Conquer Club

I don't know if I am in the next phase or not. But if I am, I would like to change Classic for something else. The obvious choice seems to be World 2.1 or one of the 42 territories maps that mirror Classic gameplay.

Well I think that I would like to change my home map to Classic shapes.

Ready for semifinals? You better be, since we're starting soon...

There are 8 players who didn't finish in first four places (in their groups), nor have they collected enough points to qualify by additional criteria. OliverFA (47 points) and braddersp (46 points) are the best amongst them, so they are first and second reserve.

The remaining 16 players (who have at least 48 points guaranteed) qualified:

1. Bigragooch
2. leolou2
3. KidWhisky
4. ultraman
5. hwhrhett (101 point!!)
6. taggat
7. MuzzaG
8. danodukebb
9. bigdaddyslim2
10. Zemljanin
11. zissou2
12. reahma
13. R0k0v
14. spidey
15. heatz
16. mkcummins

Reserves:
1. OliverFA
2. braddersp

Those 18 players should inform me about new home map/settings (if they want to change it) by Sunday evening. Especially if you had Classic as your home map and decided to keep it - you now have to clarify whether you want to play Classic Shapes or Classic Art!
You'll get PM's with passwords for semifinal games probably by the Monday evening.

P.S. Special congratulations to hwhrhett, who showed by far the best and mightiest play so far!
(That's why we're going to abandon this tourney before he wins! )

lol lets not abandon anything just yet. Give me a chance to knock him out first. If I should fail in my dutys as the unofficial hwhrhett killer and tournament saver of CC, then we can talk about abandonment.

Also I will keep the same settings that I started out with.

KidWhisky wrote:lol lets not abandon anything just yet. Give me a chance to knock him out first. If I should fail in my dutys as the unofficial hwhrhett killer and tournament saver of CC, then we can talk about abandonment.

Also I will keep the same settings that I started out with.

damn you, yall are fucking me up in this new round!!! arg!!!

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

hwhrhett wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

LOL, now listen my stories:

1) In Game 3209199, I was much stronger than zissou. I knew that 48 points was enough, so I could provide his elimination before mine and immediately qualify to next round. I didn't want to do it, because in that case reahma would win for sure. I let zissou keep Europe trying to force other players to fight him (I left the only one without continent). They left him keep continent and he was growing stronger and stronger. Finally, he grew so strong that he could choose whom to attack.
He choose me (legitimately) and destroyed half of my troops. Then heatz suicided on me (there was no explanation for that) and this way finished game for me and himself.

2) In Game 3209172, heatz had an overwhelming lead, he could smoothly win just by keeping spidey in check. But he wanted to ruin me (to take 2 cards!). After that stupid attack, game became more even and he eventually lost it...

3) In the finish of Game 3209201, reahma and I had ~200 units each and zissou less than 50. I seemed to be the favorite, but reahma delivered very successful attack on me and took the lead. We fought until he crippled me so severely that I needed at least several turns to recover (if nobody attacks me). Then he should continue to fight zissou and take an easy victory. However, he attacked me once more time. Zissou now could reopen the game by reducing reahma (and probably take the lead), but he wisely (probably on purpose, he seems to be a good psychologist) played a bad move. Reahma again could win by fighting zissou (although not as easy!), but he again choose to attack me. Zissou again played "badly" and reahma decided to eliminate me.
Then "suddenly" , zissou played a good move and took a lead. He continued to play well and methodically won, without any risk...

and now the most dreadful story:

2) In Game 3209205, R0k0v had a locked win. He could eliminate mkcummins, take his cards and wipe me off the board. He could even eliminate all mkcummins' armies but one, leaving easy cards to me and he'd win anyway. He was THAT strong...
He missed the move and mkcummins changed his cards. R0k0v again could attack mkcummins and remain a heavy favorite, but he chose to attack me. He continued to attack me until he eliminated me. Mkcummins than won...

Let me conclude: I suffered one suicide by an underdog and three more times people threw their victories just to ruin me...

Forgive me, I couldn't resist , I answered you as a player who got an opportunity to whine...

Now, I'll answer officially, as a tournament organizer:

Hm, mkcummins crippled you so much that zissou could eliminate you without even changing cards? It seems pretty flagrant to me...
I of course should hear his explanation, but can't imagine a story that could justify his move. However, I'm not ready to fight this problem alone (especially considering a fact that I'm still an active player in this tourney) - I'll contact tournament directors.

