| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Zarnof
Warrior
193 Posts
    
 | | 02/21/2006 9:33 PM |
| | Please look up the log and review the game. The issue is well described in the game. I don't want to bias you one way or the other. | |
Completed trades: Isondaho, Ehren37, SilentG, Keane
Reference thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7178 | |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 02/21/2006 9:53 PM |
| | You know, these things are cropping up far too often these days. | |
 | |
|
Aravis
Underboss
1155 Posts
| | 02/21/2006 9:58 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Richard II
You know, these things are cropping up far too often these days.
Agreed. | |
Welcome to Eternal Crack...
"Corn is no place for a mighty warrior!"
Champion of the Frost Salamander | |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 02/21/2006 10:19 PM |
| There's no way the game can be rewound to give the archmage a chance to rally. You snooze you lose if you make an error it needs to be rectified before any other dice are rolled, otherwise you're SoL.
Also, I don't think Zarnof should've used his new weapon. It's unreasonable to expect admins to notice trades within a day, and would be unfair for one person to get their trade through b/c an admin happened to notice it right away while their opponent didn't get a trade through b/c the admin was off doing homework or watching hockey. Trades should be applied for the next week's games. | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1984 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 02/21/2006 11:21 PM |
| Trades aren't official until they're data entered by admin. The EC Warlord Roster is the master record. No it's not written anywhere, that's just common sense [)]
Also, it's poor form to make a trade without broadcasting that fact to your opponent well ahead of the match. Again, no rule.
Just my $0.02 (and worth exactly and only that!) | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
SilentG
Sergeant
616 Posts
| | 02/21/2006 11:49 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Richard II
There's no way the game can be rewound to give the archmage a chance to rally. You snooze you lose if you make an error it needs to be rectified before any other dice are rolled, otherwise you're SoL.
Also, I don't think Zarnof should've used his new weapon. It's unreasonable to expect admins to notice trades within a day, and would be unfair for one person to get their trade through b/c an admin happened to notice it right away while their opponent didn't get a trade through b/c the admin was off doing homework or watching hockey. Trades should be applied for the next week's games.
In the past when I've done trades (and I'm sure Zarnof did this too) I've announced exactly what I traded for before playing the game. This allows my opponent the same notice as if an admin had posted the trade results. Nowhere in the rules does it say a change in your character must be updated before it's valid. If that were the case than there are several times that due to administrative error (yall are people too and mistakes are bound to happen) I should have played without a feat, item I rolled on a previous week, or other obviously valid component of my character which was simply missed in updating.
The validity of a trade is simple to check up on by looking at the alliance thread for the two posts describing the trade. I try and check the alliance thread shortly before every match I play too so as not to be caught unawares (which has happened to me too). | |
Completed trades: Zarnof, Ehren37, Eric is God, griffrat, cavedweller, Kyrinn, Blade, Humble Minion, Noghri, Ilarue
Reference thread http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9114
Champion of the fiendish, dire milk-cow | |
|
SilentG
Sergeant
616 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 1:48 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
Trades aren't official until they're data entered by admin. The EC Warlord Roster is the master record. No it's not written anywhere, that's just common sense [)]
Zippy, no offense, but when has common sense played a part in DDM or EC mechanics? While not common, it's far from uncommon for someone to trade for an item and use it before it's updated that week. I always figured it was fair if you announced the trade status before warband declaration. So long as you're not springing a surprise on your opponent during the declaration, it seems pretty fair to me while allowing the admins to update everything at once (rather than each day or however often). | |
Completed trades: Zarnof, Ehren37, Eric is God, griffrat, cavedweller, Kyrinn, Blade, Humble Minion, Noghri, Ilarue
Reference thread http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9114
Champion of the fiendish, dire milk-cow | |
|
Voss
Sneak
122 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 4:43 AM |
| | Tell you what. My "brother" is wanting to join the EC. He's going to play every week. We are going to be the best of pals and remain allied with all of each other's warlords. Each week after the pairings are announced, we are going to make trades with each other right before our games. Oh look, I'm playing a good band, can I trade for your +1 unholy weapon brother? Sure, also, I've got a game against a crazy lawful band, can I borrow that Archaic weapon. No problem, happy gaming this week bro. | |
| |
|
eMpTy Kay
Underboss
1068 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 8:16 AM |
| I would have to say if the trade was not updated it would not be officially completed. While I don't remember if it was explicit, I got the impression from the rules that that was the case.
