statistical case that looks like they win "more often" than they otherwise should.

As I said, if it helps, we could add a 5th or 6th random player, and see if that slows down our gameplay. 4-player games have a tendency to move pretty quick when we know at least 3 of us tend to take turns fairly regularly and often. Just check out the games listed above that have gone more than 90 rounds, mainly due to that fast play.

[rjhankey]

Sorry, going to weigh in again, as the statistical analysis was leaving me thinking a little harder ...

4 man Standard games: tez hodos/kuma32478/ rjhankey 12 results

tez hodos: 6 wins = 50%

kuma32478: 2 wins= 16%

rjhankey: 1 win= 8%

Combined wins= 74% Others: 3 wins= 25%

Isn't this about right for 4-player games? The 4th player wins 1/4 of the time? And, with such a small sample set of 12 games, I'm surprised the stats did work out this well. Admittedly, I must not be a very good player, and Tez/Kuma could appear to be farming me, since I'm not winning my fair share of the games. I bet if you give this time to play out to 100 games or so, you'd find that 4th player would be winning 25% or so of the games. I'm not sure if Tez would continue his hot streak of winning more frequently than the rest of us, but I'm guessing even that would balance out.

3 man games: tez hodos/ kuma32478/ rjhankey 24 results

tez hodos: 13 wins= 54%

kuma32478: 3 wins= 12%

rjhankey: 8 wins= 33%

Combined wins=100% Others: 0 wins = 0%

What does this prove? That when the three of us play together, one of us wins the game? This even supports my prior statement on the 4-player analysis, Tez had already established himself as winning a majority of our games, something Kuma and I were trying to change by winning a few ourselves.

Standard Games: tez hodos/ kuma32478 88 results (7 results of 88 for 5 or more players)

kuma32478: 13 wins= 15%

tez hodos: 38 wins= 43%

(+/- rjhankey 3 wins= 4%)

Combined wins= 62% Others: 38%


Standard: rjhankey/ tez hodos 32 results (1 result of 32 for 5 or more players)

tez hodos: 17 wins= 53%

rjhankey: 6 wins= 19%

(+/-kuma32478 3 wins= 9%)

Combined wins= 81% Others= 19%

I'm not sure what this proves -- the three of us weren't working together obviously in these games, and this still supports prior observation that Tez is good enough to win a large number of games, he must be doing something right in the strategy department. I think the only thing that we could do differently to avoid this misunderstanding is announce first thing in the game chat that the three of us know each other, we do play fair games, we like playing turns in much less than 24 hours, and we're in no way looking for players who we can just take points from. Wouldn't it be better if we made sure we played only games against players ranked higher than us as well if we were just looking for points?

[tez hodos]

I'll speak up too. Thanks to BG, Froxx and others who are using reason. I'm sorry I ever entered a game with Afro. I believe a sampling of his rating comments and game logs show what kind of player he is (like Game 11523167). I'm not sure if you've ever taken a statistics class, but one player in a four player game winning 25% is... exactly fair, and what one would expect. Yes, I know kuma, and have played with rj for a few months now. I don't want them to win any more than I want the fourth (or 5th or 6th) guy to win. Conquer Club is my only contact with them during the week, and there is no collusion. RJ already posted some good examples of our logs, and strategies. I don't know how games over 100 rounds help our "alliance."

"attacking the troop/terit leader first, eliminating the player who's weakest with the most spoils, etc.

- exactly my tact. Thanks for posting the stats afro. I knew I was taking rj and kuma to the cleaners but I never checked the stats.

I'm not sure what you expected when you joined a game that had two reserved spots, and one open. I thought it was quite a good and fair game. I'm also not sure what you're upset about. Since it was a fog game, I had no idea what sort of stack kuma took from you. I attacked you because you had broken my territory bonus earlier, and I wanted it back.

As for speech,

Harassing

Banter and some trash talking IS allowed in the Game Chats, provided it doesn't cross some specific lines.
While you might find some game chat disagreeable, uncouth, and boorish, cursing and using foul language may not be a breach of our Guidelines. Try kindly asking them to stop or ignoring them using your Foes List.
That said, what is not allowed is any form of bigotry, cyber-bullying/harassment or those extremes outlined in the Forum Guidelines. Please report any such comments that you find offensive.

I'd ask you, afroaction, not to curse at or to me again, and not to harrass me or my friends...or anyone for that matter.

If moderators deem fit, we can post a message at beginnings of games saying we have played games together before (gasp), and that Tez is an awesome strategist. We could tweek that a bit if need be.

[kuma32478]

Also really enjoyed the responses in Afro's ratings page when someone doesn't give the rating he likes. Stay classy bro. Don't ever change

[Chewie1]

Lol guys nothing like fuelling the fire by all posting one after another in the space of 3 hours.

Long enough apart to not think you are logging of and then on but short enough to look a little suspicious.

[kuma32478]

Lol guys nothing like fuelling the fire by all posting one after another in the space of 3 hours.

Long enough apart to not think you are logging of and then on but short enough to look a little suspicious.

Probably has something to do with the fact that I sent a PM to them making them aware of the thread. See, unlike Afroman, I actually spend my time on CC playing games and doing things that better the community, like running tournaments and forming a clan. I try not to get bogged down with being obnoxious.

[BGtheBrain]

Theyre definately not multis.

The only reason this is still open is that AfroAction said he would provide evidence.

Lets not resort to insults and name calling, or the thread will be locked.

[Chewie1]

Lol guys nothing like fuelling the fire by all posting one after another in the space of 3 hours.

Long enough apart to not think you are logging of and then on but short enough to look a little suspicious.

Probably has something to do with the fact that I sent a PM to them making them aware of the thread. See, unlike Afroman, I actually spend my time on CC playing games and doing things that better the community, like running tournaments and forming a clan. I try not to get bogged down with being obnoxious.

I wasnt accusing just pointing out what it could possibly look like to those with a paranoid ego about multis etc

[afroaction]

Lol guys nothing like fuelling the fire by all posting one after another in the space of 3 hours.

Long enough apart to not think you are logging of and then on but short enough to look a little suspicious.

Probably has something to do with the fact that I sent a PM to them making them aware of the thread. See, unlike Afroman, I actually spend my time on CC playing games and doing things that better the community, like running tournaments and forming a clan. I try not to get bogged down with being obnoxious.

Where have I been obnoxious?

[BGtheBrain]

Afro - Whenever you get your evidence, feel free to pm me.

Im going to close it tomorrow morning if you have nothing to add showing any secret diplomacy.

[BGtheBrain]

tez hodos, kuma32478 & rjhankey have been cleared of being multis and cleared of secret diplomacy.

This case has been open long enough without sufficient evidence.