Since this is a dead thread I would like to know why Cramchakle gets all the props on peoples Signatures?
I'm RiskyBack!!!!!!!!
yes, Cram does Math and is grumpy
I make parody songs and videos with voice over work by Steven Hawkings and I also am pretty grumpy.

I'm kinda a big deal here people.......let's all try to remember that!

I gotcha big guy.

RiskyBack wrote: Since this is a dead thread I would like to know why Cramchakle gets all the props on peoples Signatures?
I'm RiskyBack!!!!!!!!
yes, Cram does Math and is grumpy
I make parody songs and videos with voice over work by Steven Hawkings and I also am pretty grumpy.

I'm kinda a big deal here people.......let's all try to remember that!

Kids may love to go watch a monkey at the zoo, but don't forget: it's grandpa who takes them there to see it.

Andernut wrote:

weathertop wrote: i don't see anything wrong with ppl working together. you get a couple of friends (maybe) that decided to get rid of the rest of the board before duking it out...

i've been on both ends and yeah it sucks when on the losing end, but i don't think there's anything that could be called shady or cheating.

You see nothing wrong with 2 people starting a 3 player game and killing off the 3rd player?  Even 4 players if it's not obvious 2 people are working together they're likely to kill off both other players and then duke it out.  

Great, you get two people who have pre-game alliances who now have a 50% winning average in 3 and 4 player games, with no particular amount of skill involved.

Maybe weathertop sees no problem with friends working together, but I'm dissappointed that he's been one of those who are working with friends to suck the fun and opportunity from other players getting a fair chance to win a game.

i don't have friends on here. and only had a couple on the Fish, but we rarely played in games outside our circle of friends. they only tourney i joined together with a friend was a dungeon teams tourney (which we won - woot!). so that point is moot.

ok i can see how YOU think the 3 player game was (http://www.wargear.net/games/view/4806), but it looked to ME that General VK started that game as a FOUR player game and they jumped in on it. and up until red got booted they were playing as i would expect them to. it was only after red got booted that they took GVK out. so to me it wasn't as if they started something with the intent to 'gang' up. and yes if i was in a game with a friend and there was only one other person left i'd sure as hell take the other one out seeing as he was the EASIEST to eliminate...

weathertop wrote:

Andernut wrote:

weathertop wrote: i don't see anything wrong with ppl working together. you get a couple of friends (maybe) that decided to get rid of the rest of the board before duking it out...

i've been on both ends and yeah it sucks when on the losing end, but i don't think there's anything that could be called shady or cheating.

You see nothing wrong with 2 people starting a 3 player game and killing off the 3rd player?  Even 4 players if it's not obvious 2 people are working together they're likely to kill off both other players and then duke it out.  

Great, you get two people who have pre-game alliances who now have a 50% winning average in 3 and 4 player games, with no particular amount of skill involved.

Maybe weathertop sees no problem with friends working together, but I'm dissappointed that he's been one of those who are working with friends to suck the fun and opportunity from other players getting a fair chance to win a game.

i don't have friends on here. and only had a couple on the Fish, but we rarely played in games outside our circle of friends. they only tourney i joined together with a friend was a dungeon teams tourney (which we won - woot!). so that point is moot.

ok i can see how YOU think the 3 player game was (http://www.wargear.net/games/view/4806), but it looked to ME that General VK started that game as a FOUR player game and they jumped in on it. and up until red got booted they were playing as i would expect them to. it was only after red got booted that they took GVK out. so to me it wasn't as if they started something with the intent to 'gang' up. and yes if i was in a game with a friend and there was only one other person left i'd sure as hell take the other one out seeing as he was the EASIEST to eliminate...

Actuall being as though I was in the game.  It was setup as teams.  His player got booted.  And it was 2-1.  Not seeing a problem here.

didn't see the teams setup...

Nobody might take this very serious but I see other problems too, don't want to accuse anyone but players I've never heard of suddenly being ranked #2 or #3, I think people are making lightning games with multiple accounts or with a friend and then just boot them after 15 mins. Could be wrong here but something else I'm curious about, a few weeks ago I booted a few guys and won the game by doing so (nothing illegal I suppose, when they slack they slack, I always give everyone time way longer than the actual boot interval) and the higher rating I got for those games was reset to the old (lower one) afterwards. However, last weekend (1 week ago) I couldn't really be on, for some sad personal reasons and I got booted from some 6 games but unlike the games where I booted those other guys, these games where I got booted DID count towards my rating, lowering it significantly.