When I was trying to get a trade copleted in prep of promoting Rache, I had emailed my opponent that I was performing a trade with the warlord, so that he could know if it would affect the warband he built. I also e-mailed Zippy to have him update the trade status when the person I was trading with agreed to the trade. I then informed my opponent that the trade was updated after Zippy posted it.
I know not everyone is going to agree with me, but that is how I thought/feel. | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 9:19 AM |
| The official stats are the ones listed on the Stats page. Period. In the case where someone did not get their report in for the prior week that they gained a level, they played the next week without the level. That is how it has been since day 1 in the EC. That is back when we could only update once per week. Now we CAN do more updates, but that does not change the fact that what is posted on the Stats page are the stats to be used in battle.
On the other hand, if you can point out to your opponent that things have changed and just not been updated (ie. got the report from last week posted, alliance trade, listed the feat you forgot to pick in time last week, wrong item listed, etc.) AND your opponent is willing to play the game with the unlisted Stat, then it becomes a legal game. If the opponent has planned for your band without that item/feat/spell, it is not fair to them only get to spend 5 minutes dreaming up a counter when they may have spent hours planning a counter for your band without the item/spell/feat. (In this case, Voss took some time and updated his band very well to counter things. Not as good as if he had more time and less pressure to come up with something.)
I am beginning to see alliances as a large nuisance to the admins, and I am beginning to wonder if they should make the cut into V3.
As far as the actual game goes, it looks like they were only a few rounds from completion. By the looks of things Voss was at a clear disadvantage with his units. Valkareta could not be hurt by the Bladesinger except on a crit, and the Longstrider could only do 5 damage per round. The Monk and JA would probably have carried the day. Voss elected to leave the game incomplete without conceeding due to real world time constraints. If they cannot find time to finish the game this week (and I think they should try), it seems like Zarnof should pick up the win since Voss left to a real world time constraint and not a matter of dispute in the rules. Hopefully, their schedules will be such that they can finish the game later this week.
Oh, the Archmage could have attempted a rally due to Independent at CR 0, even in the fog. I think he just decided to roll a 1 on purpose. That move, as long as it took to notice the error could not have been taken back. | |
| |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 10:37 AM |
| | As for alliances, it has been discussed to chop them. They are an admin hassal and have become an item farming issue when the original attention was a theme/fun thing. It's funny there were very few trades at first in the alliance thing as most people in them just used them to not have to play someone, but as it went on the trades have become crazier and crazier. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
SilentG
Sergeant
616 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 1:20 PM |
| JJBeezer ... so if my opponent isn't ok with me playing with accurate stats (or whatever), then I have to abide by any administrative errors? That's kind of ridiculous and it puts a lot of pressure on the one updating to do a flawless job.
AesophDarkfable: If trading is a problem, then cut trading, not alliances. Or even better - make clear rules that eliminate the problem with trading. If it were in the rules that a trade is only valid in the EC week following the week it appears in the alliance thread, that would clear up all the gray area. As is, there's just nothing in the rules about it. This is a game where logic and common sense take a back burner to explicit mention in the rules.
Voss: Currently in the rules that is totally legal. How are you going to complain about Zarnof and me doing that after your "thunderdome-traps" in the eternal battle scenario? You're acting a lot like your opponent from that week, and it's painfully obvious you'd have had no complaints if you were winning the game. | |
Completed trades: Zarnof, Ehren37, Eric is God, griffrat, cavedweller, Kyrinn, Blade, Humble Minion, Noghri, Ilarue
Reference thread http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9114
Champion of the fiendish, dire milk-cow | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1984 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 02/22/2006 3:05 PM |
| (1) Politeness goes a long way
(2) Please remember it's
only a game, and only one match at stake, not worth getting mean to other people over | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
| 
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 3:33 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by SilentG
JJBeezer ... so if my opponent isn't ok with me playing with accurate stats (or whatever), then I have to abide by any administrative errors? That's kind of ridiculous and it puts a lot of pressure on the one updating to do a flawless job.
It isn't ridiculous. It is a curtesy to the opponent you are playing that week to not try to put one over on him. The pressure isn't on the Admin as much as it is on each player to validate their posted statistics.
quote:
AesophDarkfable: If trading is a problem, then cut trading, not alliances. Or even better - make clear rules that eliminate the problem with trading. If it were in the rules that a trade is only valid in the EC week following the week it appears in the alliance thread, that would clear up all the gray area. As is, there's just nothing in the rules about it. This is a game where logic and common sense take a back burner to explicit mention in the rules.
