Page 3 of 4
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:52 am
by White Buffalo
Kaskavel wrote:1. All I (and mc I guess) would like to have is a statement that intentional deadbeating for strategic purposes (or for exploiting the team games-round limit combination) is against the rules and we are not going to lose the rest of our games by this tactic.
Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is
forbidden.
This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games,
intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits.
Seems clear enough to me? If the other team does it, report them. Simple.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:54 am
by Kaskavel
mudfighter wrote:I only know laws, where some actions (like killing people) are forbidden, no matter what motivation was behind that. If I should kill a man, because he deserved it, it is still a crime, and I will be imprisoned, although the is basically just saying "murder is not allowed" and not "murder is not allowed and even murder of people, who deserve it, is not allowed". So for me intentional deabbeating includes intentional deadbeating because of a benefit like the murder includes the murder of people who deserve it.
For me that is a fact.
I cannot discuss your other points right now, since I am at work and still have to do something, so maybe will try to catch those later....
It was like that, until, one day, in ancient Rome, they realized that killing people on self defence may be ok and legalized it, defining the according situations.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:12 am
by mudfighter
But "self defence or defence of 3rd persons" is stated explicitly in the law. AND you have to use adequate means, so killing someone who is attacking with bear hands is still not allowed.
If you are telling me now, where I can find the rule "intentional beneficial deadbeating" is allowed, the point is yours. If not, I think your agrumentation is (at least from my and obviously many other players in the game, that stated, the rule is clear for them) just trying to squeeze water out of a stone.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:55 am
by BGtheBrain
Official Ruling
In order for the player to have his troops transferred to his teammate, he must first intentionally deadbeat. Intentional deadbeating is against the rules. Currently, MC still has one opportunity in this game to take a turn and avoid intentionally deadbeating.
I expect that based on his comments, he will take the turn since intentional deadbeating is not allowed and against the rules.
As with all cases of intentional deadbeating, multiple instances are required. If MC deadbeats, the case will be noted. If MC takes the turn, the case is cleared.
For those of you who didnt click the link,
jghost7 found the suggestion thread that attempts to change the Round Limit win conditions for team games from total team troop count instead of highest individual. If you truly want this changed, go to the thread, vote, post, whatever.
jghost7 wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=156839
For anyone interested, there has been an attempt to fix this through proper channels, however despite overwhelming support, it was summarily rejected. It is so obvious that this needs to be fixed yet no effort was spent to do so. No reasoning was provided for the rejection.
Thanks,
J
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:00 am
by Kaskavel
Thank you for clarrifying the rules dear moderator, as well as for resurfacing this thread.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:31 am
by KraphtOne
so, go ahead and deadbeat and win the game...
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:35 am
by Kaskavel
I miss your point. You mean that the punishment is too soft and we should ignore?
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:10 am
by IcePack
Kaskavel wrote:I miss your point. You mean that the punishment is too soft and we should ignore?
I think he's Saying there wouldn't be punishment unless it is more than one time. Though Mc would get noted. But as others have pointed out, perhaps MC values the better reputation then a few points. Ultimately the support should go towards changing the rule but MC can win the game if he chooses to...and get noted for it if it continues to happen / be an issue.
IcePak
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:01 pm
by freakns
are you seriously calling this... tactical move? are you kidding me?
this is glg-like, even worse... strategy?! good lord. id seriously limit all you cheaters to play one against others exclusively!
and to be honest, id let you to go with it. if you are not ashamed, then f*ck it, let them call it a tactics. id even let you 1000 points as bonus for good idea, its not like you play a game for fun, so why bother playing at all?!
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:28 pm
by sherkaner
Intentional deadbeating has always been a bit less punished (enough ppl doing it to avoid spoils in some games), but in this case it's pretty obvious. It doesn't look like it happened for these players specifically, there are enough ppl who tried this tactic. So for these players it should never be more than a warning, and a warning should go out for people who tried similar tactics if you decide to give the warning.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:28 pm
by Rodion
BGtheBrain wrote:As with all cases of intentional deadbeating, multiple instances are required. If MC deadbeats, the case will be noted. If MC takes the turn, the case is cleared.
You could solve the problems of all involved parties by requiring only one instance to get a bust.
Kaskavel/Mc would feel safe that they would not lose other games due to their opponents deadbeating and would consequently not have a problem with losing the game to Seul/Mud.
Everyone wins and we have a severe rule in place to prevent future problems.
The way you require multiple instances, Mc/Kaskavel lack the security that they will will the other round limit games they deserve to (because other players can simply get the points and be "noted"), which may lead them to do the same vs. Seul/Mud.
Everyone loses and we have a lenient rule in place that will fail to prevent future problems until the same party repeats them enough.
BG, can you change the ruling so it takes only 1 instance to get a bust? I believe everyone will prefer that.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:00 pm
by Ace Rimmer
The EASIEST fix for this is for lack to fix the fucking system.
I support Rodion/Seul/etc in saying this is abuse of the game and is against the rules, and shouldn't be done.
HOWEVER
for many years double turning in freestyle (an abuse of lack's mistake when he coded it) was allowed, even though it was obviously an exploitation of a bug in the system. Based on that precedent, then any bugs that lack puts in are part of the game, and are allowed.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:10 pm
by mc05025
Rodion wrote:BGtheBrain wrote:As with all cases of intentional deadbeating, multiple instances are required. If MC deadbeats, the case will be noted. If MC takes the turn, the case is cleared.
You could solve the problems of all involved parties by requiring only one instance to get a bust.