Might well be something I'm not seeing right, but just wondering.

hi Rommel - all public non-team games are ranked so even if players are booted they should still count towards your rankings as long as the game isn't terminated (by all remaining players voting to terminate).

Damn it, I knew I should have posted way back - now I have too many things on these topics I want to say. First, while I agree and play by the Andernut code, the rules do not prohibit forming alliances with friends. However, if it starts skewing the rankings via permanent alliances, while not cheating per se, it would be a problem.

Second, regardless of whether you subscribe to the Andernut way or not, Rommel's scenario is clearly cheating. If you are suspicious, it should be fairly clear by clicking on some games from the games list for that player whether they engage in this kind of behavior.

Third, I recall from the old days why we award ranking points for "beating" booted players. A clearly defeated player can get either lazy, spiteful, or whatever and stop taking their turns.

However, what if a player never takes a turn before being booted? If they go first and get booted, the game proceeds as though it were with one less player. If not, you might make moves based on their presence, and it is at least conceivable that you should be awarded points. For example, in a duel you might go first, they might see the havoc you wreaked and then refuse to accept their defeat. But if they go first in a duel, get booted, they were not beaten - you never took a turn, so why do you get ranking points?

It might actually make some sense to consider taking points away from booted players but not awarding points to players winning 2v2s via boot. Penalizes the spiteful "well I won't take my turns" players but doesn't reward cheaters who get cheap wins booting fake accts. It's not perfect.

I've only recently joined and have yet to start any of the three games I'm listed on. But I know well from playing the board game that you do make alliances and pacts with other players - sometimes transparently, other times not. It adds a human element to the game that would otherwise be largely decided purely by the roll of a dice.

Haven't GBR and USA been colluding in many wars over the last century? Didn't Germany make a pact with Japan in WW2? It makes it more realistic.

A treaty with someone and joining a game together to purposely fuck someone to increase your buddy's rank are entirely different things.

"joining a game together to purposely fuck someone to increase your buddy's rank"

That sounds more like Italy and Germany in WWII...

exactly

and we all know italy is a little bitch for doing it.

Hugh wrote: Third, I recall from the old days why we award ranking points for "beating" booted players. A clearly defeated player can get either lazy, spiteful, or whatever and stop taking their turns.

However, what if a player never takes a turn before being booted? If they go first and get booted, the game proceeds as though it were with one less player. If not, you might make moves based on their presence, and it is at least conceivable that you should be awarded points. For example, in a duel you might go first, they might see the havoc you wreaked and then refuse to accept their defeat. But if they go first in a duel, get booted, they were not beaten - you never took a turn, so why do you get ranking points?

Because they might take a portion of their turn, see how horribly they rolled, then refuse to take the rest of the turn?

Hugh wrote: Third, I recall from the old days why we award ranking points for "beating" booted players. A clearly defeated player can get either lazy, spiteful, or whatever and stop taking their turns.

However, what if a player never takes a turn before being booted? If they go first and get booted, the game proceeds as though it were with one less player. If not, you might make moves based on their presence, and it is at least conceivable that you should be awarded points. For example, in a duel you might go first, they might see the havoc you wreaked and then refuse to accept their defeat. But if they go first in a duel, get booted, they were not beaten - you never took a turn, so why do you get ranking points?

You might also decide not to take any turns when you find out your opponents are bengal, norseman, davidny and hugh.

Andernut wrote:

Hugh wrote:  

But if they go first in a duel, get booted, they were not beaten - you never took a turn, so why do you get ranking points?

Because they might take a portion of their turn, see how horribly they rolled, then refuse to take the rest of the turn?

Yeah yeah - I meant "what if they did not take any portion of their turn?"

Strangely enough Paul, I've seen 3/4 of that lineup in several games - some with you in them I think.

i believe at least one of the afore mentioned people are in every single game with me lol.