Logic and common sense would be working if people were following Empty Kay's logic of informing their opponent that they were attempting to get the trade completed on time.
quote:
Voss: Currently in the rules that is totally legal. How are you going to complain about Zarnof and me doing that after your "thunderdome-traps" in the eternal battle scenario? You're acting a lot like your opponent from that week, and it's painfully obvious you'd have had no complaints if you were winning the game.
I'm really not liking the tone of where this is heading. Not just in this quote but many of the discussions that have come about lately concerning the EC. In the past, there have been plenty of accusations of cheating and there have been plenty of bad sports. Generally speaking, the EC has continued because the participants have banded together and overcome these problems. The tone of the conversations I've seen in the past few weeks makes me wonder if we are pulling together or pulling apart now.
Take Empty Kay's comments in this thread. Actions and thoughts like his are one of the reasons the EC has continued.
I have found wins much more satisfying if they were really really close than if I was either completely dominated or dominating. If your opponent makes a bad move and tries to use a MELFs on something immune to Acid, let them take it back. If you forgot to do something 2 turns ago, that is too bad. Be more careful next time. This is supposed to be fun. If you are better than your opponent, take it as an opportunity to teach them how to be better. If they get better, you will have much more satisfying battles down the line. If certain players consistently get dominated, they will leave and their won't be anyone to play.
If you are completely getting dominated in a match, don't give up and don't be a pain in the rear! Laugh at your mistakes or the dice bot! If you aren't happy with what your opponent is doing to you, don't make the game unbearable. Learn from what they did. Try to adapt and see if you can figure a way around it. If they brought something you didn't count on, try to figure out a counter to it. Obviously, you may not be able to counter it in this match. If you can't counter it, ever, with any faction, then it is probably broken. If you want to warn other people that someone did something, bring it up in a thread but be civil about it. (I'm not implying that the recent discussions about sanctuary are uncivil.) That is the biggest thing. Be Civil. | |
| |
|
SilentG
Sergeant
616 Posts
| | 02/22/2006 5:06 PM |
| Sorry to all (even Voss) if I was getting a bit upset.
I looked over that log and spoke with Zarnof during the match and afterwards. It seems to me like Zarnof was quite polite, informed Voss of the trade before warband declaration, and gave Voss as much time as he asked for to redo his band. I don't think Zarnof pressured Voss in anyway to play if he wasn't completely ready and willing to play with the items at hand. There was absoloutely NO effort to "put one over" on an opponent. Please don't imply impropriety where there was none.
It bothers me that instead of this being a clear case of a player making errors and suffering the consequences it's turned into a verbal brawl (something I suppose I havn't helped) and a reason to ban trades and alliances.
If the item were an issue why was it not brought up before the game started? Why was it only brought up as a "concession" for Voss if he would accept his own error with the archmage? I'm trying not to be too inflammatory, but how else can this situation appear once you cut through the name calling, accusations of cheating, and other garbage (which is on both sides of the fence - albeit imho to differing degrees)?
Tullywi: it really seems like Zarnof did announce the item ahead of time with no effort to deceive whatsoever. The game could have been played later in the week if Voss needed more time to prepare - but the axiomatic weapon isn't that much different than the cleaving weapon on valkerata. I would have emailed to push the trade through with Richard, but I just didn't think it was worth hounding him over, since I knew Zarnof would tell Voss about it.
I'm also not labeling Voss a cheater in the second quote you have from me. I'm saying he's complaining about a rules exploit when he himself told me that he enjoys finding rules loopholes and surprising his opponents. The quick-trade thing is just such an exploit.
I'd agree with changing the rules to make trades go through the week after they're proposed in the alliances thread, but I don't think it's a good idea to insist they appear in the EC warlords section to be valid. Otherwise you're going to have people insisting that we play with honest administrative errors too - which would be a very foolish and unnecessary end. Until that's in the rules, I just don't see how anyone can insist that players abide by it.
Is it the place of admins to write in new rules into the game mid-game? (let-alone mid-week). The only other time a new rule was added mid week I thought was the archmage invis thing. Even the "thunderdome" traps (tiles with no exit on to the battle grid) weren't added till the week after.
I'm certain that whether or not he's required by the admins to drop the axiomatic weapon, Zarnof will play the game without it because that's the type of person he is. And that goes a long way to explaining why it aggravated me so much to read what Voss had to say about him. | |
Completed trades: Zarnof, Ehren37, Eric is God, griffrat, cavedweller, Kyrinn, Blade, Humble Minion, Noghri, Ilarue
Reference thread http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9114
Champion of the fiendish, dire milk-cow | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |