Game Start - Page 2

Paddy · February 5, 2004, 06:48

I take it there is a bit of History between Us and GCA?

Maybe one of you older hands at ISDG could do a short briefing on each of the opposition teams.

Then again, as there are only 50 members, you may all already know what needs to be known.

BigFurryMonster · February 5, 2004, 09:10

Paddy - check out http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=107948 !

conmcb25 · February 5, 2004, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
I take it there is a bit of History between Us and GCA?

Maybe one of you older hands at ISDG could do a short briefing on each of the opposition teams.

Then again, as there are only 50 members, you may all already know what needs to be known.

To sum it up Apoly had a war with GCA. We basically won the war BUT some suspect GCA of playing less than fairly and using exploits to maximum advantage. I say suspect becuase even though most of us talk like GCA cheated, there is no real rock solid proof. (Try to be nice if you read this BF

)

If you want to know more please review some of the older threads at the ISDG, I believe you are now a member there.

Anything further discussed here would probably be an OPSEC violation for the ISDG.

And since most of us were at least members of the ISDG, it is inevitable that we will discuss what happened in that game from time to time.

Hopefully that answered your question.

GhengisFarb™ · February 5, 2004, 10:02

Everyone who fought GCA has had the same nagging suspicions. Before that ISDG there were suspicions of them doing this in the prior one that Apoly wasn't in.

I was on the CDG team in the last one and their rng luck was on a scale I've never seen in this game before. 4 Immortals in one stack and not a single one of our UUs EVER won a combat in the war against warriors.

BigFree · February 5, 2004, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Everyone who fought GCA has had the same nagging suspicions. Before that ISDG there were suspicions of them doing this in the prior one that Apoly wasn't in.

I was on the CDG team in the last one and their rng luck was on a scale I've never seen in this game before. 4 Immortals in one stack and not a single one of our UUs EVER won a combat in the war against warriors.

It's when they are allowed to attack, rather than defend, that GCA's "Luck-O-Meter" reads in the red! I think GF needs to build a "Luck-O-Meter" so that I can post it at the UN.

GodKing · February 5, 2004, 18:35

It would break soon after their first attack.

GhengisFarb™ · February 5, 2004, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

It's when they are allowed to attack, rather than defend, that GCA's "Luck-O-Meter" reads in the red! I think GF needs to build a "Luck-O-Meter" so that I can post it at the UN.

Oh crap! Thanks for reminding me to get to work on the Ghengis Report at MZO tomorrow.

I almost forgot about it.

Kloreep · February 5, 2004, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Its kinda sad. I wanted to face GCA in this game and take 'em out. This way we might not face them in the full game

Myself, I'm glad they're in the other game, and I hope someone does take them out there. If they truely are cheating, I don't want to have to deal with it. No offense to the other teams in the other game, but let them deal with GCA's "luck"; I'll be over here playing with less suspect teams.

GhengisFarb™ · February 6, 2004, 00:02

Yeah, I'm hoping they don't make it but given their luck they are almost guaranteed to be there.

Kloreep · February 6, 2004, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Yeah, I'm hoping they don't make it but given their luck they are almost guaranteed to be there.

Not necessarily. Look at the PTW ISDG.

Paddy · February 13, 2004, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
Does anyone know WHEN we're going to start this game?

Once anyone has any information about it, please post it in this thread so we can plan for it.

--Togas

So is there any word on the Start date yet...?

BigFree · February 13, 2004, 23:00

It's close paddy. We are waiting for a Map to be made; which does not take long. And also for the rules to be put forth by the Admin.

Paddy · February 13, 2004, 23:11

Thank you Sir, looking forward to getting my hand on our start position... my mind is flying with ideas.... hahahahahaha

asleepathewheel · February 14, 2004, 15:40

good deal

Paddy · February 24, 2004, 07:34

I have to ask...

So is there any word on the Start date yet...?

conmcb25 · February 24, 2004, 10:01

Unfortunately I would say at least two weeks.

We are still looking for someone at the UN to rewrite a section of the rules, section five.

We did section 3 (BF) and CDG did section 4. Section 5 needs to be done.

Once they are rewritten then of course the debate will continue over certain points Im sure.

Especially with all the shenanigans going on with the PtW ISDG right now.

So it will still be some time. And based on some of the teams that are in the competition we need to make sure we do the rules correctly.

Unfortunately thats the way it is for now.

conmcb25 · February 24, 2004, 19:58

Rules are up and need to be reviewed by this Friday (27 Feb) at 2400 GMT

That means if we have any MAJOR gripes, I need to know about them prior to 1800 GMT this friday

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...67#post2752106

Octavian X · February 24, 2004, 21:50

Objections?

I object to the reputation system (4.1) and battle log (4.4), as well as to any mention of punishment as severe as turn-skipping and team explustion.

With these kind of rules, it isn't going to be a game, but a practice in bureaucracy. My predicition is that we'll be out of teams before the end of the first round, due to either the excessive burden of simply playing a turn or because they've been kicked out. My other predicition is that such a complex rule code complete with exetreme punishment will most likely be abused (by someone like Lucky), and will eventually cause one, if not all, the admins to retire.

To sum it up, I present a quote from a famous Democracy Gamer at CFC, one that is used often.

"It's a demogame *game.* Fun and all that. Play nice." -Danke

Enough ranting from me...

conmcb25 · February 24, 2004, 21:58

Reputation System was guess who: Lucky's idea.

And battle logs were proposed because of what? To let an admin check for potential cheating. Which is essentially because of who

Unfortunately he is in this game and there is not much we can do about it.

Hopefully he will be eliminated in round one and we wont have to play him.

Not much more I can say OCT_X,

Lets our team try and have as much fun as possible with this.

civman2000 · February 25, 2004, 18:07

Remove 4.1 entirely. I do like the battle log part though, however inconvenient.

What's with phony war weariness having much less severe punishments than all other similar small exploits?? How does one single event of unit teleportation of say, only four units (if it was less it would probably not violate "the spirit of the game") merit a minimum of 10 turns lost while you could only lose one for several turns of phony war weariness?

I also dislike any punishments of more than 5 turns skipped (might as well eject them because that will kill them unless they already have an enormous lead) and think that overall it should be clarified that all punishments only apply if the offenses are against the spirit of the game and intentional.