 |
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
Please see the latest chatlog by conmcb25 in the FA Correspondence thread.
conmcb25, concerning the log and your comment:
1. Most of this information was already known and has already been hashed out in here. If GCA were using C3MT to simply remove Apolyton units from existence, Mongoose would have been unable to reproduce their results.
2. Can you please make the log so that the names of which posters are posting which comments shows up? If the problem is that Apolyton is interpreting the names surrounded by "<" and ">" as html tags, simply remove all of the "<" characters before each name. While "conmcb25" surrounded by "<" and ">" will be interpreted by Apolyton as an html tag and won't show up, "conmcb25>" will still show up. Conversely, I believe there are ways of recording the logs themselves that don't use those characters.
3. If GCA did cheat, I'm inclined to believe that it was Lucky acting alone without the knowledged of his teammates. Even if others WERE looking over his shoulder, they would still be able to reproduce his results just as Mongoose does. The beauty of the cheat that it seems Lucky may have been using is that it is largely invisible... it has to do with knowing what to expect will happen and reacting based upon that foreknowledge, not with actually ALTERING the files themselves. It's entirely possible that only Lucky knows what he's done and the rest of his team refuses to believe he's cheated because while they've been fantastically lucky, they were all there and no cheating took place as far as they can tell.
4. While I would highly suspect Lucky of perhaps trying something like this because of his character, my impression of the character of the GWT is rather different. There's also the matter of whether Lucky would really risk telling GWT about how he would have cheated, taking the rather SIGNIFICANT risk that at least someone on GWT would object to his method of playing the game. I find it far more likely that Lucky would keep his mouth shut because he simply couldn't/can't risk openly admitting what he's really doing and that he's done it in this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
Interesting theory about the editor, but keep in mind Mongoose did replay their turns multiple times and reproduce their results.
Doesn't mean they weren't poofing units (leaders even) from the ether and using them a few turns later just to be safe. Our never getting a GA from a merc win can be explained with simple reloads as well....even with preserve random seed on they can just avoid any battle that results in our GA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
In multiple occasions the various circumstantial evidence that suggested cheating by CGA has been posted here. Here is a rundown:
1. CGA winning against CDG's Immortals: Looking back, other than that CDG having the superior unit and a GA to boot, the one event that stands out was when CDG had their 6 Immortal stack wiped out. Maybe they did have 8-9 Swords in reserve. I dont remember any other specifics regarding suspicious results here.
2. GL generation. 3 GL's in the ancient era, without being militaristic, without the Epic either (it wasn't in any city thay was investigated, if I'm correct. This is suspicious. How many elite victories could they have gotten between the CDG, CFC, Poly wars? I see no realistic way they could have gotten more that 15-20. I believe we know roughly when the leaders from the CFC and Poly wars were generated. No more that 3-4 elite attacks could have elapsed between those two leaders.
3. No Merc losses. We have beaten this dead horse to death (no pun intented). changes of 6-7 merc losses vs. horse win/retreat with no victories. Odds of this <1%.
4. Unusual attack patterns. This is our only physical evidence of cheating. On one occasion they attacked a merc on a hill guarded by a catapult with an elite horse. Why risk a lone unit against the merc in this location, never mind an elite. We would have never made that attack. During the Alagord Battle, CGA attacked our full health MDI with Spears!! This one made my mind up. I have never attacked a full health 2 defense unit with a spear. It's just not a rational course of action. The odds simply dont made it a plausible action.
But the still lost, only to have GWT save them. You wonder what info lucky gave them in return.
Fortunately the C3C game will have battle logs. This will help some.
As for the current game. the only way to resolve this is to have mongoose look at CGA/GWT saves over many turns. Any "created" units, GL's etc. would show up upon examination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
This is one of the few times I think I have ever disagreed with Trip :P
I don't think all of the whining about cheating is pure whining. However, I think there is enough circumstancial evidence to count as "smoke", but unfortunately the argument where there is smoke there is fire isn't going to hold up here.
I do fully agree with Trip though about GWT though, and I do think there is a tendancy to let the accuasations get out of hand.
My personal opinion on it:
GCA is probally guilty of reloading to the extent that if they lost to a NM and triggered our GA they reloaded and attacked somewhere else. If they did lose 8 units on offense against non-NMs then that even supports that, although we only have their word on that. Ironically though, not triggering our GA was to our benefit :P
As for cheating against CDG, CFC, or CGN now.... I haven't seen enough evidence to know. I very highly doubt they cheated beyond reloading to selectively decide when to attack and when to fall back.
The only reason I'm convinced of reloading against us is the GA/NM odds are too out of place to really ignore.
In short: If someone is planning to accuse them of using an editor to hack the save to create units or delete units or whatever, they had best have proof first. First because its a fairly outragous suggestion, and second because if they didn't do it (and they probally didn't) they can prove such by simple inspection of their saves on each turn showing where each unit came from. All this will accomplish: It will make us look like sore losers and completely discredit any former or future allegations of cheating regardless of how likely they were.
In other words, short of new evidence that expressely implicates them in *this* game, we need to drop it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
The single most important thing from that chat log:
GWT has 9 galleys
GCA has an unspecified "many galleys"
To me this indicates that as soon as those are upgradable we had best be prepared for a massive invasion. It really sounds to me like they are planning ahead for that outcome (although the galleys would have had limited use with circumvenint choke points in their current war as well)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-03-2004 16:13
Agree. You can't call cheating everytime you lose a unit. 
|