Worm1 helps higher ranking player win for "less points loss"

[Samurai_]

Accused:

Worm1

The accused are suspected of:

Other: Helping another player win

Game number(s):

Game 15489426

Comments:

Basically, all three players attacked me to give SKETRS (yellow) the advantage, then Worm1 declared, "Nice accusation, read the log I was hitting yellow. No more, yellow has the better rank and therefore less points loss. Besides yellow has played the best game"

After he's helped yellow gain the lead, to my detriment, he decides that he's just going to keep attacking me (the far weaker player) so that the higher-ranking SKETRS can claim the win. He's attacked me and only me the last two turns, despite yellow controlling more regions than the rest of the board combined, even actively trying to break a region he thought I had a bonus in.

[ronsizzle]

as a wise man once said "sorry 'bout your little butt".

[owenshooter]

suck it up cupcake!!!



ba ha ha ha...-Jésus noir

[Samurai_]

Then they wonder why no one wants to pay for their site. Lol. Later, guys.

[iAmCaffeine]

They might come across as dickheads but they're right. Just foe the guy and move on. It is a competitive scene after all.

[Donelladan]

Obvious game throwing. Punish Worm1.
People need to stop thinking throwing the game away to lose less points is OK. That is still game throwing !!


EDIT : After reading the log and the chat. They didn't throw the game. You were leader when they attacked you, then yellow strike strong and took the lead. Other people realized it too late.
I still think game throwing for points is stupid and should be punished, but isn't the case here.

[clangfield]

Obvious game throwing. Punish Worm1.
People need to stop thinking throwing the game away to lose less points is OK. That is still game throwing !!


EDIT : After reading the log and the chat. They didn't throw the game. You were leader when they attacked you, then yellow strike strong and took the lead. Other people realized it too late.
I still think game throwing for points is stupid and should be punished, but isn't the case here.

What is one supposed to do then? I think this is over-moralising.
I agree that starting out with that intention is unsporting; but when it gets to the end of a game that one can't possibly win (eg no spoils trench), given that the ethos is about gaining the highest possible number of points (and maintaining it thereafter), then minimising any losses is simply sensible long-term strategy. The fewer points one loses, the better for one's military career.
If you are only getting 3 troops. do you always deploy them meticulously so that you can hit all your opponents equally? What if you have more than 3 opponents? Then you have to choose. If you choose to deploy such that it increases your losses, that is surely not good strategy in the wider context.

[owenshooter]

Obvious game throwing. Punish Worm1.
People need to stop thinking throwing the game away to lose less points is OK. That is still game throwing !!


EDIT : After reading the log and the chat. They didn't throw the game. You were leader when they attacked you, then yellow strike strong and took the lead. Other people realized it too late.
I still think game throwing for points is stupid and should be punished, but isn't the case here.

What is one supposed to do then? I think this is over-moralising.
I agree that starting out with that intention is unsporting; but when it gets to the end of a game that one can't possibly win (eg no spoils trench), given that the ethos is about gaining the highest possible number of points (and maintaining it thereafter), then minimising any losses is simply sensible long-term strategy. The fewer points one loses, the better for one's military career.
If you are only getting 3 troops. do you always deploy them meticulously so that you can hit all your opponents equally? What if you have more than 3 opponents? Then you have to choose. If you choose to deploy such that it increases your losses, that is surely not good strategy in the wider context.

i would suggest that you finish reading the rest of his post... the part about delving into the log and clearly seeing that the game was not thrown for less points loss.. that is what i would suggest you do...-Jésus noir

[Donelladan]

I think this is a pervert effect of the scoring system.
When I play, I play each game as if it was a unique game. I never care about points loss. Losing 30 or 40 points should not make me change my strategy.
It is extremely unfair for low ranked players. If I was a freemium with a low rank, and was seeing a brig suiciding on me to avoid losing many points after a long strategical game in which I had the leader position, it would pissed me off so much I would probably leave right away the site. That so cheap.

[Dukasaur]

Then they wonder why no one wants to pay for their site. Lol. Later, guys.

Who exactly is "they"?

