Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
torres44cm wrote:Waaa, Waaa, someone didn't play how i wanted them to play!!!
milo67 wrote:It was a move which would help me further down the line in the tourney.
jfm10 wrote:This was a tournament not just a regular game.I am really interested in seeing how CC handles this before I play any tournaments.
owenshooter wrote:jfm10 wrote:This was a tournament not just a regular game.I am really interested in seeing how CC handles this before I play any tournaments.
you should hang out in C&A more often. it has already been dealt with before. he made a move to move forward in the tournament, it is not against the rules. period. they set that precedent almost a year ago in a mega blockbuster case. you should use the forums more often. i don't even think you could punish someone in a regular game for suiciding into one player over the other for whatever reason they have in their heads... fact is, he did it to move on in the tournament, it worked, CC has ruled prior that this is not a rule violation. precedent was set. nothing to see here, move on... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir
nothing to see here!! move on!!
eddie2 wrote:Owen this ones not that. He seen torres as more dangerous than the others(making truces) so decided to take him out as he had already qualified. This is the good thing about auto tourneys. Lets u know game by game who u can eliminate that might be more dangerous later on.
torres44cm wrote:
torres44cm wrote:If the Mods say there is no violation, fine. But the issue is he had no chance of winning, and it being the last rnd, he suicided to ensure the player in 3rd position wins. since all our troop counts were so close, any attack milo did to me did not help himself, he stated his intend to make sure i didn't win as if he preferred player 3 to win. He also tried to say he didn't read it right, but he knew his actions would throw the game so player who had already played his last turn would win be default . there have been other complaints about throwing a game, so guess suiciding is ok, just throw good sportsmanship out the window. Milo had no benefit of improving his position in the tournament or winning this game, and he didn't eliminate me as someone mentioned, might as well close this complaint case, cause I'm just hearing excuses that poor sportsmanship is ok.
milo67 wrote:It prevented him from going to the next round. And, yes, that's a BS excuse. Here's what happened, all legit-like. It was down to three players, no escalating spoils, Classic map, mostly balanced. I'm ahead, but there's like 10-20 rounds out of 50 left. Torres concocts his little plan to chip away at my lead, and I respond with, "I mean, if it comes down to it, whichever one of you pisses me off the least will win". Which is true in a typical 3-person Mexican standoff. You can't do anything to guarantee a win, but you CAN guarantee someone loses. Anyway, fast forward to Round 50. (I am last to play each round) I deploy my troops and find I am 1 troop shy of a victory. Now, I have two choices. (A) End my turn and definitely lose, or (B) I can keep single assaulting, and, if I'm lucky, take more troops from than I lose and come away with a victory. So, that's what I start doing. 30 troops later I realize I put us both so far behind Deano that we both lost. Big deal. Doesn't matter anyway. It was one game, and nowhere in the rules, ever, has it ever said you cannot do that. If I serially followed him, and tanked all his games he MIGHT have a harassment complaint, but he doesn't. He can blacklist me and we can all move on. You should punish him for wasting your time.
Shannon Apple wrote:Just go away and leave Torres alone, Owen, and quit being a bully.
Shannon Apple wrote:Torres is completely within his rights to make a complaint if he believes something happened that goes against the spirit of the game. While the mods might decide that there is nothing to see here and tell them to foe each other, that is fine. They have to be consistent in these things.
There is absolutely no call for sad little trolls to keep posting and calling the OP a crybaby. That's part of what is wrong with this site and why it is dying. There is no respect for other users. Just go away and leave Torres alone, Owen, and quit being a bully.
clangfield wrote:Shannon Apple wrote:Torres is completely within his rights to make a complaint if he believes something happened that goes against the spirit of the game. While the mods might decide that there is nothing to see here and tell them to foe each other, that is fine. They have to be consistent in these things.
There is absolutely no call for sad little trolls to keep posting and calling the OP a crybaby. That's part of what is wrong with this site and why it is dying. There is no respect for other users. Just go away and leave Torres alone, Owen, and quit being a bully.
+ 1 Googol
I don't even need to read the response to this, one can guarantee it will contain the same, tired old cliches, out of date references, machismo and egotism. So glad to have the foe list.