It's irrelevant, since we're well in semifinals, but let me inform you that 1st round is finished. I'll update results very soon.

Zemljanin wrote:It's irrelevant, since we're well in semifinals, but let me inform you that 1st round is finished. I'll update results very soon.

yeah, its irrelevant, but flagrant.

2008-12-28 12:25:59 - mkcummins: zissou, i know you don't like me much, but i sure hope you can ignore me for a round or 2\
2008-12-28 12:33:36 - zissou2: sure. provided you can ignore me for a round or 2
2008-12-28 14:20:04 - mkcummins: count on it.
2008-12-28 15:19:43 - hwhrhett: i find alliances in tournaments in very poor taste......
2008-12-28 15:20:14 - hwhrhett: you just game the game to yellow...
2008-12-28 15:28:10 - hwhrhett: gave
2008-12-28 15:59:50 - zissou2: he owed me

"he owed me"

hwhrhett wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

I've been asked by the tournament organizer to review this issue since he is still alive in the tournament.

It appears that [player]mkcummins[/player] and [player]zissou2[/player] have broken the tournament rules and made an alliance that clearly led to the elimination of a third player and the end of the game. Seeing how many territories (and probably troops) red had remaining after blue's attack and with the comments in the game chat, it appears that blue's attack was NOT a failed elimination attempt. I would recommend either a point reduction for the two players starting the next round (since it appears both advance) or anything up to and including disqualification from the tournament. That punishment choice is up to the organizer.

My vote would be to not count their points from that game. That seems like a fair penalty unless their is more explanation behind the comment that "he owed me"

hwhrhett wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

Zem,

that's a hefty accusation and it's not true. Zissou was in the South the whole game. he and i were connected by just a port. i did not directly attack a single player the entire game nor was i attacked. only neutrals. i was building a front of soldiers on Comanche 7 and hwhrhett wiped out 50 of my armies with a cash in. it made since for me to attack him not only because he took out half my strength on one turn, but also because he was the only other player in the North with me and he stood to collect a greater bonus.

Knowing i would not survive a battle on two fronts, i needed to pull my troops forward from the Atlantic north port. i asked zissou to ignore that port so i could throw everything i had at hwhrhett in hopes of weakening him to a point he couldn't come at me again. i didn't suicide. hwhrhett picked a fight so i fought back. hwhrhett also went south into zissous territory and spread himself a little thin. hwhrhett couldn't fight back against me because he had all of his armies trapped behind a single troop on the northern pacific port.

zissou didn't ignore me, so again the accusation is unfounded. he won the game on that very same turn. i don't appreciate somebody using their poor strategy and tactics as an excuse to accuse me of this. in response to zissou's comment that I owed him one...i'm baffled. zissou had to hate me for my constant attacks on him during our Bamboo Jack game. that's what i was referring to.

If i were requesting an alliance, wouldn't i need to use words like, "alliance", "peace treaty" or something more specific??? me simply saying, "i hope you can ignore me..." then blindly carrying on with my turn without even hearing a response is anything but an agreed alliance.

Bigragooch wrote:My vote would be to not count their points from that game. That seems like a fair penalty unless their is more explanation behind the comment that "he owed me"

i don't believe i should be punished for someone else's statements. i have no idea what, "he owed me" means and i, too would like an explanation to it.

the only talking we've done with one another is during the bamboo jack game, and it was hardly friendly.

Night Strike wrote:

hwhrhett wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

I've been asked by the tournament organizer to review this issue since he is still alive in the tournament.

It appears that [player]mkcummins[/player] and [player]zissou2[/player] have broken the tournament rules and made an alliance that clearly led to the elimination of a third player and the end of the game. Seeing how many territories (and probably troops) red had remaining after blue's attack and with the comments in the game chat, it appears that blue's attack was NOT a failed elimination attempt. I would recommend either a point reduction for the two players starting the next round (since it appears both advance) or anything up to and including disqualification from the tournament. That punishment choice is up to the organizer.

"broken the tournament rules and made an alliance" - i fail to see how it could be an alliance when zissou attacked me and ended the game in the same round.

