Don't see this anyway else, and hopefully this is the right place...
Anyway, last night Coded made nearly 300 seq 2 player games, which wouldn't be a problem even though its weird except for two things... One his occupation reads: "I'm Temporarily away from CC. An account sitter will be taking my turns until i get back." Which of course could be outdated... Also his rank has fallen from Major to Corporal 1st Class in a matter of 24 hours. And I highly doubt he has been playing that badly... So either he is throwing games, or been hacked or the sitter is abusing his sitting powers or something...
Sounds like his sitter is loosing points on purpose. Sucks for coded and he is going to be very upset when he returns.
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to
'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to
'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
as reported in other threads. it may be a case of attemting to use the gamemechanics to come up with a higher pointscore as well as setting up a nice winning streak.
SirSebstar wrote:as reported in other threads. it may be a case of attemting to use the gamemechanics to come up with a higher pointscore as well as setting up a nice winning streak.
i have to say its quite brilliant really...
although it does count as point-dumping.
brilliant? not really,
useful? only if you maintain your regular win loose ratio
annoying? hell yes
pointdumping? probaly not, since he is not really dumping points, he just does not take his wins. He does takes his lossess first, thus maximizing his win streak. Highly annoying, so even if it is not point-dumpnig, it is still arguably against the CC rules since this tactic is quite disruptive and disturbing in a myriad of ways.
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to
'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
SirSebstar wrote:brilliant? not really,
useful? only if you maintain your regular win loose ratio
annoying? hell yes
pointdumping? probaly not, since he is not really dumping points, he just does not take his wins. He does takes his lossess first, thus maximizing his win streak. Highly annoying, so even if it is not point-dumpnig, it is still arguably against the CC rules since this tactic is quite disruptive and disturbing in a myriad of ways.
If you dont mind I would like to poke a few holes in your logic. You are assuming that he will win and lose a set number of games so by losing first and winning later he will be at a higher score, however the problem falls with the assumption that he will win a set number and lose a set number. You seem to think that the fact he is losing games now will make him win games later, which is incorrect as he outcome of any game has no effect on the other games, thus him gaining points from losing is incorrect, barring a BR win on a very large map.
SirSebstar wrote:brilliant? not really,
useful? only if you maintain your regular win loose ratio
annoying? hell yes
pointdumping? probaly not, since he is not really dumping points, he just does not take his wins. He does takes his lossess first, thus maximizing his win streak. Highly annoying, so even if it is not point-dumpnig, it is still arguably against the CC rules since this tactic is quite disruptive and disturbing in a myriad of ways.
If you dont mind I would like to poke a few holes in your logic. You are assuming that he will win and lose a set number of games so by losing first and winning later he will be at a higher score, however the problem falls with the assumption that he will win a set number and lose a set number. You seem to think that the fact he is losing games now will make him win games later, which is incorrect as he outcome of any game has no effect on the other games, thus him gaining points from losing is incorrect, barring a BR win on a very large map.
Well, I think he is right.
If you got 1000 points, and 100 games active.
You first win 50 games, youll be at, let's say, 2000 points, and than you will lose 50 games, your at a lower score than 1000.
If you first lose 50 games, then winning 50 games, youll have a higher score then 1000. Since, if your score is 500, and you will win a game with an opponent with 1000, youll get (1000 /500) * 20,= 40 points. If you can make a winning streake of like, 100 games, starting from a very low score, you can go up very fast.
Could that be considered cheating though? I can see where it can but I can also see where it could be a good strategy pending your ability to win your next 100 games.
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to
'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
SirSebstar wrote:brilliant? not really,
useful? only if you maintain your regular win loose ratio
annoying? hell yes
pointdumping? probaly not, since he is not really dumping points, he just does not take his wins. He does takes his lossess first, thus maximizing his win streak. Highly annoying, so even if it is not point-dumpnig, it is still arguably against the CC rules since this tactic is quite disruptive and disturbing in a myriad of ways.
If you dont mind I would like to poke a few holes in your logic. You are assuming that he will win and lose a set number of games so by losing first and winning later he will be at a higher score, however the problem falls with the assumption that he will win a set number and lose a set number. You seem to think that the fact he is losing games now will make him win games later, which is incorrect as he outcome of any game has no effect on the other games, thus him gaining points from losing is incorrect, barring a BR win on a very large map.
Well, I think he is right.
If you got 1000 points, and 100 games active.
You first win 50 games, youll be at, let's say, 2000 points, and than you will lose 50 games, your at a lower score than 1000.
If you first lose 50 games, then winning 50 games, youll have a higher score then 1000. Since, if your score is 500, and you will win a game with an opponent with 1000, youll get (1000 /500) * 20,= 40 points. If you can make a winning streake of like, 100 games, starting from a very low score, you can go up very fast.
Except how well you do in the first fifty has absolutely nothing to do with how well you will do in the next fifty. If you lose the first fifty games you will have the exact same odds of winning the next fifty as if you had won the first fifty.
EDIT: Never mind, I think I've figured out what you mean.
