Conquer Club

The accused are suspected of: intentional game throwing



Game number(s):https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=19979006


Comments: last round of the game pnc has 36 troops total cashes set auto attacks my stack giving the game to westbo. he had zero chance to win and tossed the game to another player it really does not get more blatant then this. personally this is a contributing factor driving players from cc club when a player out right hands 12 player game up.

i foed and will move on nothing will come of this but i can say i see the argument from both sides , pnc is a paying member and played how he saw fit . as the site is trying to stop the game throwing here is the most obvious case of it . there is zero doubt pnc took my troop count down so westbo could win with zero shot at a personal victory. if the site is trying to stop this send the message here but to just warn or note really isnt going to stop it. players are leaving this site over this issue i can see why when u out play 11 ppl and some clown throws the game


zeus111

the accused was walled a direct link to respond

Hi Zeus,

I feel sorry about your bitterness.
I knew i could not win this game. I was the last player to take a turn in this game as we had reached round #20.
All I could do was to reduce my point loss, so i let westbo win as he has a way higher ranking than yours.
I don't think that tactic breaks any CC rule in any way.
I do not even see my action as unfair or unethical in any way either (unlike a truce breaking for instance). This is just a strategy, and you do not have to be a sore loser. Anger management bro

Cheers,

PnC

lmao angry nope but as the site is clamping down on this i posted it . i feel in a way ya can play how ever ya wish it was a game changing move handing the game to westbo a major at the time so ya tossed the game for 7 points but thanks for honesty . cc admin can now see this for exactly what it is intentional game throwing . what ya dont seem to grasp is its this exact style of play is running players away precedent has been set on this on viewtopic.php?f=239&t=232202&start=50

by king achilles on Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:54 pm
yes, I agree that no one is obligated to let anyone win a game and that you are there to kill one another. However, this must be guided under the principle that you must play to win. If there was a small difference, it would be completely fine to attack any other players if you thought you even had any type of chance of winning..

as you can see you violated this rule and intentionally through the game from your own very words

I knew i could not win this game. I was the last player to take a turn in this game as we had reached round #20.
All I could do was to reduce my point loss, so i let westbo win as he has a way higher ranking than yours.


open and shut case here major to captain 7 points difference . by the accused own admission he knew he could not win so he through the game to a higher rank and calls it strategy.

2020-06-26 20:42:27 - PnC lost 15 points had i won he lost 22 points so this member for 7 points


zeus111

OK i now got your point and will therefore clarify :

We played a terminator game with round limit. That is a very specific mode where some unsual moves are accepted by practice (suicidal moves by example when they aim at point grabbing). Wining a terminator game means ending with a positive balance. Losing that game means ending with a negative balance.

Now let me feed you with some stats from the log too : "PnC scored 4 points in this game"
If i had not make that move, i would have lost 7 more points and therefore my total on this terminator game would have been -3.
See, i played to win, and btw, it worked !

I hope i will explicitly be backed up by moderators here.

Maybe some people are leaving because of sore losers and complainers who knows.

PnC wrote:It's a terminator game, so it's all about point grabbing.
I will feed you some stats from the log too : "PnC scored 4 points in this game"
If i had not make that move, i would have lost 7 more points and therefore my total on this terminator game would have been -3.
See, it happens to be the difference between losing and winning in a terminator game, and it therefore demonstrate clearly that my last move was a move objective was to win (which by the way worked).
I'm not saying that. Math does.

stick to one story dude you go from i knew i had no chance to win so i tossed game to high rank to the above babel. dont worry nothing will happen to ya here a warning gets issued and move on.again i dont agree with the rule 100 percent but this was so obviously intentional game tossing as you put it to a higher rank. last round again in your own words zero chance of winning,you attacked me with the intent of making me lose .


zeus111 out

I think you should also complain and foe tonyjot who suicide to take one guy on that round 20. That move wasn't a play to win move huh ?
I do not worry about anything, i am just pissed with sore losers and complainers like you who make their BS claims public and embarrass both themselves and others.
I won that game and you lost it. that is not babel, that is fact. yeah zeus out.

This type of game-play is par for conquer club. And is the reason why I generally stick to 2-player games, then I don't get stuck with dip-shits auto-clicking my stack just because it is the closest.

I regularly see this game-play in almost every 12-player game I played, with one dipshit handing the game to the next dipshit. The multi's are rampant, and then they get cleared!

Being that PnC was playing in a manner to minimize point loss, it seems fair to me!

Reading this thread, I just wanted to say that it's a crappy thing to do for the sake of just 7 points. One win and you'd have those points back and then some. You play against a player of similar rank and win, you get 20 points. I would never see 7 points as worth it in this kind of situation.

All of the players in that game are of similar rank. I don't play these type of games anymore. But, we used to have a large opt-in PM list of 2000+ players for these kinds of games (term or standard esc) specifically to prevent this type of behaviour (as well as the behaviour where highest rank gets targeted first). Is this game not also a private game, given the points range of the players?

