|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 25, 2006 17:05:17 GMT -5
You can feel free to report your losses, as to Sidhe, we have agreed to a punishment for Sidhe that I will be emailing him soon, but it in no way effects the outcome of the game as that could only have happened if I had been told right away of the infraction.
CS
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 25, 2006 18:42:08 GMT -5
Mr.GameTheory -
Please consider this a formal warning. You are not to insult other players by referring to their playing methods as "rank whoring." Further, your extreme disrespect for all other players is quite unwelcome on this board, and if it continues, you will find yourself able to read and not post.
Disrespect is not tolerated - vicious, cutting superiority complexes certainly will not be.
|
|
Trayk
Worker
Lets Party at your place!!
Posts: 148
|
Post by Trayk on Jan 25, 2006 20:13:30 GMT -5
Every single person who has reached rank 1 on the ladder that has chosen to play me a 1v1 has lost, including you, so I suggest you slow your role a little. Dont you need to back off of that statement ? I dont believe you beat Fried
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 25, 2006 21:31:28 GMT -5
(reached rank 1 on the ladder that has chosen to play me a 1v1 has lost) Fried refused to acknowledge the Ladder Formal Challenge I sent him, and It was refreshed for a good month, and I was well within the 10 ranks to be allowed to send the challenge, so to answer your question, Fried doesn't count because we never played a 1v1
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 25, 2006 21:38:28 GMT -5
How about this, you actually beat me in a 1v1 game, Epic 1v1 or Standard ladder 1v1 and I wont spam the board anymore with insightful information. Is that insightful or inciteful?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 26, 2006 2:50:10 GMT -5
Ranking? Haven't we all had this discussion: ranking means jack sh*t and even tommy knows that the number one spot doesn't make him the best player.
Some of the best players I've seen aren't even in the top 100 atm. OK let's make this clear any spot including the number 1 spot is about how often you play and with who, you happen to get into a clique in the top 10 you're gonna stay around for a long while and during that time you'll break no 1 most likely. If however you happen to live in a time zone where the people who are in the top 10 don't live then most likely you'll struggle without considerable effort to get in there and once there remain.
If I really could care less about the top ten I'd try and be around when these players play, and then get into a few games. The top ten aren't exclusive and just about anyone can get a game with them. Not a single stat on the board is any real indication of anything atm, it's too early and beta tester tallys are not revealing of the players overall skill, of course players will reset there stat clearing their losses so most of the other stats will in the long run mean butkis as well. If you've been here any length of time you know that the only way to judge a "good player" is to a) look at how many tourneys they win or b) play with them alot. The rest is all handwaving and pointless stat mongering.
I charge anyone to tell me that any one of the stats has any relevance to a players actual ability whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Jan 26, 2006 4:32:03 GMT -5
Every single person who has reached rank 1 on the ladder that has chosen to play me a 1v1 has lost dude, quit with the im a god speach if u are illuminatious, i'll remind you of how u whooped my arse so bad i was pissing all over u in score by about 600 it was so one sided i wasn't even concentrating that much, just waiting for a failed attack that never came instead, 3 great artists on the last turn to win by 15 well done, u d man wish i had your mad skillz
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 26, 2006 4:46:07 GMT -5
dude, quit with the im a god speach Yes as DK put it quit it now... We all know that Yilar = God ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 26, 2006 4:59:26 GMT -5
ya ccc has imo allways been the place to prove your skillz
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 26, 2006 6:32:17 GMT -5
Game theory you remind me of Eyes of Night, are you sure you're not the same person?
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 26, 2006 8:04:32 GMT -5
Gentlemen-
While I do respect and understand your desire to pursue Mr.GameTheory on this matter, please do so in Off-Topic or private messages. This thread was focusing on very useful topics:
- Gandhi's place in the ironman - Whether any leader should have more than one player playing them in a game
It would be a shame for this thread to lose those very important topics in the midst of discussing the antics of a displeasing player.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 26, 2006 10:18:05 GMT -5
Yeah agreed. Ghandi is overpowered in Ironman and yes players should be able to duplicate civs. sorry
|
|
xma
Settler
Posts: 29
|
Post by xma on Jan 26, 2006 10:55:56 GMT -5
Not much of an opinion on Gandhi's chopping problem. (Next patch will help a bit with it)
I agree that multiple civs should be allowed. In the worst case, it will allow us to see if there is a really unbalanced civ (if we often have all-Gandhis/all-Quins/all-Whoever game).
OT: so now I need to get in the top3...
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 26, 2006 15:47:49 GMT -5
And in regard to the Losses of CCC, I already reported that I will report the losses after the Admins have made their decision on the matter in regards to sidhe.
No, no, no. If you lose an event you report. What we do to Sidhe has nothing to do with the fact that you did not win. He may very well be punished for his actions but I can tell you now no one will be "rewarded" from our decision. So if you lost I suggest you report.