"Seeing how many territories (and probably troops) red had remaining after blue's attack and with the comments in the game chat, it appears that blue's attack was NOT a failed elimination attempt" of course not. i needed to rebuild, but rebuild in peace. this was actually a pretty good move for me. red opened up a war on two fronts by attacking me then moving through the port into the south and attacking yellow and another player who got eliminated. he left 1 army on the North Pacific port and the rest of his strength he took south and left it on the South Pacific port. i knew i could attack at will in the north and as long as i didn't take the single army out on the north pacific port, he would be trapped in the south and unable to turn his large army at me...at least for one round. what i didn't count on was yellow having a set with 3 cards just one round removed from another heavy cash in. THAT's why yellow won the game. he cashed in twice in 3 rounds and dropped almost 200 armies onto the map....who could defend against that? i'm not yellow's biggest fan, but i lost a good game where the winner also got a bit of luck with 2 cash ins in 3 turns. i'm not making any accusations, though. i can lose with some humility.

I WAS JOKING!!!! Are you all serious?? IMO, Mk had basically suicided on me during the bamboo jack game and I was very vocal about being angry about it, that is what I was referring to. I don't think that mk thought I had enough guys to finish you off in that game, if he did he was probably aware that I could've killed him the turn before and that was why he asked to be ignored. He had 5 cards and I wasn't sure I could kill him anyway, so I agreed to hold off. Then it turned out he did enough damage that I could finish red, barely. Seriously, I WAS JOKING when I said he owed me. Funny how you chose to make a federal case out of my sarcastic comment, but chose to ignore the fact that he said I don't like him very much. We had no alliance, I simply made a joke that I figured he would get.

zissou2 wrote:I WAS JOKING!!!! Are you all serious?? IMO, Mk had basically suicided on me during the bamboo jack game and I was very vocal about being angry about it, that is what I was referring to. I don't think that mk thought I had enough guys to finish you off in that game, if he did he was probably aware that I could've killed him the turn before and that was why he asked to be ignored. He had 5 cards and I wasn't sure I could kill him anyway, so I agreed to hold off. Then it turned out he did enough damage that I could finish red, barely. Seriously, I WAS JOKING when I said he owed me. Funny how you chose to make a federal case out of my sarcastic comment, but chose to ignore the fact that he said I don't like him very much. We had no alliance, I simply made a joke that I figured he would get.

wether you guys realize it or not, in a 3-person standoff if two people 'agree' not to attack each other, that is the very definition of an alliance.

hwhrhett wrote:

zissou2 wrote:I WAS JOKING!!!! Are you all serious?? IMO, Mk had basically suicided on me during the bamboo jack game and I was very vocal about being angry about it, that is what I was referring to. I don't think that mk thought I had enough guys to finish you off in that game, if he did he was probably aware that I could've killed him the turn before and that was why he asked to be ignored. He had 5 cards and I wasn't sure I could kill him anyway, so I agreed to hold off. Then it turned out he did enough damage that I could finish red, barely. Seriously, I WAS JOKING when I said he owed me. Funny how you chose to make a federal case out of my sarcastic comment, but chose to ignore the fact that he said I don't like him very much. We had no alliance, I simply made a joke that I figured he would get.

wether you guys realize it or not, in a 3-person standoff if two people 'agree' not to attack each other, that is the very definition of an alliance.

perhaps, h, and i just mean maybe. the fact is, though, he attacked me anyway. the evidence speaks for itself. the game log should be what counts, not chat.

My decision was NOT based on the "he owed me" comment. It WAS based on the mutual decision to not attack each other. And of course he attacked you after the 3rd player had been eliminated; that's not a defense.

Night Strike wrote:My decision was NOT based on the "he owed me" comment. It WAS based on the mutual decision to not attack each other. And of course he attacked you after the 3rd player had been eliminated; that's not a defense.

NS, i respect your input, but will you please assess all the evidence, including my responses and make a new, more informed, recommendation? it seems as though you are not evaluating all the facts, i.e.-game log.

i've done nothing more than defend myself and respond to a direct attack. i moved my armies after making my comment, but before receiving a response. i didn't wait for zissou to offer compliance before making my move, nor did i know that he was cashing in for a 2nd time in 3 turns and would end the game in the same round. i wrote my comment, then acted blindly and without concurrence from zissou. there was never agreement before action. my comment was, "zissou: i hope you can ignore me...". "HOPE" not, "WILL YOU". then i took my turn. i had no reason nor right to expect his cooperation. the actions speak for themselves. this does NOT play out like an alliance. there was no coordination, just words...

