 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
Let me play devil's advocate here. I have yet to see the first piece of real evidence Lucky was cheating. (And yes, I read nearly all posts here since the start, even if I didn't write much myself). There are plenty of things that look fishy, but nothing decisive. I agree his communications haven't always been friendly, many times childish, but cheating is not proven to me.
I've seen calculations on battles, now this 4 GL argument again (I regularly get >4 GLs in the course of a game, and rarely play militaristic civs), but can someone proof to me he is a liar and a cheat? Bashing someone on suspicions only is not fair, no matter how he acts. And a large part of how he acts can be explained if you take his viewpoint, and believe you've been betrayed by apolyton. Not all our communications to him or to the public have been friendly either, far from it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
My remark was not meant to open the discussion again. I only wanted to warn that it is easy to see all the things that went (too) well for him, and never see the things where he failed.
A couple of these overly lucky turns were replayed later on, proving that nothing was done to 'edit' the RNG. Moreover, the order in which the units attacked made sense to the admin (forgot his name). That doesn't rule out cheating, but at least in that one battle against us, we went from the near-certainty of cheating, to near-proof of normal, uncheated play. Only it keeps on lingering in the back of your head, so the next time you see something which doesn't feel right, it's easier to start shouting "He cheated again!", while nothing has been proven in the first place. I think this was, at least partly, what happened to Lucky. And he only made it worse through his writing style.
I'm pretty sure that, if they wanted to, they could also see a lot of things on our side, and use them to 'proof' we are cheating. In comparison, an example from the PTWDG: from the first and only hut GS found, we got a settler. The first or second battle of a vet brought us an elite. The second or third battle, we used that elite, and generated a leader. Now, how many times have you generated a GL with a non-mil civ, in 2 or 3 battles? At that point, we must have been viewed as the luckiest team in the world... and with very little push could be viewed as a cheating team. However, we did nothing strange here. We moved straight to the hut, and opened it at the first chance we got. Similarly, those first few battles were no-brainers, there was no choice, everybody would have done the same with very few differences (later on, that changed, but not those initial skirmishes).
So, for me, as long as there is no proof, we not only should keep our mouth shut in public (although GCA certainly knows what we think, enough has been said), but should also keep him innocent in our minds. He can be our enemy in-game, but that doesn't mean we've got to make him the devil as well.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
Anybody know of GCA's participation in the C3C ISDG? If they were equally lucky or not?
Like I said, we will never have conclusive proof that he cheated or not, it is simply that I cannot fathom his record in this game with the knowledge that he actually HAS the ability to alter the RNG. Maybe if he were just any poor sod like most of us who thinks C++ is a school grade and not a programming language then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But as it stands, he's someone with the motive to do it, and also the ability.
I know this is very far from being an objective piece of evidence but I tried to analyze Lucky from a psychological standpoint back in the day. He came across someone who is desperate in trying to find people to agree with him but at the same time he tries to . He is a VERY poor loser in the sense that he's accustomed to be the best at everything and failure hits him miserably. Therefore the solution is to not fail... at any price. If this implies cheating, I think he's someone who's perfectly capable of doing so, covering it up as long as he saves grace in doing so. There is no such thing as an honorable defeat for him, defeat is dishonorable in itself and unacceptable. If it is inevitable, he will try and cover it up with as many in-game and out-game excuses possible, hence his endless tirade against "our treachery" despite the fact that backstabbing is a way of life in Civ and he knows it. Despite being just a pawn at this stage of the game he was far more vocal than GWT, gloating about our failures.
In real-life Lucky must be a pretty smart person, very much above average. His ego is based on his intellectual prowess and it hurts him heavily when someone out-smarts him. Being out-smarted by Apolyton was unforgivable. In short, we're dealing with the kind of person who simply is not used to losing and will do whatever to avoid it even if it's against the rules.
Anyway, enough being a shrink for now. I still think he cheated. No, I don't think we should go public about that though I do agree that we should at least mention that his attitude was not conducive to good sportsmanship and that, above anything else, was what did this game in. 
