Kiron Conqueror - Abuse or Legal play?
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:50 amI would just like to get wider CC opinion (especially from CC officials) if the way of Kiron's reaching Conqueror rank is abusive or legal playing, as there is in my opinion thin line between that in this case. At first, congrats him for reaching the rank, if majority agree this kind of play is legal.
Game 12405498 In this chat it can be seen the whole scenario, 8 player game where their winning chances were (of course) very low. I say of course because when 8 players are on the board, which chances one of them can have for winning than very low from start, not only in round 14? So they realized they both have low chances of winning, and they made agreement about 3 games tie breaker, and they made agreement how piece of cake in winning the big game will be divided by them (if Kiron wins 3 of 3 then xiangwang will suicide, and if xianwang wins 1 of 3 then Kiron will suicide). Then they played 3 game tiebreaker Game 12444098 Game 12444131 Game 12444181. All agreements were made in chat, so no secret diplomacy there.
If this is totally legal playing, here is example how this can be used for any 2 players to come to top of scoreboard. Lets say there are red and green who are friends, and both start with 1000 points. They start 3 player games and once a game starts, red says:
red: hey green, we both have 33% chances to win this game so we are both likely to lose it, looking from this point. What do you say about making one game tie breaker, and who lose that game will suicide on blue? Then they play a speed game, so their total score will still be 2000, just will partly go to side of winner, but more important, they will take out points from blue, so their total score after the tie breaker and the 3 player game will be above 2000. If they repeat this action constantly, they will ensure their total points will grow after every game. At some point and after a lot of games, one of them will for sure come to Conqueror rank.
In my opinion, there is no difference between what Kiron and xiangwang did, and the described example of 3 player games. In both cases they "artifically" reduced chances of other players in the game from some decent percent to (almost) zero percent, by taking some action which is done outside of the game.
Is this legal play, cheap play, or breaking rules? Poll added.
Game 12405498 In this chat it can be seen the whole scenario, 8 player game where their winning chances were (of course) very low. I say of course because when 8 players are on the board, which chances one of them can have for winning than very low from start, not only in round 14? So they realized they both have low chances of winning, and they made agreement about 3 games tie breaker, and they made agreement how piece of cake in winning the big game will be divided by them (if Kiron wins 3 of 3 then xiangwang will suicide, and if xianwang wins 1 of 3 then Kiron will suicide). Then they played 3 game tiebreaker Game 12444098 Game 12444131 Game 12444181. All agreements were made in chat, so no secret diplomacy there.
If this is totally legal playing, here is example how this can be used for any 2 players to come to top of scoreboard. Lets say there are red and green who are friends, and both start with 1000 points. They start 3 player games and once a game starts, red says:
red: hey green, we both have 33% chances to win this game so we are both likely to lose it, looking from this point. What do you say about making one game tie breaker, and who lose that game will suicide on blue? Then they play a speed game, so their total score will still be 2000, just will partly go to side of winner, but more important, they will take out points from blue, so their total score after the tie breaker and the 3 player game will be above 2000. If they repeat this action constantly, they will ensure their total points will grow after every game. At some point and after a lot of games, one of them will for sure come to Conqueror rank.
In my opinion, there is no difference between what Kiron and xiangwang did, and the described example of 3 player games. In both cases they "artifically" reduced chances of other players in the game from some decent percent to (almost) zero percent, by taking some action which is done outside of the game.
Is this legal play, cheap play, or breaking rules? Poll added.
Dear Kiron, sincere congrats from my side for your achievement 