If someone's wrong, just explain why, don't insult them, and keep it respectful and relevant. It's really not that hard if you try, and the forum is a much more constructive and useful place for it.
king achilles wrote:Round limit games when it comes down to the last round and one attack can change who will be the victor, if that indeed happens, the game usually ends up being reported. I'm not a fan of cases like this.![]()
As I said before, reports, no matter how similar they look like, are not always in black & white so we need to evaluate the situation before we make a decision.
If you have a chance to get a victory in that final round, why wouldn't you take it? Looking at the game, we are seeing 3 digit troops from the remaining 3 players. If that final round was the 49th round, should red, with 271 troops, or green, with 272 troops, just lay still on the final round and not take that chance to attack yellow? If that attack resulted in yellow and the attacker going down, should it be yellow's turn to report the attacker of game throwing? Is there a rule of thumb that once you know what it looks like in the 2nd-to-the-last round, and you're chances of winning is slim, should you just stand by in the final round and congratulate the 'expecting' winner or else you will be violating something and needs to be punished because you ruined someone's expected victory?
After reading both arguments, I would say that both sides have a justifiable reasoning but I will still note this report based from what was said:milo67 wrote:It prevented him from going to the next round. And, yes, that's a BS excuse. Here's what happened, all legit-like. It was down to three players, no escalating spoils, Classic map, mostly balanced. I'm ahead, but there's like 10-20 rounds out of 50 left. Torres concocts his little plan to chip away at my lead, and I respond with, "I mean, if it comes down to it, whichever one of you pisses me off the least will win". Which is true in a typical 3-person Mexican standoff. You can't do anything to guarantee a win, but you CAN guarantee someone loses. Anyway, fast forward to Round 50. (I am last to play each round) I deploy my troops and find I am 1 troop shy of a victory. Now, I have two choices. (A) End my turn and definitely lose, or (B) I can keep single assaulting, and, if I'm lucky, take more troops from than I lose and come away with a victory. So, that's what I start doing. 30 troops later I realize I put us both so far behind Deano that we both lost. Big deal. Doesn't matter anyway. It was one game, and nowhere in the rules, ever, has it ever said you cannot do that. If I serially followed him, and tanked all his games he MIGHT have a harassment complaint, but he doesn't. He can blacklist me and we can all move on. You should punish him for wasting your time.
milo67 wrote:king achilles wrote:(a whole bunch of this)
After reading both arguments, I would say that both sides have a justifiable reasoning but I will still note this report based from what was said:milo67 wrote:It prevented him from going to the next round. And, yes, that's a BS excuse. Here's what happened, all legit-like. It was down to three players, no escalating spoils, Classic map, mostly balanced. I'm ahead, but there's like 10-20 rounds out of 50 left. Torres concocts his little plan to chip away at my lead, and I respond with, "I mean, if it comes down to it, whichever one of you pisses me off the least will win". Which is true in a typical 3-person Mexican standoff. You can't do anything to guarantee a win, but you CAN guarantee someone loses. Anyway, fast forward to Round 50. (I am last to play each round) I deploy my troops and find I am 1 troop shy of a victory. Now, I have two choices. (A) End my turn and definitely lose, or (B) I can keep single assaulting, and, if I'm lucky, take more troops from than I lose and come away with a victory. So, that's what I start doing. 30 troops later I realize I put us both so far behind Deano that we both lost. Big deal. Doesn't matter anyway. It was one game, and nowhere in the rules, ever, has it ever said you cannot do that. If I serially followed him, and tanked all his games he MIGHT have a harassment complaint, but he doesn't. He can blacklist me and we can all move on. You should punish him for wasting your time.
My response stated above, its two=part.
First, the part which ends with what you outlined in Blue, was an admission that I did say that. I know it implies a pending suicide, but, it was not a promise.
Second, the second part, is actually what transpired in the final round. I deployed and found I was one troops shy. Knowing there's a 35% of the defender losing two, in a 3v2 attack, I assaulted. 1-1. Now I'm down by 2. Assaults continued, down by 1, by 3, by 5, by 3, by 2, by 4, and so and so on.
What I'm really confused about is how someone having a few thousand games under his belt can act like this is the first time he's ever seen this.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users