Conquer Club

The game where I mistakenly attacked the same territory 3 times was my first time playing that game, and I was using the missile thingy for the first time ever. I goofed up because I was not familiar with how the missiles work.
Now my error is being held against me?

The game where I mistakenly attacked the same territory 3 times was my first time playing that game, and I was using the missile thingy for the first time. I goofed up because I was not familiar with how the missiles work.
Now my error is being held against me?

Just to make sure I understand these cheating rules...

If you don't attack someone until you have a lot more troops than him or her (may need to wait a turn or two &/or get a match), that's cheating.
If you make a mistake the first time you play a new map, that's cheating.

Any other cheating rules I should be made aware of for future games?

Uncle Fred wrote:Just to make sure I understand these cheating rules...

If you don't attack someone until you have a lot more troops than him or her (may need to wait a turn or two &/or get a match), that's cheating.
If you make a mistake the first time you play a new map, that's cheating.

Any other cheating rules I should be made aware of for future games?

Well, so far, no judgement has been given. So maybe nothing is going to happen to you no worry.

Just take a minute to read what iAmCaffeine and me have been saying. We aren't saying that you are actually intentionally cheating. We are just saying that because you know erikisfool, both of you are having a gameplay that help you win the games when you are playing together.

And ofc, no making a mistake with bombarding isn't cheating, and I personally believe your explanation about the bombarding.
Also not taking out fairman because you wanted to have enough troops to be sure to do it, also isn't cheating.

What is (maybe) cheating is playing poorly to make your friend win, for example in the game with fairman, erikiscool should have broke the truce with you way before fairman was eliminated.
That erikiscool keep attacking fairman even when you have more troops than both remaining player and deploy more than both of them together, in a SUNNY flat rate game, is total non sense.
Now if erikiscool only ever had play one game with you, we could all be thinking that it is just poor play from erikiscool, but because you play a lot of game together it makes us wondering if both of you aren't playing poorly to help the other one.


Just imagine following situation. fairman and me play multiplayers games together. And in each game, as soon as we are bordering each other, even if it would be better to maybe fight each other, we make a truce because we do trust each other. That is giving us an edge against the other player that don't know each other.
Even if we do it publicly in the game chat, because we know we are going to have a truce, we can choose to develop next to each other early in the game, then make the truce when we both have a bonus.

This is unfair.

If you play multiplayer game, you shouldn't favour some player because you know them. it seems you have been doing that, maybe not intentionally, but it's still unfair.

king achilles said my mistake with the missiles was "damning."

Uncle Fred wrote:king achilles said my mistake with the missiles was "damning."

I am also concerned about your wall messages to each other

Please provide an example.

Uncle fred... you guys can just play each other in 1v1, in teams or whatever... it would solve the issue.
Are you going to deny that when you play terminator and erik is on the map with you, you are not going to make alliances with him no matter the drop or how strong he already is?

In a terminator game it's pretty easy to have a moral agreement with someone you play all the time that makes both benefit from it. You get points from each kill... so you just anounce a truce between you two each time and there you go... both of you against everybody, just collect the kills between buddies. How would you feel if that s what your opponents did?
You enter a game with just unknown people, and you see that two of them always make truces and attack you even if that s not in their interest.

So its illegal to truce in a terminator game...?
Last i checked the answer was nope it aint.. truces are allowed if properly announced.

Lord Arioch wrote:So its illegal to truce in a terminator game...?
Last i checked the answer was nope it aint.. truces are allowed if properly announced.

The argument is that they favour each other in games, and almost always make a truce with each other when they play together, perhaps with the intention of always doing that.

yeah so ... it aint against the rules?`
Only if u go about it the wrong way... i mean i do truces all the time announce them right= good
If they didnt = bad and punishment otherwise i dont see much here?

Lord Arioch wrote:yeah so ... it aint against the rules?`
Only if u go about it the wrong way... i mean i do truces all the time announce them right= good
If they didnt = bad and punishment otherwise i dont see much here?

Ok. So hey, let's start a few terminator games together. I m going to ask you for a truce on all of them. Let's go kick some butt and collect points you and me! Win win guaranteed.

Ps: i don't really see how you could truce on a terminator game by the way. You can point out in chat that certain players are breaking the game ballance... but trucing in terminator? I honestly think there is no valid reason to truce in terminator. Same thing for assassin... even more obviously

Lord Arioch wrote:yeah so ... it aint against the rules?`
Only if u go about it the wrong way... i mean i do truces all the time announce them right= good
If they didnt = bad and punishment otherwise i dont see much here?

It's assumed that every game you start is a brave new world, that every player in the game may or may not form an alliance with you, depending on the strategic situation they find themselves in.

If you start the game with an assumed alliance already in place, then yes, that is cheating.

Oh i agree in principle with both of u! I dont see the merit of it in either assassin or term games. but how do u prove it? In my opinion its impossible to do that ... and the rules arent up to date on it. I mena write it up its forbidden to do truces in.... ass and term. It aint so how to prove it? The proof will be highly circumstantial?!

Lord Arioch wrote:Oh i agree in principle with both of u! I dont see the merit of it in either assassin or term games. but how do u prove it? In my opinion its impossible to do that ... and the rules arent up to date on it. I mena write it up its forbidden to do truces in.... ass and term. It aint so how to prove it? The proof will be highly circumstantial?!

The proof is that in most of their games they post that they are trucing in chat. The only thing we are asking is that these 2 don t play terminator together ever again. What s the big deal? They can still play all other modes, and there are tons of players available to play terminator fair and square.

No big deal i just Think it might, MIGHT, set a dangerous preference ... glad its not up to me to decide.

ok I just have a question on this case. P¨lease find the last time they fight each other before they are the 2 last players ..

I am going to side with caution and block Uncle Fred & erikiscool from playing together for now. There are just lots of games where you two (coincidentally) tend to create truces in your non team games together as if it was already planned. You two seem to favor one another in your non team games. Play your games without each other for the meantime and you can make an appeal to have this block lifted in the future.

Oh i agree in principle with both of u! I dont see the merit of it in either assassin or term games. but how do u prove it? In my opinion its impossible to do that ... and the rules arent up to date on it. I mena write it up its forbidden to do truces in.... ass and term. It aint so how to prove it? The proof will be highly circumstantial?!

- Sometimes, we don't need a person to actually say he is cheating to prove his guilt. Not particularly for this case but generally speaking, we are dealing with people who create unique and different situations as time passes by and we try to adapt and analyze what the present situation gives us. Sometimes, it's just a case to case basis because it depends on what the individual did. People will always come up with unique situations. We always strive to provide uniformity in how we enforce the rules but you know that everything is always up for an argument especially if it's an unfamiliar case and there will always be a difference of opinion.