[CC8] Final: TOFU (34) vs LHDD (27) - TOFU Wins - 2/15/19

[ZaBeast]

Never said you made it, said you took advantage of it.

So far I'm at a combined 6/14 btw

Any fool can claim that a particular rule should not exist , a paranoid fool might even claim that a particular rule is designed simply to hurt them , me im just a lowly frog , I get on with the games and dont make childish excuses.

Good for you but you're not making any arguments either. Trench is as much of a game setting as the other settings and there is no reason to restrict it and not the others. I'm not just claiming it shouldn't exist, the lack of arguments on the opposing side has proven me it shouldn't.

[rockfist]

Never said you made it, said you took advantage of it.

So far I'm at a combined 6/14 btw

Any fool can claim that a particular rule should not exist , a paranoid fool might even claim that a particular rule is designed simply to hurt them , me im just a lowly frog , I get on with the games and dont make childish excuses.

Good for you but you're not making any arguments either. Trench is as much of a game setting as the other settings and there is no reason to restrict it and not the others. I'm not just claiming it shouldn't exist, the lack of arguments on the opposing side has proven me it shouldn't.

Regardless of what your record might be, there is no setting I would fear playing you on beast. Trench is just tedious and annoying against people who drag it out like your clan did in the CC6 semi finals. It’s not difficult, I’ll be 11-5 on trench against your clan in wars when this ends assuming I lose where I’m behind and win where I’m ahead. Why would I want to play a bunch of games that can be dragged out to the point that they aren’t fun? Isn’t this a game that is supposed to be fun?

[loutil]

What an apt analogy. You think of yourselves as hounds. We think of ourselves as lions.

Lions do not run from dogs, there is no need to hunt. However, you will have to take the prey from our jaws.

We'll be right here. I look forward to your attempt, but do be careful as all it takes is one swipe of the lion's paw to kill a dog.

An apt analogy, at least in your case, because you pussied out by using a rule that has no reason to exist to try get an edge by restricting our choice of homes.
And looks like a challenge to me.

Yeah....trench games really scare us .
Correct me, if I am wrong, but that rule has been in place all year for this CC tournament? If so, you are now making issue of it and using it as an excuse?

[betiko]

Ok haven’t talked about this yet but... my personal opinion is that I like a few trench games, not to the point of having 80% trench in our home games, and I don’t think we have any special edge with those settings.... I think we have a much better edge at escalating games for example.
I haven’t taken part of the whole discussion... and frankly I don’t really care about the rule or other rules in the cup.
I’d just defend my teammates that want more trench games (or nuclear or zombie, you name it). Only freestyle should be banned.
I don’t see any reason why there are restrictions on certain settings other than this... the clan community is full of old farts that don’t accept the cc world changes. The real reason why some settings are restricted, is because they are relatively new compared to others. That’s like 6 or 7 years new... and that is aparently still too new for some.
Also... trench drag wars? Well then just admit batch 1 with no restrictions in terms of settings (i would add monster maps only on batch 1) and restrictions for batch 2. Problem solved.

[Donelladan]

. Trench is just tedious and annoying against people who drag it out like your clan did in the CC6 semi finals. It’s not difficult, I’ll be 11-5 on trench against your clan in wars when this ends assuming I lose where I’m behind and win where I’m ahead. Why would I want to play a bunch of games that can be dragged out to the point that they aren’t fun? Isn’t this a game that is supposed to be fun?

First sentence is a lie, as I explained you in pm, but it shows how classy you are to repeat such a lie again.
Just FYI It's not because you think we should have give up in a game that we should have. Even if there was only 1% chance to win it was worth to try it.
Also any chance you have better arguments that one single trench game 2 years ago ?

[quote="loutil']Correct me, if I am wrong, but that rule has been in place all year for this CC tournament? If so, you are now making issue of it and using it as an excuse?[/quote]

I am correting you, you are wrong, because I have repeatedly and in several occasions complained against this rule.
And btw this rule wasn't applied in our war against OSA in the semi-finals because unlike you they agreed to get rid of it.
So no, we are not making an issued of it only just now.

