 |
| |
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
(How does the possibility of ejecting GCA and putting CDG in control of their civ sound as a possible punishment, actually? Or am I being stupid?) |
I understand the sentiment, but it really doesn't fix anything.
1. CDG is scattered to other teams (in some cases)
2. It doesn't make us whole in comparison to the other teams
3. What about CFC, they lost tons of units as well.
The only possible solution I see is GCA giving us all their cities east of BoP and CFC the ones on the western side.
That way we would not lose any more units and gain what we would have gained anyway and CFC would be somewhat compensated.
CFC should not get BoP and beyond because they didn't bring forth this evidence. And we should not be reviving dead civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
How about this argument from GCA:
"We don't enjoy doing heavy micromanagement like all you other teams seem to love. We prefer doing battle. We obviously like winning (and getting Great Leaders), and so we reload to determine what the best chances are in any given turn. We put as much work into this as you guys put into your heavy economic analyses. Reloading and micromanagement are just two tools available to any civ player. The relative advantage we gain in reloading is comparable to the advantage gained from hardcore micromanagement (Apolyton is a case in point). Therefore we do not feel we have any particular advantage here. And even if we did, you guys can have it too (and you should, if you want to win)."
What do we say to that?
Dominae |
We tell them that is the biggest crock of bull we have ever heard.
We tell them that reloading is NOT accepted as a valid form of play by the grand majority of serious players, more so, we tell them that reloading = replaying. It is just wrong to "replay" an event in a historical game, what happens happens, period. Napoleon and Hitler didn't have the advantages of replaying battles, but they DID have the advantages of "micromanaging" (or rather efficient managment of their economies). Micromanaging does not replay events, it does not twist history, replaying battles does.
We finally tell them that we will seriously consider boycotting any further inter-site demo game where the Gamecatcher Alliance is involved in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
I say we say "Okay, chief, you want it, you fuggin got it."
And we hit them with each and every one of our units, and we reload each and every time until we get a kill with every unit, MI, NM, and warrior. When we shatter their entire army in one turn, they'll scream "Momma" real quick.
But since that would be the evil road to take, I'm inclined at this point to say we might want to consider abandoning the game as well, unless GCA is immediately shattered into our and CFC's territory.
And guys..... c'mon, I'm an admin in charge of monitoring cheating for the MP ladder. Knock off the "IF" crap. I'd have the kick/ban already sent in if this was a ladder game. There's no "IF" about it. Since no one else seems willing to say it outright, here, you can quote and blame me:
GCA, or at least the turn player, is knowingly and willingly reloading which constitutes cheating, and those not playing the turn are aware and conspiring in the effort.
The benefit of the doubt is one thing. But to quote a certain figure from AC we all may know:
"Mankind's capacity to ignore evidence has always astounded me. In the face of mountains of evidence, he will believe what he prefers to be true, rather than what the evidence suggests. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
1 in 6.4 million? Even 1 in 1.2 million? Give me a break. We KNOW they've cheated. Let's move on to the next phase.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
FWIW, in the UN rules faq at 1BC, Lucky himself gave this in the third post:
Multi-site Demogame RULES
1. Have fun!
2. NO cheating, NO playing ahead!
3. Do NOT contact another team (in an official function) before the civs meet in the game!
I consider reloading to be playing ahead. Not exactly what is meant by that, but it is similar, playing ahead in the turn then starting it over.
It frankly wouldn't suprise me if they had a dual install running the old version where they can load our turns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by conmcb25
What the heck is RNG referred to above? |
Random Number Generator.
The baby that gives you Great Leaders but also makes you lose Tanks to Musketmen.
All bow down to the RNG. Amen.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
I can see no reason why you would not share what info you have about a battle in a PBEM that would not already be accessable in a regular SP game or in a HotSeat, Turnbased, Simultaneous, or other game modes that would let another Civ player see what combat took place along with the results.
The last player in a PBEM actually has an advantage, unfairly, I might add. They get to see Barb movements. If an AI is in the game, then they get to see AI movements as well.
Why should seeing your opponents moves/combat be in every other mode except PBEM? Well, PBEM works differently because not all moves are done at once. But, that does not mean that the info should not get to the other players just because it is a PBEM.
It also allows for suspisious activity to be seen. Like someone attacking a single unit with a Spear instead of an Archer becasue they reloaded and found that the RNG allowed for the Spear to win, but not the Archer at that point in time. It does not rule out all reloading, but it cuts down on it and raises questions as to timing issues.
I really think the PBEM format is flawed and should include a combat report for each turn. The Military Advisor could be the avenue in which the info was presented. But, that is for Civ 4 possibly! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:31
|
|
Honestly I think that unit secrecy is part of the PBEM mystique and adds to the challange since you don't really know what you are fighting against (call it a fog of war). I do totally agree though that you should be able to see the other players' turns, I in fact *****ed about this during the C3C beta test...
I just don't find it right to submit a combat report to the guy you are at war with simply because if you want to do it just to prove the guy is cheating or not you can do other things. For example, never in a PBEM have I encountered similar luck to that displayed by GCA in this game. If I had, I would be screaming bloody murder and openly challanging him to prove his luck. Honestly, when I join a PBEM it is because I trust the people I am playing against to be honest in this sense. I would not join a PBEM with Lucky or fanes7 precisely because I know what they might be capable of doing.
Like I said, I have never seen similar luck in a PBEM, be it against me, or my luck. By luck I mean consistent luck. Sure, sometimes things get whack, like in FAM 1 when you took one of my cities defended by a fortified pike in a walled city with a measly horesman. That's luck. However, though I did sense that the RNG favored you in that game it was not something out of the ordinary. Same in FAM 3, I got extremely lucky in my first turn attacking you. However my subsequent turns were not nearly so lucky. My point is that people WILL notice when someone is cheating so blatantly because we all have experiences on what to expect with the RNG. Until that happens, I assume that everyone I am playing a PBEM against doesn't cheat.
Finally, the incentive to cheat in a PBEM is just not there. It's not the end of the world if you lose and you don't go around bragging your ass off if you win. Demo games are totally different especially this one which is by far the most important one ever held. The incentive to cheat here is VERY high which is why having a neutral oserver that we can really trust is so important. Sadly, I'm not so sure mongoose fits the bill in this respect.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-10-2003 23:04
|