Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
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.
I would never see 7 points as worth it in this kind of situation.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
riskllama wrote:when are you leaving again, zeke?
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.
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
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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users