Whether he caused you demise at this point is alot of "if's" to which we will never know the answer. This being said the winner of the ironman is still the ironman champion of this CCC whether we find Sidhe of inapropriate conduct or not.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 26, 2006 23:50:00 GMT -5
Actually I can clear that up easily upon playing with several of the other players whether referring to events they already new were happening influenced there decision to attack. 1 player said that guys is full of it, the other said that guy always blames his losses on anything but himself. I can tell you right now if any player in that game thought it made a blind bit of difference to the game they would have said so in Game theories semi rant to that effect. It was a breach of the rules yes, but Mrgame messed up in attacking when Tommy had already made threats about killing someone, that is a fact; you want to live in denial about the foolishness of your actions fine by me, just take it somewhere else in future and don't plaster your insulting nonsense across the boards. That showed a real lack of style and sportsmanship. Which IMO was worse than the original infraction. I'll say it again for those who didn't get it the fourth time, when the score of one player decreases by 80 points and the corresponding score of another leaps by something similar you don't have to be Sherlock friggin' Holmes to work out what the hell is going on. There is only one circumstance where this happens. City planting won't cause this neither will the artistic bomb. I sent this guy the save from tommy's perspective in the hopes it'd shut him up, but somehow I doubt it As far as I'm concerned I got precisely what I deserved for the infringement. A week playing in the other leagues. And a ban from the next CCC. I apologise for diverting this thread once again but if he wants to make it public then I want to state my case publicly. Not be named as a cheat and liar with no chance to respond. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. If game wants to take it up then let's hear it from you, otherwise email me in private - like you should of done in the first place - and I'll fish out more of the saves/pw's that I didn't have and was lying about, and show you the game from some other players perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 27, 2006 2:37:53 GMT -5
guess wrong place - but i dont think that sidhe should be punished in any way - in playing a 10 hour quite boring game u tend to tálk - sidhe didnt even say by whom he was attcked just that it wasnt clever to attck the last in score
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 27, 2006 6:43:24 GMT -5
guess wrong place - but i dont think that sidhe should be punished in any way - in playing a 10 hour quite boring game u tend to tálk - sidhe didnt even say by whom he was attcked just that it wasnt clever to attck the last in score Why not? Why is there no point in killing last place? This is the ccc, the sooner you can finish off the people behind you the faster you can get in the pts...
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 9:10:48 GMT -5
Yilar this was optional raising so yes there was some advantage to killing me off. What I meant was that in a situation where tommy is itching to kill someone and you're in second place, it's probably not a good idea to attack the person in last place.
Attacking Tommy not a bad idea, although I couldn't of known just how advanced he was when I said it as it would have been a bad idea too. Of course if the person in last place poses a threat to you then that changes everything but in this case he knew I didn't.
His reason was probably to try and take my cities thus put him in a comfortable position behind Tommy, unfortunately I proved a stronger opponent than he envisioned killing off his first stack and retaking two cities he had hit. At this point or close to it Tommy attacked the now weakened Game, and not long after he attacked me too. This made Game theory go mental as he mistakenly thought this was influenced by our discussion on the disadvantages of attacking. Technicaly speaking of course it was Game theory who's responses alerted the players to the source of the attack, that and as mentioned before the score situation, which had given it away long before that. It seems Tommy was oblivious to either as he had decided already to attack Game, before in fact the argument broke out. But then who pays much attention to score when your in that position.
Now we've cleared that up.
Ironman does need some rethinking between now and the next CCC, anyone who says India or China are not the choicest civs is not being entirely honest, I wasn't aware of Englands power but I supose it makes sense, I would of chose England on the civics and the UU but someone else already had it and I got to pick 2nd to last, France not bad traits but not great. Tommy agreed before we started that India had an edge, but that the rules dictated that he should chose first, if he wanted to play by them that was entirely his choice and no one was going to question them at the time other than to raise some understandable objections. After the fact how much of tommy's enormous points tally was due to India 5%, 10%, impossible to know, since Tommy earnt the victory by killing China and inheriting a vast empire, no ones going to argue that it changed the result, just that it isn't a good idea to put an advantage in the hands of players who already suposedly are the best players, you wouldn't start a game of pool removing one of the spot balls for the champ would you? Or giving the Champ an extra wild card in a poker game. Why should the CCC be any different?
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 27, 2006 9:36:38 GMT -5
You don't seem to get blitzkrieg warfare sidhe, you kill your enemy quick before anyone notices. In this case he took 1-2 cities before you sounded the alert and the blitzkrieg was over. He now had to go on defence just to survive because everyone knew his defenses were down. It might have taken them a few extra turns to realize what was going on, but because you sounded the alarm everyone knew instantly.
You were indirectly giving information about someone attacking you, and this is illegal according to the cton rules. Let people find out for themselfs if someone is attacking someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 9:50:15 GMT -5
No he didn't it took him quite a while to even take one city and as I said the score alerted people long before I did. By the time he had lost the two cities again he was in trouble, Blitzkrieg should leave you in a winning position very quickly not leave you needing a second wave to finish the job, the second lot of troops failed so I think he must be referring to the third lot when he says second wave anyway.
And as I said technically he gave that information I never mentioned who was attacking and to be honest it could have been anyone, including Tommy, he gave that information away himself when the argument started, and that was about 3 or 4 turns after it became pretty obvious to everyone else anyway because of the score diving, it's impossible not to notice when someone leaps ahead in score and then someones position changes, trust me even if the drop is one place, it catches your eye, then a quick glance at who's jumped in score or leapfrogged someone and it's all pretty clear anyway. Then the argument starts and it confirms what you already know.
Tommy could not get tanks to Game in under 10/11 turns so the whole thing being some sort of response to our disagreement is utter nonsense anyway. he was in 2nd place Tommy therefore chose him as a target, just a few turns before he gets there he finds out Game is attacking someone else, Tommy attacks, nothing changes.
Tommy wouldn't say I deserve no penalty for no reason Yilar, I disagree it was technically a breach of cton although it had no relevance to the game. Was the punishment too harsh, who knows?
|
|