Kaskavel/Mc would feel safe that they would not lose other games due to their opponents deadbeating and would consequently not have a problem with losing the game to Seul/Mud.
Everyone wins and we have a severe rule in place to prevent future problems.
The way you require multiple instances, Mc/Kaskavel lack the security that they will will the other round limit games they deserve to (because other players can simply get the points and be "noted"), which may lead them to do the same vs. Seul/Mud.
Everyone loses and we have a lenient rule in place that will fail to prevent future problems until the same party repeats them enough.
BG, can you change the ruling so it takes only 1 instance to get a bust? I believe everyone will prefer that.
Thank you very much Rodion. This is exactly my thought. Noted means pretty much nothing
chapcrap wrote:Noted doesn't even mean anything.
by chapcrap on Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:52 am (Tournament Director)
and I agree with him.
So, to some up even if you gave me your answer you did not satisfy a statement which I think is important for me but for the game too
What I do not want to happen is to not be permitted to use that strategy and other people win me using it against me. Is it anyone here that can guarantee that this will not happen?
What I am asking is to change the punishment from noted to warning. Something like that
In order for the player to have his troops transferred to his teammate, he must first intentionally deadbeat. Intentional deadbeating is against the rules. Using that strategy should be avoided. The punishment for winning a game using that strategy at team games with round limit will be a warning.
I think this is the best for the game and everyone will be satisfied as intentional deadbeating at team games with round limit is very easy to be proved.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:18 pm
by BGtheBrain
Look.
You miss the turn, you arent some kind of CC martyr trying to change the rules. You're just another high ranked player willing to cheat to win.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:23 pm
by Dibbun
BGtheBrain wrote:Look.
You miss the turn, you arent some kind of CC martyr trying to change the rules. You're just another high ranked player willing to cheat to win.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:25 pm
by Rodion
Just make a more severe ruling and (I believe) we'll all be happy.
1 instance = warning/busted
Noted ain't gonna cut it! Mc/Kaskavel will not feel safe, are likely to deadbeat and have Seul/Mud lose. And they can even do that 3 more times (!!!) if you decide that it takes 5 instances before punishment is due.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:26 pm
by BGtheBrain
Rodion, if Im going to ignore the guidelines, Id give a 30 day ban for gross abuse of game
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:29 pm
by Rodion
BGtheBrain wrote:Rodion, if Im going to ignore the guidelines, Id give a 30 day ban for gross abuse of game
I'll support it.
You have 20 hours before irreparable damage is done.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:36 pm
by BGtheBrain
irreparable damage? No way. Suggestions take time. With this case being a hot topic, I feel the thread jghost linked to could help get the rule changed.
MC has the opportunity to do the right thing, instead he and now you are shifting the blame.
At the end of the day, MC has to cheat to win this game.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:42 pm
by IcePack
BGtheBrain wrote:irreparable damage? No way. Suggestions take time. With this case being a hot topic, I feel the thread jghost linked to could help get the rule changed.
MC has the opportunity to do the right thing, instead he and now you are shifting the blame.
At the end of the day, MC has to cheat to win this game.
Correction, at the end of the day the code should have been right to begin with.
If we are going to point fingers, let's really hold the responsible party (lack) reaponsible and stop holding players that have to deal with a crap system (that others abuse vs them) as "the bad guys"
I agree intentional deadbeating is against the rules. It takes 5 instances to be punished. If the code was done correctly nobody would be intentionally deadbeating anything.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:46 pm
by trinicardinal
Once again it shows how many cheap tactics there are out there being used by people who shouldn't need to use cheap tactics if they were really good
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:55 pm
by mc05025
BGtheBrain wrote:Rodion, if Im going to ignore the guidelines, Id give a 30 day ban for gross abuse of game
I support it too. I said warning because there will might be a case in the future that a deadbeat will not be easily proved as intentional but I support it anyway. I am not trying to make rules, I just suggest what should be done in order to be satisfied from that case.
PS Even if I am kind with you, you continuously being rude with me. I do not care about your opinion about what I am, your position as C&A mod does not allow you to express your ideas about if I am a player willing to cheat , as I am not going to write my opinion about what you are.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm
by eddie2
hummm after a few drinks and a review of this site abuse/tactic, i have got to bring up the nuclear spoils tactic of not ending turn that the site does not class as abuse, the reason it is not allowed as abuse is because it wins the game so maybe the rules do need a major overhaul.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:08 pm
by BGtheBrain
Before this whole thing started, I wrote on your wall to take the turn. Why? To avoid a C&A case. You wont take the turn.
You get a C&A case, I tell you at the very least it will be intentional deadbeating. you wont take the turn.
Countless others tell you its wrong. You wont take the turn.
I tell you officially it will be intentional deadbeating, you still wont take the turn.
MC, you have exhausted my patience as well as my kindness.
Re: mc05025 [pending] BG
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:24 pm
by Ace Rimmer
BGtheBrain wrote:Before this whole thing started, I wrote on your wall to take the turn. Why? To avoid a C&A case. You wont take the turn.
You get a C&A case, I tell you at the very least it will be intentional deadbeating. you wont take the turn.
Countless others tell you its wrong. You wont take the turn.
I tell you officially it will be intentional deadbeating, you still wont take the turn.
As I stated in chat, why WOULD he take the turn? He knows he'd lose the game if he does. He will only get a noted (or at worst warning) for this tactic. Winning the game and getting points from his opponents is more important to him than playing honorably. BG, if you want to be mad at anyone it should be at lack for creating flaws in his game engine then refusing to fix them.