Also I don't recall ZaBeast saying we might lose the war because of the 50% restrictions so no we aren't it using it as an excuse, he simply said you pussied out by making the restrictions stand, that's not the same.
And that's imo the truth.

I wasn't personnally inclined to get back on this topic, but seeing rockfist spreading some lies against my clan again slightly piss me off.
Rule were like that for the CC8, that's all, we accept it. We were a bit annoyed that you refused to lift the restrictions, I guess you know that since we asked.

[rockfist]

Don, you are the one who is not being truthful. That game was long over and you not only played it out until the bitter end you ran the clock down numerous times. You are going to come back with game log crap and I could in fact go through and post screen shots showing that the game log does not reflect the complete reality of that game.

I accept that you can drag games out. You should accept that if you do, people will be annoyed and that they aren't going to just agree to allow settings that make that easier to do. Its a simple concept, why is this difficult for you to comprehend?

[rockfist]

It looks like you may get your way for CC10 though unless clans change their minds or more clans vote. I personally think it will make the whole Cup take much longer though and that it is a huge mistake, but again that is my opinion. Why can't they just keep it for CL, that competition is stupid without that rule anyway.

[Chariot of Fire]

Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?

This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.

So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.

If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".

I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.

Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx

[Arama86n]

If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".

Love it.

Also, for the record, there is a considerable amount of people in TOFU that love trench, call it their favourite setting.
If not for certain past actions, then I believe TOFU would have come down on the other side of this vote.


"He who shits on the road will meet flies on his return."
-South African saying

[iAmCaffeine]

Feel free to correct me but you guys sound awfully salty over 1 game that you claim was dragged out roughly 2yrs ago.

[Chariot of Fire]

Feel free to correct me but you guys sound awfully salty over 1 game that you claim was dragged out roughly 2yrs ago.

Is it still being played?

[rockfist]

No Caff you are right, but dragging that one game out dragged out the start of that year's CC finals by weeks if not a month or more. I wouldn't even care about it now or bring it up at all, but they want the rules changed to a format that would make it easier for them to do that again, so it becomes relevant.

[joecoolfrog]

Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?

This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.

So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.

If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".

I think a lot of people seem to have lost touch with the original board game and its beautiful simplicity that gave birth to this site in the first place. Let's not deviate too far from those origins.

Peace and love everyone. Genuine wishes for a great year ahead xxx

This is the crucial point , people on the whole joined this site because they loved playing Risk. Membership has fallen greatly over the years and that im sure is partly because specialisation has taken the site far away from its original roots. Were I looking in for the first time today im sure I wouldn't recognise many of the games as RISK related , no doubt many newbies feel the same and simply dont bother coming back.
As they say , be carefull of what you wish for , it wont be much fun just playing amongst yourselves.

[loutil]

[quote="loutil']Correct me, if I am wrong, but that rule has been in place all year for this CC tournament? If so, you are now making issue of it and using it as an excuse?[/quote]

I am correting you, you are wrong, because I have repeatedly and in several occasions complained against this rule.
And btw this rule wasn't applied in our war against OSA in the semi-finals because unlike you they agreed to get rid of it.
So no, we are not making an issued of it only just now.

Also I don't recall ZaBeast saying we might lose the war because of the 50% restrictions so no we aren't it using it as an excuse, he simply said you pussied out by making the restrictions stand, that's not the same.
And that's imo the truth.

[/quote]

While I like CoF's response, I feel inclined to respond as well. First, I was speaking to ZaBeast and not you. He was the one who called it out in this thread and not you. Second, just because OSA agreed to change the rules in the middle of the game does not mean it sets a standard. We choose to play by the same rules that got us to the finals. Sorry if you dont like that. Make your own tournament with your own rules next time...

Further, he did basically use it as an excuse as he claimed we did not agree to the change so we could "get an edge by restricting our choice of homes". Not sure how else to interpret that comment.
Finally...you guys lead off complaining about the dice. Both in games and here in this thread. When the dice turn in your favor you switch to complaining that we tried to gain some advantage over you by not allowing the rules to be changed. I would have expected better, but that is just the way I choose to see the world. When in doubt...be nice.

