Conquer Club

bobdakota wrote:

Donelladan wrote:

bobdakota wrote:Thanks for the further evidence. Of the 25 games listed 1 was a legit win to a new player in Dec when you were dumping points..

12 of the games finished in Jan when you were trying to win.
4 of those games you lost.
7 of the games the other got kicked from missing turns
1 game against player who joined 2012


So your record is even worse if you take out the deadbeats. Dec 22 - 27 - 7 wins - 73 losses. Less than 10% when playing 1v1.

Well, you seems to think it means he was throwing games in December.
To me it means he played all the game the same, but he played the loss faster to have them in december and play the win slower to have them in january. And that is allowed.

@EW - I doubt xroads would to smthg as dumb as holding hostage ^^ really no need to check it

FFS - Look at this one game https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=17084939 - He has a set after round 4, but doesn't play them until round 9. Who would play that way????

xroads wrote:Man

You have a hard on for this one game, and your whole argument revolves around it.

Lets look at it

Round 2 he had great dice and got me below 12 regions I only took 2 back, so he is now dropping 5 to my 3
Round 3 he again had great dice, took 4 more and got me down to 9, I only took 2 back.
Round 4, he took 2 more, I took 1. At this point I had very few men anywhere, he had tons of men. Game is pretty much over.
Round 5, he cashed, takes 3 more including oceania, I have 7 regions left. Even if I cashed I couldnt break oceania.

So your whole argument is that I should of cashed earlier in a game I was getting crushed on due to dice?

I dont remember the end, too many games. Maybe I was making a big stack that was hidden to him in hopes of him playing recklessly and allowing me to turn it around and get the upper hand. When you are getting your ass kicked, and the game is decided you have to try risky moves.

bobdakota wrote:

xroads wrote:Man

You have a hard on for this one game, and your whole argument revolves around it.

Lets look at it

Round 2 he had great dice and got me below 12 regions I only took 2 back, so he is now dropping 5 to my 3
Round 3 he again had great dice, took 4 more and got me down to 9, I only took 2 back.
Round 4, he took 2 more, I took 1. At this point I had very few men anywhere, he had tons of men. Game is pretty much over.
Round 5, he cashed, takes 3 more including oceania, I have 7 regions left. Even if I cashed I couldnt break oceania.

So your whole argument is that I should of cashed earlier in a game I was getting crushed on due to dice?

I dont remember the end, too many games. Maybe I was making a big stack that was hidden to him in hopes of him playing recklessly and allowing me to turn it around and get the upper hand. When you are getting your ass kicked, and the game is decided you have to try risky moves.

This game is the most obvious I could find out of the few I looked at. Just as bad as anything the other guy was doing.

So you gave up after round 4??? in an escalating spoils game? You could have had 9 troops to do some damage with, but you decided not to cash.
Why did you cash round 9 if you had given up?
Why would you put troops on Buenos Aries round 5-8 when both Lima and San Paulo are neutral?
How could you go on the 5 territory run from Buenos Aries in round 9 if you were having bad dice round 5-8? You put no troops on BA round 9

But, it looks like you have the support of the community. So no one want to look at the fact that if you went 7-73 in 5 days you would have been pissed and calling the game rigged. I would fucking quit if I went 7-73 in 1v1 games when I was trying.

bobdakota wrote:

xroads wrote:Man

You have a hard on for this one game, and your whole argument revolves around it.

Lets look at it

Round 2 he had great dice and got me below 12 regions I only took 2 back, so he is now dropping 5 to my 3
Round 3 he again had great dice, took 4 more and got me down to 9, I only took 2 back.
Round 4, he took 2 more, I took 1. At this point I had very few men anywhere, he had tons of men. Game is pretty much over.
Round 5, he cashed, takes 3 more including oceania, I have 7 regions left. Even if I cashed I couldnt break oceania.

So your whole argument is that I should of cashed earlier in a game I was getting crushed on due to dice?

I dont remember the end, too many games. Maybe I was making a big stack that was hidden to him in hopes of him playing recklessly and allowing me to turn it around and get the upper hand. When you are getting your ass kicked, and the game is decided you have to try risky moves.

This game is the most obvious I could find out of the few I looked at. Just as bad as anything the other guy was doing. Your excuses are horrible. It wasn't a fog game, so how would stacking troops and not going for more cards help?

So you gave up after round 4? You could have had 9 troops to deploy round 5 and done some damage. Maybe not taken Oceana, but you could have taken a few spots.
Why did you cash round 9 if you had given up?
Why would you put troops on Buenos Aries round 5-8 when both Lima and San Paulo are neutral?
How could you go on the 5 territory run from Buenos Aries in round 9 if you were having bad dice round 5-8? You put no troops on BA round 9

But, it looks like you have the support of the community. So no one want to look at the fact that if you went 7-73 in 5 days you would have been pissed and calling the game rigged. I would fucking quit if I went 7-73 in 1v1 games when I was trying.

Extreme Ways wrote:^ this. The "better" case for that game is dropping 2-2 round 1 rather than 0-4 or 1-3, but hey, cant base point dumping on that and is subject to how the board looks (though I dont think 2-2 is ideal in any way).

xroads wrote:Now I can really see why you can barely keep the rank of sarg.


Here you get beat by a corporal because you played like shit.

You dropped on Tokyo when you should of seen that Red was going for Oceana and South America.

WTF would you do that. Tokyo is no where close to either one, yet you let him take and hold the bonuses.