Last edited by Blinkadyblink on Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If what some are saying is true, then all he is doing is playing some games really quickly, while letting others take longer. I don't see how there can be a rule dictating when you can, or can't take your turns.
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to
'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
The problem lays in the fact that he's intentionally delaying his wins until his score is really low from all the losses so that he grabs a disproportionately large number of points from each win.
This screws over everyone who he beats because they shouldn't be losing as many points as they ultimately will and artificially inflates Coded's score, artificially lowers the score of everyone he beats and generally messes with everyone's head. And, in the process because he's taking as long as possible with the games he's winning so that all his losses clear first, he pisses off the people in those games for being so slow (especially if they are feemiums)
This is essentially what traditional point dumping does, but in a more compressed and systematic manner. He's not purely dumping points by deadbeating, he's playing the games it seems, but he's intentionally letting his score drop before he wins his games - it's very bad sportsmanship and an abuse of the system to be sure, but case for reset and/or ban, I'm not so sure.
Twill
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.
Twill wrote:
This is essentially what traditional point dumping does, but in a more compressed and systematic manner. He's not purely dumping points by deadbeating, he's playing the games it seems, but he's intentionally letting his score drop before he wins his games - it's very bad sportsmanship and an abuse of the system to be sure, but case for reset and/or ban, I'm not so sure.
should be interesting how this is handled. hmmmm... if you reset him, he gains the advantage of huge points when beating people of what once was his rank... just interesting... good luck on this one... the black jesus has spoken...-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
I see nothing wrong with this tactic. In fact, I think it's something the majority of players have done.
Let's say you're in 10 games, 2 of which you are clearly going to lose. If you can lose those games before going on to your others, which you may possibly win, why would you not take the losses beforehand so as to gain more points from those you win?
Granted, on as large as scale as Coded is doing this (if he is, in fact, doing it), it may ring of being "unsportsmanlike", but with the various ways I've seen many players play, i.e.- joining games with their pals on another team, assuring one of their teams will win; Making truces that are kept well-beyond creating game parity (basically, keeping a truce until the team that was kicking their asses has no chance); Purposely deadbeating when it serves an end; etc. etc.
IMO - The mods should really have no say regarding how quickly or slowly a player makes his/her turns in any given game. -Especially since there's no rule in place about deliberate deadbeating.
It's all part and parcel. Either address all of the ways in which players are working the system, or say nothing; But don't chastise a player who is making his moves in the order which benefits his points best.
I have involved myself in a large amount of matches (still ongoing) concerning the instant matter: Games vs. coded. I entered into these matches when my rank was Captain and coded was Major. I entered into the same thinking that since our ranks were close and he was posting matches of boards “maps” I like to play and that playing a “bulk series” would be entertaining and challenging. I did receive correspondence from coded asking only if I mind if we play slowly and an unclear reference to the fact that he was experimenting with a large amount of games. To which I replied… “No, please take your time, I am happy to involve myself in matches where rank is closely matched". I entered into those matches in good faith believing they would be played out in linear order and was not part of what turned out to be an unethical point gaining scheme.
Because of the point gaining “sling-shot effect” that will result, I will likely lose a minimum 200 points that would not have been lost had those games been played in linear fashion as they were intended and in good faith entered into.
Although we strive to simulate a “battle” or “war” game, it could be argued that this was simply a “smart tactic”. I would however have to strongly disagree. Point dumping is what it is and the definition thereof is clear: Any act or action whereby a player deliberately dumps points. There can be no other definition or interpretation and I would proffer that the judgment should be based on this and this alone. If a legitimate argument can be brought-forth whereby it can be shown that “point dumping” did not occur, then no exact or instant offense has been committed; not-withstanding that the rule does exist that a player may be punished if he or she does anything to undermine the integrity of the site and game play leaving the question open “does malicious intent exist by this action?” In this case, point dumping did occur… i.e. the evidence is clear: the offending player dropped from Major to Private in a 24 hour period by dumping points NO MATTER the method or reason. Additionally, the very fact that the offending player deferred his wins may also be defined as point dumping.
As to retribution, I would respectfully request that since no precise precedent exists (though I am sure point dumping methods of other sorts have occurred) that all games and matches be RESET!
The options before you are:
1. To do nothing: And, if you “do nothing” copy-cats will soon adapt the same technique and in an unprecedented manner, undermine the entire CC community.
2. Give a warning: If you do, again, this would not deter copy-cats and the same technique and in an unprecedented manner, undermine the entire CC community.
3. Banishment of player as a “premium”: Too harsh a punishment in this event but a viable option that would set a proper precedent and likely deter copy-cats.
4. Reset all games and set a precedent that would likely deter copy-cats.
5. Suspend player for an appropriate period of time, and likely deter copy-cats.
In my view, as an affected victim, resetting causes no harm to all who may have been victimized by this unethical play. As to punitive measure, I would leave that to site authorities to judge. Resetting alone is not a punitive measure, it is a protective action.
I would therefore request that at the least a reset occur and measures be taken to assure that this does not occur again or spread.
Respectfully,
Gutshots
Last edited by Gutshots on Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