[iAmCaffeine]

No Caff you are right, but dragging that one game out dragged out the start of that year's CC finals by weeks if not a month or more. I wouldn't even care about it now or bring it up at all, but they want the rules changed to a format that would make it easier for them to do that again, so it becomes relevant.

I mean, that's just stupid. The game did not affect the final result so why delay starting the next event? That itself is silly from anyone who had the authority to start the next competition. I think the vast majority would agree that Don and the rest of the core at LHDD (Mad, donche, djelebert etc.) are all upstanding individuals and, if they had prolonged a game, I think they'd have admitted to it by now. If you really want to be that upset over it, I think every clan who faced TOFU when CoF was abusing account sitting rules could also still hold a grudge, no? Yet it seems they don't.

This is the crucial point , people on the whole joined this site because they loved playing Risk. Membership has fallen greatly over the years and that im sure is partly because specialisation has taken the site far away from its original roots. Were I looking in for the first time today im sure I wouldn't recognise many of the games as RISK related , no doubt many newbies feel the same and simply dont bother coming back.
As they say , be carefull of what you wish for , it wont be much fun just playing amongst yourselves.

I agree with this sentiment, but there is also the argument that if you want to attract the younger generation, you need to add more. I'm not saying I agree but that was the reasoning behind it. Also, there has been massive support for trench, nuclear etc. The unfortunate thing is that the people who are simply looking for basic online risk are generally going to be more casual players, won't engage in forums and therefore won't be privy to current news. Essentially they don't give themselves the opportunity to comment. It's hard to cater to an unspoken voice. However I think most would agree the main cause of the landslide on CC is like of an app.

First, I was speaking to ZaBeast and not you. He was the one who called it out in this thread and not you.

I don't care about the rest of what you said but this is a stupid thing to say in a public forum. People do it all the time and it baffles me. I've done it too. Funny.

[rockfist]

No Caff you are right, but dragging that one game out dragged out the start of that year's CC finals by weeks if not a month or more. I wouldn't even care about it now or bring it up at all, but they want the rules changed to a format that would make it easier for them to do that again, so it becomes relevant.

I mean, that's just stupid. The game did not affect the final result so why delay starting the next event? That itself is silly from anyone who had the authority to start the next competition.

The long explanation is:

You had to have 28 wins secured to win the competition. We were ahead 27-25 with three games left open, including that one. The other two games were on First Nations America and were not trench games. They were somewhat competitive, but at one point late in the competition I made the observation that they were at best 15% to win one of the FNA games and at best 5% to win the other. They continued playing long after it was extremely unlikely to win the trench game (less than 5%) and that would require us to move our stacks into a position where they could attack them...so they sat and waited. Don will claim that the trench game finished before one or both of the FNA games, but the FNA games were actively being contested, while the trench game they were just holding us hostage...for what purpose I am not clear other than if they managed to pull out both of the other games they would continue the stalemate until we got impatient and advanced or forever if we did not. So, whilst the competition was really over, it wasn't officially over and the next round could not be started. It was a dick move IMO.

[iAmCaffeine]

No Caff you are right, but dragging that one game out dragged out the start of that year's CC finals by weeks if not a month or more. I wouldn't even care about it now or bring it up at all, but they want the rules changed to a format that would make it easier for them to do that again, so it becomes relevant.

I mean, that's just stupid. The game did not affect the final result so why delay starting the next event? That itself is silly from anyone who had the authority to start the next competition.

The long explanation is:

You had to have 28 wins secured to win the competition. We were ahead 27-25 with three games left open, including that one. The other two games were on First Nations America and were not trench games. They were somewhat competitive, but at one point late in the competition I made the observation that they were at best 15% to win one of the FNA games and at best 5% to win the other. They continued playing long after it was extremely unlikely to win the trench game (less than 5%) and that would require us to move our stacks into a position where they could attack them...so they sat and waited. Don will claim that the trench game finished before one or both of the FNA games, but the FNA games were actively being contested, while the trench game they were just holding us hostage...for what purpose I am not clear other than if they managed to pull out both of the other games they would continue the stalemate until we got impatient and advanced or forever if we did not. So, whilst the competition was really over, it wasn't officially over and the next round could not be started. It was a dick move IMO.