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Maybe if he were just any poor sod like most of us who thinks C++ is a school grade and not a programming language |
Excuse me?  I know at least 4 people of GS are quite well trained in the use of C++, myself included, does this make us suspects as well? Plus, C++ has nothing to do with knowing how to tweak the RNG, we all know how to do it. Move units in a different order, change wonder builds, or outright use a trainer to change the seed. You don't need C++ knowledge for that...
quote:
hence his endless tirade against "our treachery" despite the fact that backstabbing is a way of life in Civ and he knows it. |
quote:
Being out-smarted by Apolyton was unforgivable. |
Like I said, I can understand his position on this, even if I agree completely he should give it a rest (but so should we). He is used to people keeping their deals, and 'poly did just the contrary. On top of that, when he had some luck in his battles he was accused, at least implicitely, of cheating. Can you imagine what would happen if such a person, if he doesn't cheat, is accused of cheating? Moreover, this accusation is never made in public, but is apparant in all communications, and is mentioned to all other teams? I can imagine you develop a life-long grudge...
quote:
I do agree that we should at least mention that his attitude was not conducive to good sportsmanship and that, above anything else, was what did this game in.
|
I do not think we have any right to take the moral high ground here. Some of 'our' posts I read on the UN were even farther from good sportmanship. These things are interactions: Lucky was partly fuelled by our members, just as he fuelled our reactions. AFAIK, GWT was the team that stayed out of this mess, but we certainly didn't. If you mention that the biggest reason that this game is ending is the way Lucky behaved, you immediately say that 'poly itself is also to blame. And the decision of who was actually the worst is a matter for debate, and very much influenced by which side you're on.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Excuse me? I know at least 4 people of GS are quite well trained in the use of C++, myself included, does this make us suspects as well? Plus, C++ has nothing to do with knowing how to tweak the RNG, we all know how to do it. Move units in a different order, change wonder builds, or outright use a trainer to change the seed. You don't need C++ knowledge for that...
|
I'm not sure if you recall the private correspondance Lucky and Arnelos had at the height of the cheating scandal. Basically Lucky admitted that he had investigated the inner workings of the RNG by hacking the game, this was all done for "his own studies" and obviously did not mention ever hacking the ISDG save. My point is that he is someone who had the practical ability to tweak the game if he wanted to. Whether he actually did so we'll never know of course.
quote:
Like I said, I can understand his position on this, even if I agree completely he should give it a rest (but so should we). He is used to people keeping their deals, and 'poly did just the contrary. On top of that, when he had some luck in his battles he was accused, at least implicitely, of cheating. Can you imagine what would happen if such a person, if he doesn't cheat, is accused of cheating? Moreover, this accusation is never made in public, but is apparant in all communications, and is mentioned to all other teams? I can imagine you develop a life-long grudge...
|
People get lucky frequently DeepO, in demogames, in PBEMs, in single player games. But we were not the only ones to bring up the cheating charge. CDG brought it up, CFC brought it up, and finally we did when we faced them on the battlefield. Moreso we calculated those odds and IIRC they weren't 1 in 10 or even 1 in 100 but something outrageously low. Did you also know that there was a Civ2 (game in which one can endlessly reload) ISDG before this? Guess who won... GCA.
quote:
I do not think we have any right to take the moral high ground here. Some of 'our' posts I read on the UN were even farther from good sportmanship. These things are interactions: Lucky was partly fuelled by our members, just as he fuelled our reactions. AFAIK, GWT was the team that stayed out of this mess, but we certainly didn't. If you mention that the biggest reason that this game is ending is the way Lucky behaved, you immediately say that 'poly itself is also to blame. And the decision of who was actually the worst is a matter for debate, and very much influenced by which side you're on.
DeepO |
I agree with you entirely in this point and you probably recall very well my own personal efforts as Consul (and even before that) to stop those types of inflamatory posts from our team at the UN (to no avail). But the difference is that the leadership of this team at the time made it clear that those remarks were comments made by individuals and NOT the official "government line". Our leadership, at least while I was in it, never acted the way Lucky did.
