Playing against ricklldo [cleared]

by **jleonnn** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:07 am

I'm very suspicious,about this player, ricklldo . I lost the game in about half an hour. It might be that he has good strategy, good dice rolls, but no one finishes a game that fast. I even saw ninety armies on one of the territories.(I think. It's just not logical.)

by **12XU** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:11 am

What is it you think he did? You realize your game was on a large map with unlimited spoils, right?

by **owenshooter** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:22 am

what are you talking about? there are games that are finished in under 6 seconds!!! you are playing world 2.1 one v. one, and he was stacking up bonuses!! he didn't cheat, you got beat.-0

2009-01-20 00:58:31 - Incrementing game to round 6
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 3 troops for holding United States
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 3 troops for holding La Plata
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 3 troops for holding Western Europe
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 5 troops for holding Mahgreb
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 4 troops for holding Southern Africa
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 3 troops for holding The Horn
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 2 troops for holding Australia
2009-01-20 01:00:05 - ricklldo receives 25 troops for 75 regions

by **lancehoch** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:24 am

Please fill out the proper form so that it is easier to understand what you would like analyzed.

Name(s) of Accused:

Suspected of: (delete what does not apply) Multi/Secret Alliance/Abuse/Other

Related Game(s):

Comments:

by **TeeGee** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:41 am

I knew there was a reason that ricklldo was in my clan, it was because of his ability to magicly create troops at will. :lol:

Seriously, he is a very, very, very good player. I think the OP played blindly and without any real strategy.

by **12XU** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:18 pm

lancehoch wrote:Please fill out the proper form so that it is easier to understand what you would like analyzed.

Name(s) of Accused:

Suspected of: (delete what does not apply) Multi/Secret Alliance/Abuse/Other

Related Game(s):

Comments:

You probably shouldn't allow, "other" to be an option on your form if you intend to mandate this format. Otherwise, I assume you'll see a bunch of replies to your "[No Form]" notation like this:
Name(s) of Accused: ricklldo

Suspected of: Other

Related Game(s): 4079224

Comments: I'm very suspicious,about this player, ricklldo . I lost the game in about half an hour. It might be that he has good strategy, good dice rolls, but no one finishes a game that fast. I even saw ninety armies on one of the territories.(I think. It's just not logical.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just saying, it seems rather pointless to mandate a form that can easily be supplied without clearing up the ambiguity. I mean, if I can take the OP's vague complaint and construct a post that conforms to your rule, then - (1) Why couldn't you do the same; and (2) Doesn't it seem like an exercise in futility to require such a formalistic approach that ultimately allows for the OP to be as vague as his/her prior post?

by **sailorseal** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:24 pm

He just beat you, why does when ever anyone gets beat they go and post the person here?

by **king achilles** on Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:37 am

I don't know what the report is all about but ricklldo is cleared of being a multi. He was getting bonus troops from the regions he has occupied. If you have any evidence that he is able to produce his own troops, hack the combat intensity levels, etc. just to win a game, then this is already more than just a cheating and abuse case.