So two things I pick up on here are:

1. You say the FNA games were being contested despite them having 15% and 5% chances to win. The trench game was also a 5% chance to win. Why would the non-trench be actively contested and yet they shouldn't contest the trench game?

2. If they only had a 5% chance at winning the game I don't understand how it took so long to finish. I play a lot of FNA on trench and it's never difficult to close out a solid lead.

Either way, I hardly see the reason to be so salty over a single game for this long. You can't build an argument off the fact that LHDD are trying to have trench allowed without limits when, at least from what I've witnessed, most of the clans either agree or aren't bothered.

[rockfist]

No Caff you are right, but dragging that one game out dragged out the start of that year's CC finals by weeks if not a month or more. I wouldn't even care about it now or bring it up at all, but they want the rules changed to a format that would make it easier for them to do that again, so it becomes relevant.

I mean, that's just stupid. The game did not affect the final result so why delay starting the next event? That itself is silly from anyone who had the authority to start the next competition.

The long explanation is:

You had to have 28 wins secured to win the competition. We were ahead 27-25 with three games left open, including that one. The other two games were on First Nations America and were not trench games. They were somewhat competitive, but at one point late in the competition I made the observation that they were at best 15% to win one of the FNA games and at best 5% to win the other. They continued playing long after it was extremely unlikely to win the trench game (less than 5%) and that would require us to move our stacks into a position where they could attack them...so they sat and waited. Don will claim that the trench game finished before one or both of the FNA games, but the FNA games were actively being contested, while the trench game they were just holding us hostage...for what purpose I am not clear other than if they managed to pull out both of the other games they would continue the stalemate until we got impatient and advanced or forever if we did not. So, whilst the competition was really over, it wasn't officially over and the next round could not be started. It was a dick move IMO.

So two things I pick up on here are:

1. You say the FNA games were being contested despite them having 15% and 5% chances to win. The trench game was also a 5% chance to win. Why would the non-trench be actively contested and yet they shouldn't contest the trench game?

2. If they only had a 5% chance at winning the game I don't understand how it took so long to finish. I play a lot of FNA on trench and it's never difficult to close out a solid lead.

Either way, I hardly see the reason to be so salty over a single game for this long. You can't build an argument off the fact that LHDD are trying to have trench allowed without limits when, at least from what I've witnessed, most of the clans either agree or aren't bothered.

They had a 5% to win the trench game if we played impatiently or stupid. If we played correctly they had much less. Had that game not been a trench game it would've ended a full month before it did because we would've smashed them with attacker's dice. We did win all three of the games so we were either very lucky or there is truth to my assessment that we were well ahead in them.

FNA wasn't trench and didn't take as long to get to a decisive point as the trench game, but it could get to a decisive point...the trench game could go on almost forever without a decisive point, until they saw they lost the other games then concluded the trench game.

I'm fine with you not agreeing with my reasoning, but that doesn't mean there is no reason.

Most of the other clans are not bothered because they haven't been held hostage and most clans probably aren't likely to be, but they could be and allowing all trench makes it more possible, not less.

[Donelladan]

@joecoolfrog, you do play a lot of classic style risk ( sunny, escalating, and maps with no special feature), but you are kinda the exception in the clan world.
My point being we are way past the point where clan world can be considered close to real risk and allowing more trench or not isn't going to change that.

Correct me if I am wrong but there is a rule in place for CC8 that restricts the amount of trench games, is that right?

This rule is not one made by TOFU but by general consensus.

So how/why are we suddenly the villains in this story? We haven't tried to deviate from the established rules at all.

If a clan asked me "Hey can we make all our home games trench?" I'd say "Sure, if we can make all our home games quads".

Rule isn't really made by a general consensus. Looks at the vote on the CAT forum, unless if by general consensus you meant a general consensus several years ago.
And however funny is your sentence about quad games, the comparison doesn't hold because the 50% trench rule is clearly marked negotiable, and that's one of the only rule that is negotiable, all quad games isn't.

Second, just because OSA agreed to change the rules in the middle of the game does not mean it sets a standard. We choose to play by the same rules that got us to the finals.

