betiko wrote: He exploited the system, nothing else.
aka, breaking the rules.
Rules wrote:Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.
Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote: He exploited the system, nothing else.
Rules wrote:Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.
Shannon Apple wrote: but I have had invites from two such players recently. I wouldn't say they're cheating, but their tactics are cheap and I have no respect for them at all. I was highly tempted to foe both people, who are both not all that great of players.
Kingm wrote:
hmm, I agree with you, jiminski, on almost everything above, except that you have to be something quite special to stay above 3k without cynical methods, I have been at 3k + for something like 20 months I think, and played about 2500 games in that periode, even had 100 active games of all kind at a period, I have also played in probably 150 tourneys with all kinds of rank.
I even reached 4350 point at some point, but that was I had a couple of weeks where my dice was red hot..
If you had said 4000 instead of 3000 then I would realy agree with everything you said..
just my 2 cents
codeblue1018 wrote:
Why.....
Chariot of Fire wrote:You've been on this site too long BG. I think you mean "I deplore..." not "I deploy..."
Kingm wrote:I would also like to challenge you rhp1, or anyone else, to find any "questionable methods" I have been using, just for the fun of it
The only thing I would think of would be that last year I played lots of 8man private feudal epics and antarctica games against high ranked players, but it was far from farming since I would estimate that 95% of them had played atleast 20-30 similar games
trevor33 wrote:Shannon Apple wrote: but I have had invites from two such players recently. I wouldn't say they're cheating, but their tactics are cheap and I have no respect for them at all. I was highly tempted to foe both people, who are both not all that great of players.
I know who you mean and i have received an invite from at least one of them recently on a map they had played a million times that i had never played... i would never send out a cold invite to a game without a PM first, couple probably reach 3500+ by doing in on Lunar War but there's the fun?
If/when i reach 3000 for the first time it'll be because i deserved it, not because of some cheap tactics.
rhp 1 wrote:trevor33 wrote:Shannon Apple wrote: but I have had invites from two such players recently. I wouldn't say they're cheating, but their tactics are cheap and I have no respect for them at all. I was highly tempted to foe both people, who are both not all that great of players.
I know who you mean and i have received an invite from at least one of them recently on a map they had played a million times that i had never played... i would never send out a cold invite to a game without a PM first, couple probably reach 3500+ by doing in on Lunar War but there's the fun?
If/when i reach 3000 for the first time it'll be because i deserved it, not because of some cheap tactics.
and that's the point... "cheap tactics" or "questionable methods" is not an objective thing... it's completely subjective, and that's a fact... what you call cheap tactics, someone else might call just playing the games they want... is Crown's example more pronounced? sure.. but it's just him controlling his games.. it's hardly "gross abuse".. I laughed when I read that....
Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
JCR wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
That is the key.
BigBallinStalin wrote:JCR wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
That is the key.
Collusion with the enemy, right? Because if we say collusion with teammates, then we're back to the 'legit' method of organized v. unorganized teams.
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:JCR wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
That is the key.
Collusion with the enemy, right? Because if we say collusion with teammates, then we're back to the 'legit' method of organized v. unorganized teams.
The difference between the unorganized teams (where, say, you play 8-man Third Crusade with the same group all the time) is that everyone is trying equally to win. In this situation, various players were colluding to allow one player to inflate his score.
Donelladan wrote:You are making mistake here BBS. Main point against TheCrown is holding hostage. He deliberaly prolong for several days game that he should have already won.
This is abuse. And this is gross abuse because he did it for a tons of games.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:JCR wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
That is the key.
Collusion with the enemy, right? Because if we say collusion with teammates, then we're back to the 'legit' method of organized v. unorganized teams.
The difference between the unorganized teams (where, say, you play 8-man Third Crusade with the same group all the time) is that everyone is trying equally to win. In this situation, various players were colluding to allow one player to inflate his score.
Oh, that's interesting. Didn't know that.
I think we can still agree that most people who hated thecrown for it are still hypocrites though.
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:JCR wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
That is the key.
Collusion with the enemy, right? Because if we say collusion with teammates, then we're back to the 'legit' method of organized v. unorganized teams.
The difference between the unorganized teams (where, say, you play 8-man Third Crusade with the same group all the time) is that everyone is trying equally to win. In this situation, various players were colluding to allow one player to inflate his score.
Oh, that's interesting. Didn't know that.
I think we can still agree that most people who hated thecrown for it are still hypocrites though.
I would agree that if someone actually hates him for it, there's a good chance they're being at least slightly hypocritical since we all meta-manage our points to some degree.
jiminski wrote:To say that we are all guilty so no one is really guilty in an objective sense is the last defence of the indefenceable.
Metsfanmax wrote:jiminski wrote:To say that we are all guilty so no one is really guilty in an objective sense is the last defence of the indefenceable.
I didn't say that we are all guilty. I said that being actively angry at TheCrown for taking to an extreme what we all do to various extents is slightly hypocritical. One can agree with that and still believe that he should have been punished, on the basis that he colluded with others to manipulate the scoring system. In other words, if you want to be angry, be angry not because he found a clever way to boost his points but because he gathered up his whole clan to boost it way more than any one person could on their own.
Metsfanmax wrote:rhp 1 wrote:trevor33 wrote:Shannon Apple wrote: but I have had invites from two such players recently. I wouldn't say they're cheating, but their tactics are cheap and I have no respect for them at all. I was highly tempted to foe both people, who are both not all that great of players.
I know who you mean and i have received an invite from at least one of them recently on a map they had played a million times that i had never played... i would never send out a cold invite to a game without a PM first, couple probably reach 3500+ by doing in on Lunar War but there's the fun?
If/when i reach 3000 for the first time it'll be because i deserved it, not because of some cheap tactics.
and that's the point... "cheap tactics" or "questionable methods" is not an objective thing... it's completely subjective, and that's a fact... what you call cheap tactics, someone else might call just playing the games they want... is Crown's example more pronounced? sure.. but it's just him controlling his games.. it's hardly "gross abuse".. I laughed when I read that....
I think in this case one cannot neglect the aspect of collusion that was necessary to achieve this result.
Vinc wrote:Wooh TheCrown respect man.
700 games thats a big story
Nice story to read aswell
Kind regards
Vinc
saxitoxin wrote:Ralf's 95 year old great grandmother owns Canada
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users