[betiko]

I think this is a pervert effect of the scoring system.
When I play, I play each game as if it was a unique game. I never care about points loss. Losing 30 or 40 points should not make me change my strategy.
It is extremely unfair for low ranked players. If I was a freemium with a low rank, and was seeing a brig suiciding on me to avoid losing many points after a long strategical game in which I had the leader position, it would pissed me off so much I would probably leave right away the site. That so cheap.

Let s face it: if low ranked player totally deserves the win I will not take it from him and give it to mid ranked player that hasn t done shit and has been camping.
If low ranked player has been given the game on a platter by a suiciding idiot without deserving it, i will rebalance the game in favour of a higher ranked player. It s not the same thing to lose 60pts or 25pts, and it s not the same thing to get them back.

[Samurai_]

Obvious game throwing. Punish Worm1.
People need to stop thinking throwing the game away to lose less points is OK. That is still game throwing !!


EDIT : After reading the log and the chat. They didn't throw the game. You were leader when they attacked you, then yellow strike strong and took the lead. Other people realized it too late.
I still think game throwing for points is stupid and should be punished, but isn't the case here.

When I was the leader, I was receiving 13 troops and yellow was receiving 9. And the only reason he wasn't getting the same amount is because I was holding Florida to keep him from getting the East Coast bonus. You'll notice I warn them about this in the chat log.

Then they break my bonus to give yellow the lead, and we switched places. It was not "too late". Yellow still only had a small lead. It was only after they continue to attack me and ignore yellow that he started to get much stronger. And even then, he could have been stopped. Notice how they claim I have already won multiple times in the chat log (when I wasn't even close to winning), yet they still successfully stop me.

I don't see how a player saying they're going to attack me so the other player can win is not throwing the game. Yellow won because they wouldn't attack him and kept me from attacking him also.

[Samurai_]

Then they wonder why no one wants to pay for their site. Lol. Later, guys.

Who exactly is "they"?

Is it not obvious? "Their site"... who owns the site?

Are the membership numbers not dwindling?

Why would someone want to pay for a membership to a site where the "premium" members are so cliquish and will actively ruin new members' enjoyment of the game? Do you think the type of people who are attracted to a slow paced strategy game like Risk want to deal with rampant cheating and immaturity?

The site has great game modes, tons of maps, regular events and promotions... yet it is failing. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out what the weak link in the business model is, i.e., the community sucks.

[Samurai_]

Let s face it: if low ranked player totally deserves the win I will not take it from him and give it to mid ranked player that hasn t done shit and has been camping.
If low ranked player has been given the game on a platter by a suiciding idiot without deserving it, i will rebalance the game in favour of a higher ranked player. It s not the same thing to lose 60pts or 25pts, and it s not the same thing to get them back.

Have you ever thought about not playing with lower ranking members if it's such an issue for you?

Again, you have "premium" members deciding who "deserves" to win games based on who's been using the site the longest. I'm sure that's great for attracting new members

"Buy today and you can play with people who will actively try to make you lose the 40 round game you've been playing out over the last month"

Anyways, good luck everyone. Take care.

[waauw]

It's despicable, but unfortunately it happens. If it helps, I very rarely see it. Especially once you make it to captain, you'll have surpassed about half the cc-population and you pretty much never see this happening again.

[betiko]

Let s face it: if low ranked player totally deserves the win I will not take it from him and give it to mid ranked player that hasn t done shit and has been camping.
If low ranked player has been given the game on a platter by a suiciding idiot without deserving it, i will rebalance the game in favour of a higher ranked player. It s not the same thing to lose 60pts or 25pts, and it s not the same thing to get them back.

Have you ever thought about not playing with lower ranking members if it's such an issue for you?

Again, you have "premium" members deciding who "deserves" to win games based on who's been using the site the longest. I'm sure that's great for attracting new members

"Buy today and you can play with people who will actively try to make you lose the 40 round game you've been playing out over the last month"

Anyways, good luck everyone. Take care.

You cannot really decide who joins your game unless you play private games. Why would you think a premium decides who wins? all players on the board decide in their own way who will win by the decisions they make. In fact, it's more likely that a higher ranked player will be ganged up on because people know he has likely the best strategic skills.
Also, if you have the highest rank on the board playing terminator, you can be certain that everybody will go after you.

