thehunstman, jesuso 1, osok68 - Not cheating just unfair

by **ntcbadabing** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:06 am

Accused:

thehunstman
jesuso 1
osok68

The accused are suspected of:
I'd like to start by saying I do not believe their intent is to cheat or to break rules but this situation seems unfair to me.
Game #13031073 started as an 8-man unlimited round game. 5 (including me) have been eliminated leaving the above three. The remaining three have decided the game is going on too long (round 125) so they agreed to start another game for just those 3 with a 100 round limit. They have agreed the winner of the new 3-man game will also win the original 8-man unlimited rounds game. I believe this to be unfair because if the 5 of us that have been eliminated knew there would be a separate game started when it was down to 3, we may have played differently. Plus, just in general, games are made with rules and they should be finished by the same set of rules they start with otherwise you never know what game you're playing.
Also, when the winner of the new 3-man game gets to win the other game, this could qualify as intentionally throwing and benefiting from a thrown game.
Like I said, I don't believe their intent is to cheat or to be unfair, but in my opinion, it is.. lol.
I tried talking to them about it in game and the response I got is why do you care..
Thank you for taking the time to review..

Game number(s):

Game 13031073 -This is the original 8-man game
Game 13688731 -This is the new 3-man game
[game]xxxxxxx[/game]
[game]xxxxxxx[/game]

Comments:

by **iAmCaffeine** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:22 am

It's not uncommon for a stalemate to be settled in a separate game between the survivors. If you wanted to be part of that then you shouldn't have been eliminated from the original game. Life's tough huh.

by **ntcbadabing** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:38 am

If they wanted a 3-man 100 round limit game, that's what they should have played. It's not my fault their life became tougher than they could handle, huh?

by **iAmCaffeine** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:44 am

Just telling you how it is, nothing will happen here.

by **ntcbadabing** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:49 am

Ah.. well this is the first time I've come across this and just assumed it would be against the rules. If it's not, at least I learned something.. there's been games I wish I could have ended with a new game but instead I try to either manipulate / instigate thru the chat or pick at a players troops where he might think it's another opponent.. etc.. many ways to solve a 'stalemate' but I guess some people just aren't smart enough so they do the dumbest thing and put more time in to it.. lol

by **Koganosi** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:35 pm

There is so much of these had a few once myself in all these years, especially when round limit werent made yet.

Its not intentional throwing caus its agreed on, those guys are the only survivors and all agree on it so it is kinda legal, but indeed it looks like intentional throwing!

They wont get banned or warned I quess or whatever. If that will happen its gonna be funny, since there is tons of these games to find!

Urs

Koganosi

by **ntcbadabing** on Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:10 pm

Like I said, I don't believe their intent is to gain in that way and I'm not looking for them to get in trouble or anything.. to me it's more of a etiquette thing or sportsmanship thing. Could you imagine if in the middle of the Super Bowl or any other competitive sport, both teams just agreed we'll settle this in an unrelated game with a different set of rules? Oh well.. looks like I'm the odd ball here, lol.. but, now I know! Although I do have to say I think it takes away from the gaming experience if players are allowed to change the rules of how the game is won at any time.. Thanks for the replies and good luck conquering!

by **Koganosi** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:08 pm

ntcbadabing wrote:Like I said, I don't believe their intent is to gain in that way and I'm not looking for them to get in trouble or anything.. to me it's more of a etiquette thing or sportsmanship thing. Could you imagine if in the middle of the Super Bowl or any other competitive sport, both teams just agreed we'll settle this in an unrelated game with a different set of rules? Oh well.. looks like I'm the odd ball here, lol.. but, now I know! Although I do have to say I think it takes away from the gaming experience if players are allowed to change the rules of how the game is won at any time.. Thanks for the replies and good luck conquering!

Though the Super Bowl has a limit

! And will end in the end.

The thing is with this game it doesnt have an end. Neither do the people who are playing it, and even me, no end to it. The thing what most likely will happen is or 1 suicide into someone and give the other the one and 1 will cry. People will deadbeat in the end caus of vacations, quitting, whatever or last one they settle it with some sort of tiebreaker, which they are doing now.