Bunch of whiny bitches. Guy played the game the way he wanted to play it. What would have been a satisfactory reason for him to attack? What round would it have been acceptable? This is why people leave. Because you want to legislate how, when, why someone can attack. You don't like how someone plays? Then foe them and move on. In this case it's even more ridiculous - a terminator game in which he has an opportunity to not lose points. Points, by the way, that are the overarching point of the whole GD thing.

I would never see 7 points as worth it in this kind of situation.

This doesn't matter because PnC DID see the 7 points as worth it and since you don't speak for the motivations of others, this is a completely invalid and useless statement.

Some of you seem like you want a pinned list of acceptable reasons and situations that a player can attack, with #1 on the list being "Cannot attack me". If you don't like that points influence how some players play, then I think you're in the wrong place. Never change, PnC.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:Bunch of whiny bitches. Guy played the game the way he wanted to play it. What would have been a satisfactory reason for him to attack? What round would it have been acceptable? This is why people leave. Because you want to legislate how, when, why someone can attack. You don't like how someone plays? Then foe them and move on. In this case it's even more ridiculous - a terminator game in which he has an opportunity to not lose points. Points, by the way, that are the overarching point of the whole GD thing.

I would never see 7 points as worth it in this kind of situation.

This doesn't matter because PnC DID see the 7 points as worth it and since you don't speak for the motivations of others, this is a completely invalid and useless statement.

Some of you seem like you want a pinned list of acceptable reasons and situations that a player can attack, with #1 on the list being "Cannot attack me". If you don't like that points influence how some players play, then I think you're in the wrong place. Never change, PnC.

enough of the name calling nut shot scott this rule was set because of the leader of your clan reported a member b60000 for doing this very thing to him . its against the rules so as your opinion is worthless here thanks for stopping by . facts here are clear the game was tossed to avoid 7 point loss .funny when caff reported a member for this issue ya were not in that thread name calling , this coming from the biggest whiner on site when dice dont go his way and is some what comical . thank caff for this the leader of your clan just lol if ya cant win the game ya cant in a final round cause another to lose regardless of the situation its been deemed intentional game throwing its as simple as that

Shannon Apple wrote:Reading this thread, I just wanted to say that it's a crappy thing to do for the sake of just 7 points. One win and you'd have those points back and then some. You play against a player of similar rank and win, you get 20 points. I would never see 7 points as worth it in this kind of situation.

All of the players in that game are of similar rank. I don't play these type of games anymore. But, we used to have a large opt-in PM list of 2000+ players for these kinds of games (term or standard esc) specifically to prevent this type of behaviour (as well as the behaviour where highest rank gets targeted first). Is this game not also a private game, given the points range of the players?

this is a real big reason ppl are leaving site the games are all too often tossed to a m8 if they cant win secretly or blatant players who toss games like this are showing site members the integrity in our games has left. this wasnt a private game but a few more reached out and foed PnC as well for this action.

YukFoo wrote:This type of game-play is par for conquer club. And is the reason why I generally stick to 2-player games, then I don't get stuck with dip-shits auto-clicking my stack just because it is the closest.

I regularly see this game-play in almost every 12-player game I played, with one dipshit handing the game to the next dipshit. The multi's are rampant, and then they get cleared!

Being that PnC was playing in a manner to minimize point loss, it seems fair to me!

its not suppose to be typical yf players are asked to play straight up not toss games they had zero shot of winning to another. it was and is just a total prick move most all will tell you i dont dis agree with the rule but do think a player should be able to play as they see fit. pnc will try and twist his story like he is now he is foed and i have moved on. will say this its best to avoid players who toss games sad being so new to site you speak of this play as a site norm i can assure ya with dam close to ten years on here it has not been the norm . they are isolated rare cases as the vast majority play with honor and integrity


be well all try and have a great summer

zeus111

PnC wrote:OK i now got your point and will therefore clarify :

We played a terminator game with round limit. That is a very specific mode where some unsual moves are accepted by practice (suicidal moves by example when they aim at point grabbing). Wining a terminator game means ending with a positive balance. Losing that game means ending with a negative balance.

Now let me feed you with some stats from the log too : "PnC scored 4 points in this game"
If i had not make that move, i would have lost 7 more points and therefore my total on this terminator game would have been -3.
See, i played to win, and btw, it worked !

I hope i will explicitly be backed up by moderators here.

Maybe some people are leaving because of sore losers and complainers who knows.

lmfao wow ya can sure spin some bs remember this comment

Re: PnC

Postby PnC on Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:12 am
Hi Zeus,

I feel sorry about your bitterness.
I knew i could not win this game to i played to win, and btw, it worked !





last round no shot at winning ya attacked so another would lose throwing the game as you state to a higher rank its been deemed a violation sory ya cant grasp that concept , now comes the real reason ya dont like zeus for reporting ppl saw a shot at me took it rest is just more of your psycho babel dude . you took your shot tossed a game to westbo and are guilty as shit here . if site really cares about the issue they ban ya for 48 hours to show members who toss games its not cool . but it will just get noted and we al move on


save the bs be real at least


zeus111

Nut Shot Scott wrote:
Some of you seem like you want a pinned list of acceptable reasons and situations that a player can attack, with #1 on the list being "Cannot attack me". If you don't like that points influence how some players play, then I think you're in the wrong place. Never change, PnC.