In a round limit game, on the last turn here is how I play. Suppose it's a 40 rounds limit; I will take into considerationwho was leading after 39 rounds and I will try to get something going on in the chat so that everybody reballances the game to give us all a chance.
So if I start my turn, I have 50 troops, the leader has 52 troops and the third has 49. I will hit the leader until I have more troops than him, that means that I might eventually end up hitting the third guy. At some points if I have too many fails, I'll just have to let go. Nevertheless, I will try to hit the third guy until he has less troops than the guy who was originally leading (regardless of the ranks).

Things like that happen in any scenario... I had been playing a 12 player game with only generals and brigs during 3 month and it finished a few weeks ago, we were 4 left, I was leading, 2 smaller guys had a truce and said they would basically suicide on whoever attacked them. I just trimed the stack of one of the guy after conducting agreements in the chat and as a result both smaller guys (both generals) suicided on me for 2 rounds when the game could've still been reballanced after the first retaliation strike.

If you've played the board game, you should know that this game is not always fair. It's your job to find the settings that would suit better your gameplay style. Sometimes people do things that suck. But getting screwed because of your score isn't something that happens often. It can happen sometimes, but it is fairly rare.
When you play a multiplayer game, you always have the feeling that certain players would really not deserve the win because of several stupid moves they've been doing. I will always try to survive as long as I have a chance, and basically the only game modes where I know I don't stand a chance anymore are the trench games.

[Dukasaur]

Then they wonder why no one wants to pay for their site. Lol. Later, guys.

Who exactly is "they"?

Is it not obvious? "Their site"... who owns the site?

Are the membership numbers not dwindling?

Why would someone want to pay for a membership to a site where the "premium" members are so cliquish and will actively ruin new members' enjoyment of the game? Do you think the type of people who are attracted to a slow paced strategy game like Risk want to deal with rampant cheating and immaturity?

The site has great game modes, tons of maps, regular events and promotions... yet it is failing. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out what the weak link in the business model is, i.e., the community sucks.

Yeah, of course I knew you meant the owners. I just don't understand how you think the owner is responsible for the playing style of the people you meet. It's like saying the owner of the bar deserves to lose his business because some girl went home with your worst enemy instead of with you.

[eddie2]

Note to op if you want justice look for more games. There was a player, I think he was called wiseviking given site bans for doing this regular.

[iAmCaffeine]

Why do so many freemiums think that premiums have something against them?

[betiko]

Why do so many freemiums think that premiums have something against them?

Yeah lots of freemiums have a few conspiracy theories... Like premium are given better dice, higher ranked are given better dice and all work for the illuminati.

[ronsizzle]

i'll suicide on anyone at anytime. i think this kid who is the op is a multi though.

[eddie2]

Iamcaffine I am freemium now, and can understand some comments against premiums. Several freemiums play rt games. They leave a game spot open so they can real time a game when they fancy it. What I have seen happening a couple of times is when I am winning a select few premiums will stop playing rt. These players you can see are online but just delay it because they lost. One thing though it is not fair to quote all premiums for what a select 1 or 2 percent do. And to the person who says it is because premiums have a click is rubish. Groups of freemiums and premiums have little clicks with people they play with because they get to know players they can trust.

[TeeGee]

It is the view of the C&A team that at the time Worm1 made that comment the game was already well and truly won by SKETRS and his actions had little to no bearing on the final result. Samurai_ even stated in the OP that SKETRS controlled over half the board. We could see no evidence of any collusion or secret alliance in previous rounds.

Given that, Worm1 is CLEARED

[betiko]

Iamcaffine I am freemium now, and can understand some comments against premiums. Several freemiums play rt games. They leave a game spot open so they can real time a game when they fancy it. What I have seen happening a couple of times is when I am winning a select few premiums will stop playing rt. These players you can see are online but just delay it because they lost. One thing though it is not fair to quote all premiums for what a select 1 or 2 percent do. And to the person who says it is because premiums have a click is rubish. Groups of freemiums and premiums have little clicks with people they play with because they get to know players they can trust.

you should consider using that rt game slot to play only against other freemium in the same mood then...

[jcmagno]

multiplayer, fog... difficult to know who is really winning! happens... if you don't like play 1 vs 1 or sunny games...