Urs

Koganosi

by **ntcbadabing** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:53 pm

Kago, isn't that the purpose of an unlimited rounds game? If a player doesn't want to get stuck in that situation, there is no need to join unlimited rounds games. If you do join unlimited rounds games, you shouldn't expect to end the game with a limited rounds game.. that's my entire point lol. Just like the super bowl has a tie breaker which extends the time until one wins, but that's known up front before the game starts, it isn't a made up rule as they go.. so basically unlimited rounds has no meaning here because not only is it not against the rules to throw the game based on a limited rounds game (even though its against the rules to throw games or benefit from a thrown game) but the players also seem to agree there is no value to unlimited rounds games. Which is fine, but I do believe there should be some rule or change unlimited rounds to 200 or 300 or 500 or something.. because unlimited is not unlimited, apparently.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:56 pm

If this happened spontaneously then it's still fine. Your argument about playing differently if you had known about the decider game would have been valid if they had been planning all along to get to this point (in which case they would be guilty of secret diplomacy). If the three-player stalemate happened organically and only at that point was the decider game determined, then what they're doing is fine. It's probably better all around than someone suiciding :-)

by **jghost7** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:If this happened spontaneously then it's still fine. Your argument about playing differently if you had known about the decider game would have been valid if they had been planning all along to get to this point (in which case they would be guilty of secret diplomacy). If the three-player stalemate happened organically and only at that point was the decider game determined, then what they're doing is fine. It's probably better all around than someone suiciding

Koganosi wrote:...
Its not intentional throwing caus its agreed on, those guys are the only survivors and all agree on it so it is kinda legal, but indeed it looks like intentional throwing!....
Urs

Koganosi

@metz - Not sure about that. I know this sort of occurrence is semi-common, however I do not believe it follows the rules. Someone is benefiting from a thrown game, and two people are throwing games. That, simply stated, is against the rules.

@kog - technically it would be a thrown game. They applied that to thecrowns verdict, whereas the opponent agreed to be a hostage for him, it was still ruled illegal. It should be the same here, although it is not likely to happen.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:39 pm

jghost7 wrote:@metz - Not sure about that. I know this sort of occurrence is semi-common, however I do not believe it follows the rules. Someone is benefiting from a thrown game, and two people are throwing games. That, simply stated, is against the rules.

There are many occurrences of tie-breaking games being reported in this forum, and not being punished. The tie-breaker method is technically game-throwing but the C&A staff has decided that it is not game-throwing in spirit. I'm not aware of instances in which people have been punished for it as long as all active players agreed to the tie-breaker game.

by **jghost7** on Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:14 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
jghost7 wrote:@metz - Not sure about that. I know this sort of occurrence is semi-common, however I do not believe it follows the rules. Someone is benefiting from a thrown game, and two people are throwing games. That, simply stated, is against the rules.

There are many occurrences of tie-breaking games being reported in this forum, and not being punished. The tie-breaker method is technically game-throwing but the C&A staff has decided that it is not game-throwing in spirit. I'm not aware of instances in which people have been punished for it as long as all active players agreed to the tie-breaker game.

I understand that. But I do think it should be discouraged as it goes against the stated rules and there are round limits available to be put on any games now.

Besides if they draw hard lines with some rules but blur the lines with others, it just leads to more confusion and discontent later.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:25 am

It is discouraged really; everyone wants to win but if there is a stalemate it's a decent solution. Not one I'd use personally but it's better than a high ranked player suiciding a striper so that they lose less points, which is a lot more common.

by **ntcbadabing** on Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:24 pm

It's not even a stalemate.. to me, it's just part of an unlimited rounds game. Sometimes those games turn in to a test of patience and as I stated above, there are things you can do to try to change the game up. A stalemate, by definition, is when a game cannot be won by any action by any player. This game doesn't even qualify as a stalemate. I play almost exclusively unlimited rounds games because I want the games I play to end based purely on the players strategies, not a time limit. It is discouraging to learn that unlimited rounds games are not enforced here. To me, it devalues the entire purpose of unlimited rounds option. And in the specific game I'm talking about, one of three was pretty reluctant, even stated he did not like limited rounds games. Why he agreed to it is beyond me, I will never agree to starting a limited rounds game to determine the winner of an unlimited rounds game.. but I'm the kind of guy who believes a winner of a strategy based competitive game should be determined by the rules of the game, and who can best play within those rules.

by **king achilles** on Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:23 pm

When was the last player eliminated? In October when cyan was eliminated in round 62. When was a game decider agreed upon? this month of December in round 131. They can either build and build and let the game go on for as long as they can or make a decider game to find a resolution on how to end the game in question.

This looks like an isolated case and was not planned right from the start so I will allow this. Decider games can be an option if the game is indeed in a deadlock situation and has been like that for quite some time. This can not be allowed if this becomes a regular practice to other games as well or if another decider game is made again.

Do take note that decider games are just like diplomacy in game - people can always not honor what the players have agreed upon, so do it at your own risk.