Conquer Club

What happened in game 5137191? How can a team benefit from someone violating the rules?

his/her team benefits only in that they get his men, those men he had go directly to the first player on his team.

which is bullshit.


-tig

xxtig12683xx wrote:which is bullshit.

Truth be told, the cheater's team is put into a NEGATIVE position. Yes, there may be individual instances when, through luck, they recieved territories that gave them a bonus they could hold, but generally speaking, the cheater's team is in a bad position. As well, you have to remember that the cheater's teammates in that particular game are NOT part of the cheating that the cheater was...it's not their fault.

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:which is bullshit.

Truth be told, the cheater's team is put into a NEGATIVE position. Yes, there may be individual instances when, through luck, they recieved territories that gave them a bonus they could hold, but generally speaking, the cheater's team is in a bad position. As well, you have to remember that the cheater's teammates in that particular game are NOT part of the cheating that the cheater was...it's not their fault.

Why dont you ask most players that know what they are doing, if used correctly its a huge advantage to control those armies, esp. if cards are involved.


-tig

xxtig12683xx wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:which is bullshit.

Truth be told, the cheater's team is put into a NEGATIVE position. Yes, there may be individual instances when, through luck, they recieved territories that gave them a bonus they could hold, but generally speaking, the cheater's team is in a bad position. As well, you have to remember that the cheater's teammates in that particular game are NOT part of the cheating that the cheater was...it's not their fault.

Why dont you ask most players that know what they are doing, if used correctly its a huge advantage to control those armies, esp. if cards are involved.
-tig

Are you actually telling me that it's an advantage to have one less player in a team game (which means less armies per turn)? Really?

And I don't really appreciate your suggestion that I don't know what I'm doing...I'd be more than happy to play you some games on a random map any day...just let me know!

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:which is bullshit.

Truth be told, the cheater's team is put into a NEGATIVE position. Yes, there may be individual instances when, through luck, they recieved territories that gave them a bonus they could hold, but generally speaking, the cheater's team is in a bad position. As well, you have to remember that the cheater's teammates in that particular game are NOT part of the cheating that the cheater was...it's not their fault.

Why dont you ask most players that know what they are doing, if used correctly its a huge advantage to control those armies, esp. if cards are involved.
-tig

Are you actually telling me that it's an advantage to have one less player in a team game (which means less armies per turn)? Really?

And I don't really appreciate your suggestion that I don't know what I'm doing...I'd be more than happy to play you some games on a random map any day...just let me know!

No. They're saying that the aquisisition of additional territories (and in some cases cards) can tip the scales far enough that the additional armies per turn of a single player are of little or no consequence. This is made especially clear in the case of an escalating game, with the sets at high values. Those 3 armies per turn mean f*ck all once you're able to cash in 2 or 3 turns earlier (or several times at once)

n00blet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

xxtig12683xx wrote:which is bullshit.

Truth be told, the cheater's team is put into a NEGATIVE position. Yes, there may be individual instances when, through luck, they recieved territories that gave them a bonus they could hold, but generally speaking, the cheater's team is in a bad position. As well, you have to remember that the cheater's teammates in that particular game are NOT part of the cheating that the cheater was...it's not their fault.

Why dont you ask most players that know what they are doing, if used correctly its a huge advantage to control those armies, esp. if cards are involved.
-tig

Are you actually telling me that it's an advantage to have one less player in a team game (which means less armies per turn)? Really?

And I don't really appreciate your suggestion that I don't know what I'm doing...I'd be more than happy to play you some games on a random map any day...just let me know!

No. They're saying that the aquisisition of additional territories (and in some cases cards) can tip the scales far enough that the additional armies per turn of a single player are of little or no consequence. This is made especially clear in the case of an escalating game, with the sets at high values. Those 3 armies per turn mean f*ck all once you're able to cash in 2 or 3 turns earlier (or several times at once)

The game in question is no-spoils, so I'm speaking in terms that apply to that example. In a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage. I thought that was obvious.

I think the general point is that, while in this game, it may make little difference, in certain games, it could be a significant advantage to be auto-kicked; this is less likely to be of benefit when you're deadbeating since that takes 3 turns (and it would be difficult to plan ahead that far). But in the cheating case, you could arrange to be kicked out immediately, potentially handing your team the victory.

Surely, the auto-kick rules should be modified such that being kicked out for *cheating* causes armies to go neutral. While this is somewhat hard on teammates, the fact is that they played with a cheater.

