Conquer Club

Accused:

mckelley69


The accusation here is suiciding - which the player (green side) in question admits to on my wall - but I would appreciate it if mods could look into whether or not there was any private communication between mckelley69 and TU MAMA CALATA in this game.

The former asked the latter (who I hesitate to even mention here) for a "truce" in game chat and there was no response.

I'm more inclined to the think the latter simply did not respond (profile and a couple of forum posts indicates Spanish speaker. May simply ignore game chats) than anything else but would still appreciate it if mods can check to see if there may have been any private communication if possible.

The two did play in a way that very rarely involved attacking each other in a meaningful way throughout most of the game (even when one had a heavy advantage on the other's border - the last example being right up to the end when T_M_C attacked Dakar to Sao Paulo and stopped there with 10 troops before reinforcing with 12 more at the end of his turn. Mckelley69 only had 1 on Mexico City and 1 on Bogota. It would've made perfect sense to attack to Mexico city to take mckelley69's North America bonus to reduce the number of troops the latter could respond with but he chose not to. And it appears that he chose right - as with most of the game mckelley69 did not use the troops gained to attack him meaningfully, instead turning his attention to me). But I readily grant that it could merely be play style.

So in a nutshell mckelley69 started his final turn with more troops than anyone. 51 + 9 bonus with T_M_C and I in the 40s.

Mckelley69 had been controlling the Americas for much of the game. He started his turn with 60 in North America and in an excellent position to reinforce his borders there (blue had just spread himself paper thin taking out the 4th side, he had 2 troops on Reykjavik for example to mckelley69's 24 on Montreal). Again he's got more troops than anyone and there are no forces whatsoever amassed against either Anchorage (1 to 15) or Montreal (2 to 24).

What he does instead is load up on Anchorage (15 + 9 to make 24) and attack from there and and Montreal (24) down to Bankgkok to whittle my (35) stack down to 12. Depleting his entire forces in the process, the sole motivation being to weaken me for an easy kill by T_M_C (blue).

As obvious as it were, he confirmed such on my wall.



Game number(s):

Game 20304370

How the board looked just prior to Mckelley69's final turn in which he loaded up on Anchorage and attacked from both there and Reykjavik down to Bangkok to whittle my stack there and weaken me for blue, exhausting his entire forces in the process. Note that he had 51 troops on the board and started his turn with a 9 bonus. More troops than either of the other two players in the game and an excellent chance of winning.

He decided instead that the game had gone on long enough, and that ensuring my loss was far more important than securing his own victory.

Confirmation:

(P.S. - the idea that he purportedly felt "ganged up on" is truly astonishing, perhaps downright delusional. A few rounds prior he had amassed over 80 troops with no one else having much more than 50 by collecting bonuses for the Americas, north and south, turn after turn after turn. Blue repeatedly failed to attack him even with a heavy advantage such as 26 on Reykjavik to 12 on Montreal, 10 on Sao Paulo to 1 each on Bogota and Mexico City. At times blue even, albeit perhaps unintentionally, ran interference stacking on Dakar but failing to attack mckelley69 while also preventing me from doing so from Nairobi. I controlled Aus and little more. The only reason mckelley69's numbers were whittled down from his heavy advantage is because, having little need to defend his Eastern borders thanks to blue, he loaded up on Anchorage and attacked both yellow (who had been reduced to a single stack he gradually built to 45 troops in Yakutsk when mckelley69 attacked him) and I in Asia just a couple of turns prior. For my part I was forced to play an extremely defensive game due to yellow stacking in the north looking like he was just waiting for the right time to take OZ and blue and green building fast by ahem *respecting* each other's borders).

I have to admit I actually find the way he admits suiciding while cheerfully expressing a desire to play again and informing me that he likes my username to be a bit irksome.

He tipped the board of what I considered to be a very good game to that point and in doing so not only exhibited extremely poor sportsmanship, but flagrantly violated the rules of the game.

I've been suicided into before by players who were clearly underdogs at the time (and never reported) but never have I seen someone so clearly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I guess at the end of the day, that's the real punishment. Being the Conquer Club equivalent of a toddler who smashes the board when his energy levels and attention span have both been exhausted - and having the points/ranking to show for it.

You're going to "win" this complaint and generate a warning because of the wall post but it's lame. Three player flat rate stalemates suck. Especially on that map. Eventually, someone does something that allows one of other two to win.

And who 'frowns' upon truces? Welcome to flat rate games.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:You're going to "win" this complaint and generate a warning because of the wall post but it's lame. Three player flat rate stalemates suck. Especially on that map. Eventually, someone does something that allows one of other two to win.

And who 'frowns' upon truces? Welcome to flat rate games.

Thank you for your reply. There was no stalemate nor (do I believe) would there have been. Haven't seen one in the 70+ (mostly 4 player - as was this one) flat rate games I've played on this map. Only a very small handful have gone into a relatively high number of rounds, but I wouldn't call any of them stalemates but rather good, strategic games that lasted awhile. Feel free to peruse my history for any I may have missed.

One side had JUST been eliminated in the previous round. The side that did the eliminating (blue/T_M_C - the side that for much of the game was content to let mckelley69 get bonuses for the Americas in exchange for his own in Europe and later Africa) only had 40-smth troops to the board flippers' 60 and was spread paper thin across the map. I only controlled Aus./less than 12 territories (40-smth troops) total.

Not only was there was nothing even remotely approaching a stalemate here (things were in a state of flux, there had just been dramatic change), but a halfway decent player absolutely could have won had they taken control of mckelley69's side. That's the worst part of it.

Not that I was cheated out of a potentially winnable game, though I very clearly was (and the rules say you can't benefit from someone suiciding - but how is that possible for blue?), but that the guy who did it had every opportunity in the world to win instead.

And re: your last line. I have seen thread after thread in the forums (usually a newer player asks if the other players are cheating by forming an alliance to which the overwhelming majority of replies tend to be along the lines that they are not if all collusion/strategic discussion happens openly in game chat but it is considered weak and unsportsmanlike in single player games and that the two should be foed upon conclusion) demonstrating what I said to be a majoritarian view but will not cloud the issue here by posting links, especially as I'm quite sure you are well aware of it.

The issue here is clear suiciding/board flipping (and there may have been some collusion I don't know). Not weak alliances for weak players.

Also your objection that you find this complaint to be "lame" notwithstanding, I believe as you apparently do that it is a clear rule violation (albeit one you yourself apparently do not agree with).

And if a warning is what admins deem the appropriate response - great!

I find it totally appropriate to inform rulebreakers (especially someone relatively new to the site as is the accused and as am I - we've both played well under 100 games) when their actions go beyond unsportsmanlike behavior.

The accused probably wasn't even aware that he was breaking any rule, which would explain why he rather cheerily admitted to it.

I think letting people know when they're breaking the rules is a good idea as well as there being a record of it.

How else would the people (not the accused here but in general) who go on to demonstrate a pattern of violations be ferreted out (again you finding the complaints and/or rules to be rather lame notwithstanding)?

Cheers.

Lmao. Find me one person who thinks you should be foed for making an above board truce.

He has been warned and made aware of the rules for this one game. Feel free to rate him accordingly.