Night Strike, if this doesn't make sense to you or if you think you are biased, then i request putting this issue before a higher authority.

this is really stupid. and wrong. i really don't care what you all do to be honest, but there was no alliance, blue made the comment because he didn't want to die so, he said that in hopes that i wouldn't kill him. which i did, i just killed the other guy first because he had cards to take. i made a joke and the other guy was a complete sore loser and made a big deal about it. i'm guessing this is up to zem now, and he appears to be logical. so hopefully he will continue to be.

Hm, I'm very experienced in tournaments. I used to play chess semi-professionally; I played bridge on an amateur level, but won couple of prizes on international tournaments; I am playing go on (amateur) dan level. I am an official chess referee (on regional level); I am unofficial bridge referee and I could also run a go tournament...

However, this is the very first tourney I am running on CC and I am not going to be a smart ass. Instead of acting as a divine authority - I'll just think loudly...
And worse yet, English is not my native language, so I am not able to express myself short and precise, as Night Strike would. This post is going to be long and boring. Sorry.

about mkcummins (he played a main role in this issue)

In first round I played 8 games with him and must say that he left a very good impression on me - as a person and sportsman. Also, his story posted above seems pretty honest and natural. But I have some objections:

a) Asking somebody to not attack you for a couple turns and giving him the same in return IS making of an alliance, although perhaps a mild one. Mild one in general, BUT - in this particular case, there are some very serious aggravations:

i) There was only 3 players left, the severest case. Two players may cooperate only if it's their only way to survive (i.e. if third player is about as strong as two of them together)...

ii) Fortifications was unlimited and it seemed that board was fairly split (mkcummins mentioned that he had only one boundary with zissou). So even a mild truce is really an active alliance, since both players can fortify ALL forces to the boundaries with third player, IN ONE TURN.

iii) Escalating cards, next set was worth 80 units. In such circumstances, alliance for turn or two can well be (and most probably will be) an alliance to the end of game.

To be short now: you did, in fact, make an alliance against hwhrhett, an alliance to the end of game. An alliance was successful, hwhrhett was destroyed very soon...

b) Somebody attacked you and destroyed half of your armies? Are there something sweeter then revenge? You acted perfectly natural, mkcummings... You acted perfectly natural, BUT

Your attack immediately finished the game. You threw victory to zissou. You didn't know that zissou was able to immediately eliminate hwhrhett and win the game? Well, I believe you, but you could (and should!) know. If you thought a little, you'd know. Once again, I believe that you had no such intention, but you screwed the game for yourself and (what's more important) you screwed the game for hwhrhett. That's simply a fact.

about zissou2
I've played 9 games with him and I could say - he's a master of exploiting of opponents' strategical, tactical and psychological insecurities. However, I think he's an honest player with integrity. BUT
He made a "slight" mistake to accept a very mild and short alliance in extremely bad moment, and that alliance turned out to be ultimate and decisive. Bad luck? Yes.
When it concerns "He owed me" statement, I understand it as nothing more than innocent joke.

So, if you ask me:

Are they guilty? Yes
Are they cheaters? No
I think they just have been unacceptable unwary and committed a crime without forethought. (That probably can be said much more elegant, but English is not my first language)

What does it mean?
They have to be punished. Night Strike decided so and I agree with him. Unfortunately, he left the final decision to me ...

...So everybody is going to hate me. Those two because I punished them, the rest of you because I won't do it as severely as you thought I should...

I'll hear one more round of discussion before I make a final decision. But I tend to apply more softly punishment than I guess hwhrhett expects...

Please discuss!

Zemljanin wrote:

hwhrhett wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:No alliances allowed!
Natural measures against an obvious game leader are normal thing. But nothing more than that!

this rule was broken in this game: Game 3812369

i was not even the game leader, and blue suicided into me to give the game to yellow, because as yellow states in chat "he owed me".