Again, I don't want to imply that we should accuse Lucky publically about cheating as we have no conclusive evidence that it ever happened. I am merely pointing out that from my point of view I find it hard to believe that GCA played in an entirely honest manner. That's just my own personal opinion which I don't expect everyone to share.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
I'm not sure if you recall the private correspondance Lucky and Arnelos had at the height of the cheating scandal. Basically Lucky admitted that he had investigated the inner workings of the RNG by hacking the game, this was all done for "his own studies" and obviously did not mention ever hacking the ISDG save. My point is that he is someone who had the practical ability to tweak the game if he wanted to. Whether he actually did so we'll never know of course. |
Okay, you clarified your point here. However, in the end it still doesn't change things... Aeson was also someone who invested a lot of time in figuring out how the save stores this information and other possible ways of cheating, yet I trust him completely with the GS save. OTOH, there are other guys who want to cheat, and they can always find ways. It takes a bit of intelligence, but no prior programming skills.
quote:
People get lucky frequently DeepO, in demogames, in PBEMs, in single player games. But we were not the only ones to bring up the cheating charge. CDG brought it up, CFC brought it up, and finally we did when we faced them on the battlefield. |
These things are always brought up whenever a certain outcome is not as expected. Seeing that at that time, PBEMs were relatively new, it was to be expected.
quote:
Moreso we calculated those odds and IIRC they weren't 1 in 10 or even 1 in 100 but something outrageously low. |
Yes they were, and those calculations have been flawed from the get go. I realized it then, but seeing as that by the time I read them, the turn was replayed by the admin and everything worked out fine I didn't want to go into detail.
Here is where it went wrong:
- first of all, all calculations were done using the exact damage done, and never done with the damage done, or better. This makes it something like a 10^-200 chance of getting that same exact result, while in reality there was e.g. a 10% chance of getting the result, or better.
- secondly, and this I realized then, but it became very clear in the Lego war, is that we only calculated the odds with just a simple Army_A attacks Army_B. There is a huge difference in odds if you pick what unit focusses on what other unit, especially if you've got damaged units. The order in which you attack is really what makes or breaks a large battle... look at your Stanwix manoeuvre in the PTWDG: we calculated the odds beforehand, and were looking at whether it was worth it for GS to attack Stanwix from behind. Without ordering the units (especially your units, we only had tanks and 1 MI), there was no way we could make it. Chances were many magnitudes below 1 %. By ordering, however, we got a near certainty of victory. We didn't even use our MI, and only went with tanks.
- third, and this also became clear in the Lego war, is that all those chance calculations are in itself flawed, as they happen after the battle is done. In reality, any good player will keep track of his luck while playing, and push on if it is going well, and stop half way through if the odds are against him. The transport attack on Lego was classical in this respect. We calculated beforehand that 8 arts had to bring the BBs down to 6 hp (including possible promotions) to have a ~50% chance of succeeding with the transports. As it was such a crucial move, we were even willing to try it with 7 hp left. More, and the transports were better saved for something else, as the chance of success was too low. But, most likely outcome after bombardment was 7 hp or more... So, we bombarded the BBs, got lucky (only 5 hp left), and proceeded with the transports. Globally, we only had a 3% chance of succeeding (or something similar), but by breaking the battle in several subbattles, we upped that chance considerably. By including these midtime decisions, all chance calculations are flawed by design.
- fourth, part of the chance calculation was the fact that we knew none of the attackers lost. Again, if you play for this result, it is not so surprising. Use mobile forces first, and swords only on damaged units, and there is a good chance none of your units actually dies. If you change ordering to swords first, horses last, this calculation changes considerably.