I think you must be point dumping to make a run at the leader board next month.

And this game 17107320 when you had the guy beat, and were playing slow until he complained. Then you sped up, played stupid and then lost a sure win game.

Point dumping?

bobdakota wrote:Ok 1 more!

https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=17049019

Notice the chat. This is a game xroads wins, but he doesn't want to. Xroads misses round 10, 12, and round 16 and rarely attacks when he does play. The only reason xroads wins is he has more troops at round 20. It is a fog game, so xroads could not be positive that he had more troops. It was a big risk to let the game end on rounds. When you look at xroads remaining troops, you will see he had plenty of troops and position to win the objective!

2016-12-12 - Chewie1 gives up after round 8 and asks xroads to end it. Chewie1 only depolys and doesn't attack for 12 rounds. The games 14 days later.

2016-12-12 15:53:53 - Chewie1: gg mate i cant get to you now
2016-12-12 15:54:02 - Chewie1: i will just deploy and wont attack
2016-12-12 15:54:08 - Chewie1: take the objectives
2016-12-13 14:41:23 - xroads: sounds good, gg
2016-12-18 21:25:19 - xroads: sorry for the miss, the weather here is killing me
2016-12-19 01:34:24 - Chewie1: no problem

Extreme Ways wrote:I know of at least 1 other guy that had weather problems. To prove this is intentional you'd have to find other games in which he did play, and then again you'd need more games than just 1 of this happening. I'm sorry, I would like to see xroads removed from the monthly scoreboard too, but it won't be based on cheating.

bobdakota wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:^ this. The "better" case for that game is dropping 2-2 round 1 rather than 0-4 or 1-3, but hey, cant base point dumping on that and is subject to how the board looks (though I dont think 2-2 is ideal in any way).

bobdakota wrote:where he again deployed 1-1-1-1 (which you said earlier is poor play)

Extreme Ways wrote:^ this. The "better" case for that game is dropping 2-2 round 1 rather than 0-4 or 1-3, but hey, cant base point dumping on that and is subject to how the board looks (though I dont think 2-2 is ideal in any way).

bobdakota wrote:

bobdakota wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:^ this. The "better" case for that game is dropping 2-2 round 1 rather than 0-4 or 1-3, but hey, cant base point dumping on that and is subject to how the board looks (though I dont think 2-2 is ideal in any way).

EW said it.

What were you tring to do here?

2016-12-22 18:48:13 - xroads received 4 troops for 14 regions
2016-12-22 18:48:27 - xroads deployed 1 troops on New York
2016-12-22 18:48:29 - xroads deployed 1 troops on Los Angeles
2016-12-22 18:48:37 - xroads deployed 1 troops on Berlin
2016-12-22 18:48:39 - xroads deployed 1 troops on Moscow

xroads wrote:You just dont fucking get it do you?

It has been ruled time and time again this is not cheating. If you dont like it, start trying to get the rules changed.

And since when is dropping 4 troops on regions bad play? Is it my fault that my dice is really bad when I deployed that way?

Donelladan wrote:

xroads wrote:You just dont fucking get it do you?

It has been ruled time and time again this is not cheating. If you dont like it, start trying to get the rules changed.

And since when is dropping 4 troops on regions bad play? Is it my fault that my dice is really bad when I deployed that way?

Delaying win by playing ur turn after 23h58 min isn't cheating.
But missing turn in purpose to delay your win, plus not finishing the game when you obviously could have ( like in the DS game) is not delaying your win by playing slowly, it's really borderline and maybe it cross the line. Here it's a premium but if you did it against freemium this is holding player hostage imo.
If there is several case like this I think it's worth a C&A, not point dumping, but manipulating the scoreboard and/or player hostage.

In the previous similar case ( about delaying win and speeding loss or the other way around) ka clearly said everyone has 24h to take their turn, meaning if you want to play after 1 min or after 23h59 it's ok, but missing turn in purpose to delay your win isn't ok. And not finishing the game when you could isn't ok either because this is holding player hostage.

xroads wrote:and to start the game, I will find 2 territories that border one. So I have two territories with 5 each to attack one with 3, that ensures I card.

If your argument borders on how I drop troops, you will loose every time.

xroads wrote:

Donelladan wrote:

xroads wrote:You just dont fucking get it do you?

It has been ruled time and time again this is not cheating. If you dont like it, start trying to get the rules changed.

And since when is dropping 4 troops on regions bad play? Is it my fault that my dice is really bad when I deployed that way?

Delaying win by playing ur turn after 23h58 min isn't cheating.
But missing turn in purpose to delay your win, plus not finishing the game when you obviously could have ( like in the DS game) is not delaying your win by playing slowly, it's really borderline and maybe it cross the line. Here it's a premium but if you did it against freemium this is holding player hostage imo.
If there is several case like this I think it's worth a C&A, not point dumping, but manipulating the scoreboard and/or player hostage.

In the previous similar case ( about delaying win and speeding loss or the other way around) ka clearly said everyone has 24h to take their turn, meaning if you want to play after 1 min or after 23h59 it's ok, but missing turn in purpose to delay your win isn't ok. And not finishing the game when you could isn't ok either because this is holding player hostage.

The Das Schloss game was a 20 round limit game.

There was no way it would of made it until January no matter what.

So what is the problem with playing slowly there?

xroads wrote:OK Dumb ass.

Same theory applies. I have a 4-3 from 2 or 3 territories to make sure I take a card.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Oh, I forgot, because you are a serg and dont have a clue.