Conquer Club

announce a freestyle triples game as real time.

Then when the game starts each of the players from one team work together very efficiently, to take control of a continent and then the round ends they say that one of their players had to leave and that they only play as a team so they'll be back tomorrow?

They have a huge advantage because of this. There's no way that the three of us random guys that were playing against a bunch of people who know eachother would be able to coordinate a time to meet up? So essentially all three of them will be able to coordinate their attacks against us perfectly without any of us getting our armies for the next round.

We have no chance because of this. I've added the three players to my ignore list as I don't think that this is a legit way to play the game, but I wanted to see what others thought about it.

This is a great (and legal) stratagy, If you dont like it, play sequential.

guess i will play sequential then. wait that is all i play (thank the CC gods, even that wicked one)

That's why I play sequential.

There are about 20 people from my school that play CC and i play many games with them. It is a strong strategy to go at the same time.

Serbia wrote:That's why I play sequential.

Indeed. And not doubles/triples. A standard game with maybe a few terminator games is the way to go.

If they announced it as realtime and had it planned out beforehand it's practically cheating since you and your partners entered under the impression that you'd be able to finish the game then, and then they drop out under some pretense and effectively change the rules.
And I'm talking about additional rules to which all players had previously agreed here. Not about what the coding of the site allows and what it does not.


On the other hand, sometimes unexpected things come up in RL which are more important (yes that IS possible, hard as it might be to grasp the concept) and a player has to leave.

Then this would be a case of "shit happens, better luck next time".



Take a look at other games where those three played together and see if you can find similar situations, if you do, you might have a case.

The new 1 hour realtime matches will help eliminate a problem like this.

MeDeFe wrote:If they announced it as realtime and had it planned out beforehand it's practically cheating since you and your partners entered under the impression that you'd be able to finish the game then, and then they drop out under some pretense and effectively change the rules.
And I'm talking about additional rules to which all players had previously agreed here. Not about what the coding of the site allows and what it does not.


On the other hand, sometimes unexpected things come up in RL which are more important (yes that IS possible, hard as it might be to grasp the concept) and a player has to leave.

Then this would be a case of "shit happens, better luck next time".



Take a look at other games where those three played together and see if you can find similar situations, if you do, you might have a case.

What this person said.

It's not cheating, but it is grounds for neg. feedback... at least the part about them announcing it's a RT, then bailing. It would be the best way to warn others about what they're doing, which I think it pretty lame.

wicked wrote:It's not cheating, but it is grounds for neg. feedback... at least the part about them announcing it's a RT, then bailing. It would be the best way to warn others about what they're doing, which I think it pretty lame.

The only thing about it that makes it not cheating is the fact that there are no CC rules preventing teams from moving together. Obviously that, in itself, is perfectly fine.

It is, however, cheating within the context of that game because they laid the ground rules and then failed to observe them. It is not cheating to stop and rest if you are running. However, if I challenge you to a contest of who can run the longest without stopping to rest and then I, myself, stop to rest, that is cheating.

Honestly, the more I think about it, they're pretty much guilty even if the reason for one player's delay is legit. As the OP states, team 2 is a bunch of strangers who are unlikely to be able to coordinate play at a later time. Team 1 refuses to make moves in a timely manner because they want the advantage of moving together, an advantage that delaying the game is likely to be deprived from team 2. Fact is though, it's their fault that the thing is being delayed and, legit or not, they invited team 2 to play under those circumstances.

Much like the sentiment to "suck it up" that is often tossed around in defense of those who delay games on purpose. Once again, the advantage is being given to the person or team that caused the problem.

Instead of team 2 having to "suck it up" because of the tired "you should know better if you join a team freestyle game" how 'bout team 1 "suck it up" 'cause your teammate is the one who had to bail and it is you who failed to keep the rt game alive even if it was for a good reason.

The word "team" implies coordinating and working together. If one team does it better than the other, chances are likely they will win, just like in real life. Just like how a bball team that's been playing together for years can easily outmaneuver a pick-up team of strangers on the court together for the first time. There's no reason to "punish" either team for a situation they themselves created. If you want to play on a coordinated team, then don't join a team game w/o partners you don't know.

If there was no secret alliance between opposing teammates, or multiple accounts involved, there was no cheating. Setting up a RT then bailing, whether a team game or not, is just poor sportsmanship, not cheating.

I've played one freestyle triples game.

While my team consisted of experienced players, we were not on all at the same time and our opponents played real time, and it's why I'll never play freestyle triples again.

I just want to make it completely clear that I have no problem what-so-ever with a team choosing to make their moves at the same time. My issue is simply that, once team 1 broke the agreement to play RT, regardless of the reason, they should have not insisted to play at the same time at the possible expense of the other team being able to do so.

I've just been having a look at the history of these people and I reakon they are good candidates for you ignore lists. I am not accusing them of anything but I think its cheap to play in open games with your buddies.

podge wrote:I've just been having a look at the history of these people and I reakon they are good candidates for you ignore lists. I am not accusing them of anything but I think its cheap to play in open games with your buddies.

Have you looked at the open games list lately? The thing is dominated by established teams trolling for pick-up games. I'm often verrrry hesitant to join one of those unless a) my typical partner is going to join with me or b) I'll be completing a team with a player(s) who seems like they know whats up. ie: a decent rank and good team feedback.

detlef wrote:Have you looked at the open games list lately? The thing is dominated by established teams trolling for pick-up games. I'm often verrrry hesitant to join one of those unless a) my typical partner is going to join with me or b) I'll be completing a team with a player(s) who seems like they know whats up. ie: a decent rank and good team feedback.

I wasn't refering to team games, they have joined open singles games together.

podge wrote:

detlef wrote:Have you looked at the open games list lately? The thing is dominated by established teams trolling for pick-up games. I'm often verrrry hesitant to join one of those unless a) my typical partner is going to join with me or b) I'll be completing a team with a player(s) who seems like they know whats up. ie: a decent rank and good team feedback.

I wasn't refering to team games, they have joined open singles games together.

Gotcha.

That's the worst display of cheating I've seen in my life. COWARDICE!!!! If they're to chicken to play you fair, then just give negative feedback...