In summary, the situation is much too complex, and you can't just calculate a chance, and use that as proof. I don't buy it at all, as only part of the possibilities are foreseen. The moment you put stacks against stacks, the odds are always better for the attacker than what you expect, and sometimes differ extremely compared to the more naive calculations the defender can make.
quote:
Did you also know that there was a Civ2 (game in which one can endlessly reload) ISDG before this? Guess who won... GCA. |
No, I didn't know this. And it seems strange if the same people are playing, as GCA never showed exceptional skill in this game (they were a lot better than CFC, though, which is strange if you look at the importance of that site).
quote:
But the difference is that the leadership of this team at the time made it clear that those remarks were comments made by individuals and NOT the official "government line". Our leadership, at least while I was in it, never acted the way Lucky did. |
Well... I only partly agree here. I mean, you are correct in that it never was the official position of our team, and in case some particularly nasty personal post was made, in many cases the consuls moved in to say it was not the official position. However, the moment one single member speaks, he speaks for the team. You can try to negate that all you wish, with disclaimers and whatnot, but everyone will remember it as a team position in the back of their heads. It was perfectly clear to GCA what went on in our private forum from the personal messages made in public. And once you get that, it doesn't matter one single bit how friendly the officials can be, as GCA felt it was just a facade.
Maybe I'm a lot more sensitive to this compared to you, because I found myself on the receiving end of such a public bashing once. I don't think that any GS member will ever forget that... yet it all must have seemed a bit of harmless fun for the other PTWDG teams. It's very hard to understand what another team thinks of public posts, as I said, the decision on whether GCA or us is worst is most likely simply a case of on which side you're on.
quote:
Again, I don't want to imply that we should accuse Lucky publically about cheating as we have no conclusive evidence that it ever happened. I am merely pointing out that from my point of view I find it hard to believe that GCA played in an entirely honest manner. That's just my own personal opinion which I don't expect everyone to share.
-MZ |
Of course, MZ. But bear in mind that negative stuff (bash Lucky) is always better heard than positive stuff. And I don't say I'm convinced he is innocent, but that's not the way it should be done, right? The proof needs to come from the cheating, and without cheating he is a honest player... with a terrible posting manner. I don't think you will ever see "Love Lucky" threads appearing as a reaction to this "Hate Lucky" one, or they would be done as jokes.
Is Lucky responsible for breaking this game? Partly, yes. But I feel a bigger reason for this apathy is the discussion and bashing surrounding all of this. If we would have ignored him from the start, and truely ignored him (so not only publicly, but also in this forum), it would have been a lot nicer to play and we might even have wanted to continue. So who is to blame, Lucky for being obnoxious, or us for letting him get under our skins?
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
I agree, MZ. Again, look at the PTWDG... most of the original GS members stay far away from this kind of trouble. We learned our lesson the hard way. I just hope that the same is possible to happen in the ISDG, where no ill feelings are left once the war (or in this case game) ends...
I'm half-sure Lucky in part is only provoking without harmful intent, just as Beta was in the Voxian war, or GoW was in the Bobian war. It was only not perceived like that, and over half our team left as a direct result of this provocation. While I don't see it likely that, even in another game, 'poly will ally with GCA, it should be possible in theory, just like GS and GoW allied against Lego.
I know. I'm a utopian 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
I agree, MZ. Again, look at the PTWDG... most of the original GS members stay far away from this kind of trouble. We learned our lesson the hard way. I just hope that the same is possible to happen in the ISDG, where no ill feelings are left once the war (or in this case game) ends...
I'm half-sure Lucky in part is only provoking without harmful intent, just as Beta was in the Voxian war, or GoW was in the Bobian war. It was only not perceived like that, and over half our team left as a direct result of this provocation. While I don't see it likely that, even in another game, 'poly will ally with GCA, it should be possible in theory, just like GS and GoW allied against Lego.
I know. I'm a utopian
DeepO |
I'm not sure Lucky's quite so innocent in this regard. I'd bet more than one of his comments have been with the explicit aim at pissing off/provoking the other side, other times it has been misinterpreted by the receiving side.
Likewise I never felt Vox's "propaganda" was anything more than comical jabs at GS during your war, apparently GS felt differently. I also know for a fact that GoW's provoking of GS was not meant to be taken seriously at first (I should know... I started it) but when it was, GoW also responded seriously and the nasty flame-fest ensued. One can never guess how the other guy will respond and whether he will take your "jokes" as such or as insults. The moral of the story, to me, was simple: don't mess around at all unless you are 100% sure your point will be carried across as you intend it to.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-12-2004 09:51
|