Never meant to say that because OSA agreed to change the rule it sets a standard, you were arguing we were complaining about that rule just now, I was letting you know it wasn't the case.

If not for certain past actions, then I believe TOFU would have come down on the other side of this vote.

Please enlight us. What past actions ?
And if it's the same bs game that rockfist you are talking, please let me know, is it impossible to run the clock on a no trench game ? ( not admitting we did just assuming you are on the same line than rockfist )

[rockfist]

You ran clock in that war. Period. If you want me to start throwing around facts about it I can, but its better for you to just accept the fact that we know you did it and that we won't support any new changes that will make that easier for you to do.

[Donelladan]

You ran clock in that war. Period. If you want me to start throwing around facts about it I can, but its better for you to just accept the fact that we know you did it and that we won't support any new changes that will make that easier for you to do.

According to you, when did we start running the clock in that game ? Really curious.

Also log isn't crap, log is fact. But go ahead and say whatever go through your mind and ignore the facts, just like when you "think" trench will make clan wars longer even though there is absolutely no evidence trench games are longer; but I did present some evidence that trench games are shorter.

@loutil
good to know dice turned in our favor, so we did have bad dice in the first set ?

And saying that you refused trench to get an edge by restrictring our choice of homes might sound like an excuse to lose the war to your ears, but to me it sounds like the pure truth.

[rockfist]

I said log is an incomplete story...not crap. If log is fact then screen shots are also fact and help complete the story.

You sat and absurd number of turns in that war. We never complained about excessive sitting but it was easily the most I’ve ever seen in a clan war. You don’t think it prolongs games when you run them down to under two hours?

You are cherry picking information about trench games not taking longer. Your own facts showed the games take more turns on average to complete.

[Donelladan]

I said log is an incomplete story...not crap. If log is fact then screen shots are also fact and help complete the story.

You sat and absurd number of turns in that war. We never complained about excessive sitting but it was easily the most I’ve ever seen in a clan war. You don’t think it prolongs games when you run them down to under two hours?

You are cherry picking information about trench games not taking longer. Your own facts showed the games take more turns on average to complete.

CC6 war ? really can't remember if we sat an absurd number of turn on that war. But that's a new argument and a different story, not related to trench, are you deflecting ? ( and I checked, for rorke's most of the sitting was done before the games was decided, and the player that we sat missed turns afterwards, so your argument that we run the clock down below 2hours in purpose is quiet moot imho, especially since Tao was supposed to be game leader in that specific game, kinda weird to sit in purpose the only player on a triple team that know the map really well...)
You aren't replying me about the specific rorke's drift game, according to you, when did we start slowing down turn in that game ?

About trench, number of turns is really irrelevant, what matters is how long the games is, timewise, and in general no trench games last longer than trench. You know we already argued that point.
And I am definitely not "cherry picking", also already argued that point with you, I simply took the two most recent examples, both CC8 half finale, seems to me taking CC8 half finales wars as example to discuss CC9 rules make total sense.

[joecoolfrog]

Don
When the dust settles I look forward to some Poly games with you on my RISK maps , and I will let you educate me some more on trench settings.

[rockfist]

I don’t know exactly when it became a conscious decision to run clock, but that game was over streets before it officially ended.

Here’s a hypothetical (which is similar to that game). Let’s say we are playing trench and you have more troops than me by say 30 to 20 at a point with one buffer territory in between and you outdrop me 4 to 3, but if you lose the territory you stack it reverses. Let’s also say there are no other reasonable areas to expand, but we both need to win the game...I can sit and stack my 20 and you can stack your 30, and it’s going to be a super long time until you can put much at risk against my stack because if you push all in and lose it’ll turn quickly. In reality, I’ve basically lost the game already unless the dice give it to me...stacking by the person who is behind at that point becomes stalling.

You guys sat about 116 times in that war. If we exclude people who went AWOL or went on vacation it does drop to about 97 times. I say about because I may be off slightly in my count. To me that is dragging a war out. To my way of thinking allowing you to play all trench games affords you the opportunity to drag things out even longer. I’ve stated earlier I should be 11-5 in trench games in wars against you so it’s my annoyance at how long you can make them take not fear of losing that makes me not want to play a whole bunch of trench against you.