LOL, now listen my stories:

1) In Game 3209199, I was much stronger than zissou. I knew that 48 points was enough, so I could provide his elimination before mine and immediately qualify to next round. I didn't want to do it, because in that case reahma would win for sure. I let zissou keep Europe trying to force other players to fight him (I left the only one without continent). They left him keep continent and he was growing stronger and stronger. Finally, he grew so strong that he could choose whom to attack.
He choose me (legitimately) and destroyed half of my troops. Then heatz suicided on me (there was no explanation for that) and this way finished game for me and himself.

2) In Game 3209172, heatz had an overwhelming lead, he could smoothly win just by keeping spidey in check. But he wanted to ruin me (to take 2 cards!). After that stupid attack, game became more even and he eventually lost it...

3) In the finish of Game 3209201, reahma and I had ~200 units each and zissou less than 50. I seemed to be the favorite, but reahma delivered very successful attack on me and took the lead. We fought until he crippled me so severely that I needed at least several turns to recover (if nobody attacks me). Then he should continue to fight zissou and take an easy victory. However, he attacked me once more time. Zissou now could reopen the game by reducing reahma (and probably take the lead), but he wisely (probably on purpose, he seems to be a good psychologist) played a bad move. Reahma again could win by fighting zissou (although not as easy!), but he again choose to attack me. Zissou again played "badly" and reahma decided to eliminate me.
Then "suddenly" , zissou played a good move and took a lead. He continued to play well and methodically won, without any risk...

and now the most dreadful story:

2) In Game 3209205, R0k0v had a locked win. He could eliminate mkcummins, take his cards and wipe me off the board. He could even eliminate all mkcummins' armies but one, leaving easy cards to me and he'd win anyway. He was THAT strong...
He missed the move and mkcummins changed his cards. R0k0v again could attack mkcummins and remain a heavy favorite, but he chose to attack me. He continued to attack me until he eliminated me. Mkcummins than won...

Let me conclude: I suffered one suicide by an underdog and three more times people threw their victories just to ruin me...

Forgive me, I couldn't resist , I answered you as a player who got an opportunity to whine...

Now, I'll answer officially, as a tournament organizer:

Hm, mkcummins crippled you so much that zissou could eliminate you without even changing cards? It seems pretty flagrant to me...
I of course should hear his explanation, but can't imagine a story that could justify his move. However, I'm not ready to fight this problem alone (especially considering a fact that I'm still an active player in this tourney) - I'll contact tournament directors.

just gotta add to the bits about myself!!

i never suicide, i try always to take on the biggest threats even in some cases the odds are against me!!! i do this at a point when i feel if i dont act it will be to late to act in the future!! yeah there was the proibition game which i should have won and if dice had of been fair at the critial moment of trying to take u out then i would have won, i have had it in well over 100 games where i have gone for eliminations i have been the favourate to win and get the the eliminations on that go and then i have had some the worst dice i have experienced, so u say i suicided i say i took the best move i could and should have done it but i have been screwed by dice rolls!!!

ONCE AGAIN! I NEVER SUICIDE AND DONT EVER SAY I DO!!!!!

Zemljanin wrote:I'll hear one more round of discussion before I make a final decision. But I tend to apply more softly punishment than I guess hwhrhett expects...

Please discuss!

whatever you decide ill support. it only aggravates me because i find alliances in tournaments to be in extremely poor taste...

and for the two that formed the alliance that insist that i am just a whiny baby i will inform all of you that i have played in 700 tournament games and this is the first time that i have ever complained or posted about anything. the only other time this happened i stated in the chat that alliances were in poor taste in tournament games(just like i did here) and both parties immediately agreed and all went on as normal(not what happened here). and i wasnt even gonna report it until i read the first post of this thread again where it clearly states that alliances are not allowed.....

so whatever action you decide, all the complaining i had in me is out, and ill gladly thank you for that decision.

if there has to be some kind of punishment, how bout you just give the other sore loser guy first place points for the game in the tourney scoring. me second place and mk third. we were all the last 3 left anyway.

zissou2 wrote:...sore loser guy....

you can call me all the names you want, but i dont think anybody that read the chat will think your innocent of an alliance, perhaps you shouldnt have agreed to it..... but if it makes you feel better, just keep calling me names.. all i did was report a tournament rule that was being broken blatantly...