Bazza wrote:I think the general point is that, while in this game, it may make little difference, in certain games, it could be a significant advantage to be auto-kicked; this is less likely to be of benefit when you're deadbeating since that takes 3 turns (and it would be difficult to plan ahead that far). But in the cheating case, you could arrange to be kicked out immediately, potentially handing your team the victory.

"Arrange to be kicked out immediately" presumes that someone would feel it is worth gaining points in ONE GAME (from that one win) to be kicked off the site...I'm not sure too many people would be willing to make that tradeoff. <grin>

And again, the only time this is going to be any REAL benefit is in an escalating game...it's really not going to be a significant benefit at all in a no-spoils or flat-rate game. Perhaps a different way of handling it could be made only for escalating games, perhaps? Because as it now stands for the other two types, it really IS a big disadvantage for it to happen in the overwhelming majority of games.

Bazza wrote:Surely, the auto-kick rules should be modified such that being kicked out for *cheating* causes armies to go neutral. While this is somewhat hard on teammates, the fact is that they played with a cheater.

But playing with a cheater can be completely out of their control (and usually is). I know a number of players here who enjoy team games enough (I'm not one, as I don't even really like team games at all <grin>) that they join ANY available team...they like the idea of playing with many different people. Your solution is unnecessarily too hard on their teammates, in my opinion.

I do understand and actually sympathize with those on the other team. I simply believe that punishing their teammates for having done nothing wrong is not the right way to go about things.

Woodruff wrote:The game in question is no-spoils, so I'm speaking in terms that apply to that example. In a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage. I thought that was obvious.

I'm really missing the whole flaming bit right now. You don't even know how many different ways I could rhyme "presumptuous asshole."

Back on topic, however, it would seem obvious to me that although he mentioned a specific game, it was merely an example of what he views as the overarching problem. Personally, I don't worry about it too much, because there isn't really any great solution. There'll be complainers no matter what is decided.

Bazza wrote:Surely, the auto-kick rules should be modified such that being kicked out for *cheating* causes armies to go neutral. While this is somewhat hard on teammates, the fact is that they played with a cheater.

Nah that's a poor solution, would mean that most people would refuse to play with a random or unknown partner as the risk is to great of being completely butt******.

lack is working on a fix that would make the auto kicks take 3 turns so that the opponents got fair warning.

n00blet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The game in question is no-spoils, so I'm speaking in terms that apply to that example. In a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage. I thought that was obvious.

I'm really missing the whole flaming bit right now. You don't even know how many different ways I could rhyme "presumptuous asshole."

Serious question...Why is it that you feel that I'm a presumptuous asshole, any more than anyone else in the thread? Are you saying it's NOT obvious that in a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage? Because it really should be.

Woodruff wrote:

n00blet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The game in question is no-spoils, so I'm speaking in terms that apply to that example. In a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage. I thought that was obvious.

I'm really missing the whole flaming bit right now. You don't even know how many different ways I could rhyme "presumptuous asshole."

Serious question...Why is it that you feel that I'm a presumptuous asshole, any more than anyone else in the thread? Are you saying it's NOT obvious that in a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage? Because it really should be.

Because you're ignoring the serious half of that post that made it clear that although that is true, its not at all what the OP was talking about. [QED smiley]

n00blet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

n00blet wrote:

Woodruff wrote:The game in question is no-spoils, so I'm speaking in terms that apply to that example. In a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage. I thought that was obvious.

I'm really missing the whole flaming bit right now. You don't even know how many different ways I could rhyme "presumptuous asshole."

Serious question...Why is it that you feel that I'm a presumptuous asshole, any more than anyone else in the thread? Are you saying it's NOT obvious that in a no-spoils game, the team that loses the player is at an extreme disadvantage? Because it really should be.

Because you're ignoring the serious half of that post that made it clear that although that is true, its not at all what the OP was talking about. [QED smiley]

I am? He asked "what happened in that game" where "that game" was a no-spoils game.

Game 5322913
In this case-this rules only help to we lost our game-and our opponent have big advantage-instead to be punish,they get reward.

The territories should be neutral until after the player finishes his first turn after the teammate has been kicked out.

qwert wrote:instead to be punish,they get reward.

The team mates of the banned player isn't supposed to be punished though...

Polite request for people to lay off Woodruff. He didn't say anything that wasn't factual and didn't seem to be denigrating anyone.

My two cents about the topic-I like assuming that the other team members in cases like this aren't cheating and agree that players shouldn't be penalized if their teammate is a stinkin' cheater. While I've never had a teammate deadbeat or be kicked out for cheating (knock on wood), I've played long fought out doubles games where I go 20 rounds after my partner's been eliminated, and there is no advantage to losing those guaranteed 3 armies each turn.