No, No I don't. I don't think it's report worthy, but I do think it is foe worthy. I have as much right to my opinion as you have yours. I didn't say I was trying to change anything, I only stated my opinion that it was a crappy thing to do. Where did I say that he should be reprimanded.

@Zeus: Quitting the game over this is a bit dramatic (if people are actually doing that.) My advice to you is to get a list of people who disagree with these kind of tactics and are within a specific score range like 1800+, 2000+ or whatever and set up a new PM list. The old one had like 100+ players on it. As I said, it wasn't for this tactic, but for the other tactic of noobs taking out the highest rank first, or attempting to (either way, preventing that person from having any chance of scoring in a public game). We used to create private games and PM the password out. People can still play their public games, but people who want to exclude certain behaviour can do that. Then there is no fighting, reporting, foeing or anything like that going on. Everyone's happy.

its not a rule i agree with one should be able to play as they see fit. i do see why it is a rule however and we should start sending solid messages to ppl rules are not guidelines if you break one of the few site has take whats coming from admin . yes players are and have left site for this very reason. players play there best to win and some jerk throws the game its as one member puts it its now common place these daze. so i felt the need to post this for two reasons one expose the member so all can see his style of play [or lack there of ] 2 to help site send a message to throw games in not tolerated on site , members feel game throwing needs to be addressed so lets address it and send the message loud and clear to those who play this way its not acceptable ,.

like i said i have foed PnC gladly mind ya no time for his crap in chat or game play . i did get a good lol at him from the comments here like i had no shot to win to him saying he won ect ... its clear he has zero moral fiber and will spin a story when accused of cheating / breaking the rules .

again be safe and well all

If conquer club doesn't want you attacking certain players, then conquer club should limit the amount of clicks your mouse is able to make!

As far as I am concerned, if your mouse can click the move, then the move is fair game.

If the move is illegal, then conquer club should make it so you cannot make the move.

Each player has as equal an opportunity to auto-click or attack whoever they want. If you don't like the moves certain players make, that is what the FOE button is for. You can FOE dirty bitches with stink-pussies.

when are you leaving again, zeke?

riskllama wrote:when are you leaving again, zeke?

nice to see 90 day holiday from posting in forums really made an impact . when or why or if i leave cc club is of zero consequence to you why u find the need to constantly belittle our sites members by trolling ppls posts and post outright nonsense almost goating members to leave site llama=troll we get it lifes not so good for you so you feel the need to spread toxic dribble in all places on site , oh snap i forgot your part of that secret group who can do and say as they wish with no recourse

why not follow an old but good rule if ya have nothing nice to say say nothing

huh? i asked you a simple question, which you failed to even come close to answering...

zeus111 wrote:nice to see 90 day holiday from posting in forums really made an impact

Why would it?? Bans don't work unless you ban them!

Once they get out of jail, they go right back in! The death penalty works.

YukFoo wrote:

zeus111 wrote:nice to see 90 day holiday from posting in forums really made an impact

Why would it?? Bans don't work unless you ban them!

Once they get out of jail, they go right back in! The death penalty works.

point here was llama just likes to antagonize members rather then just mind his own business he is not at the perma ban stage but i may lobby for 6 months no forum posts to give us all another break from the see ya caff s waves bye or the when ya leaving zeke ect will take a few mins in a bit here look at the posts left after his ban of 90 days . the best 90 days in forums i may add

zeus dont worry about it. you make way more than that llama nonce ever gonna see in his bank anyway.

pnc did a shitty thing but its not punishable imo.

PnC wrote:Hi Zeus,

I feel sorry about your bitterness.
I knew i could not win this game. I was the last player to take a turn in this game as we had reached round #20.
All I could do was to reduce my point loss, so i let westbo win as he has a way higher ranking than yours.
I don't think that tactic breaks any CC rule in any way.
I do not even see my action as unfair or unethical in any way either (unlike a truce breaking for instance). This is just a strategy, and you do not have to be a sore loser. Anger management bro

Cheers,

PnC

With this logic, anyone who is in the lowest rank in your game, if it comes to a situation where he is about to win or has a great advantage to win, you will do something to not let it happen so you could lose less points?

Or simply put, losing less points makes a valid reason to throw a game?

king achilles wrote:

PnC wrote:Hi Zeus,

I feel sorry about your bitterness.
I knew i could not win this game. I was the last player to take a turn in this game as we had reached round #20.
All I could do was to reduce my point loss, so i let westbo win as he has a way higher ranking than yours.
I don't think that tactic breaks any CC rule in any way.
I do not even see my action as unfair or unethical in any way either (unlike a truce breaking for instance). This is just a strategy, and you do not have to be a sore loser. Anger management bro

Cheers,

PnC

With this logic, anyone who is in the lowest rank in your game, if it comes to a situation where he is about to win or has a great advantage to win, you will do something to not let it happen so you could lose less points?

Or simply put, losing less points makes a valid reason to throw a game?

seems to be the norm, yep - at least since i've been around.