Clans
04 May 17
So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.
The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.
We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.
This is ridiculous.
Time management is part of the game, so if a player does not move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???
Clan challenge 288982
04 May 17
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainYou may want to go to site announcements.
So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.
The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.
We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.
This is ridiculous.
Time management is part of the game ...[text shortened]... t move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???
Clan challenge 288982
04 May 17
Originally posted by Wycombe AlHi Al,
possibly because the opponent never made a move, a problem in the past has been clans setting up games against players they know are inactive so perhaps a move to avoid this?
Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.
Here's an example:
Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.
One clan, realising this timeout clause, can just tell their "unfavourable players" to simply not move,
these games would therefore not be counted, they could win the other 2 favourable games and so win the challenge... albeit netting less points, but it still means the other clan would be losing points through no real fault of their own.
I know these things happen sometimes, maybe life gets in the way and people suddenly cannot make any moves,
but if a challenge has been agreed by two leaders then all results should count, period.
Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainYes. It is imperfect.
Hi Al,
Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.
Here's an example:
Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.
One clan, realising this timeout claus ...[text shortened]... iod.
Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.
But still better than a player and clan getting credit for an opponent just not showing up for his/her game.
Site already has some logic in the system that a game is not rated until after 3 moves.
So putting in some requirement that a game qualifies as a result is not really off the wall.
And yes, it is open to abuse.
But the abuse was much much worse with the current setup.
I do appreciate your concerns.
- Joined
- 05 Jan 05
- Moves
- 687565
04 May 17
I agree but an issue was that colluding clans used the inactive players to great effect ( ie panterman), they set up numerous challenges with inactive players so I guess this an attempt to stop this, as players now inactive for a long period are automatically made inactive for challenges this will become less of an issue going forward
04 May 17
Originally posted by Wycombe AlOr... they could just kick the inactive members from the clans altogether?
I agree but an issue was that colluding clans used the inactive players to great effect ( ie panterman), they set up numerous challenges with inactive players so I guess this an attempt to stop this, as players now inactive for a long period are automatically made inactive for challenges this will become less of an issue going forward
Not only will this new timeout rule NOT stop collusion (as I said, players can purposely not move)
but it adversely affects ALL clans.
Clan leaders must agree to challenges before they can start... all should be fair from that point onward.
If they really want to stop collusion, simply kick the inactive players and ban the rest if they are obvious repeat offenders.
Other sites do it, why can't this one???
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainIt wasn't just inactive players.
Or... they could just kick the inactive members from the clans altogether?
Not only will this new timeout rule NOT stop collusion (as I said, players can purposely not move)
but it adversely affects ALL clans.
Clan leaders must agree to challenges before they can start... all should be fair from that point onward.
If they really want to sto ...[text shortened]... d ban the rest if they are obvious repeat offenders.
Other sites do it, why can't this one???
It was also active players selecting specific games to just timeout their games.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainThe thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.
The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.
We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.
This is ridiculous.
Time management is part of the game ...[text shortened]... t move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???
Clan challenge 288982
so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
players split, so it should be 1 point each.
05 May 17
Originally posted by shortcircuitall clans have had points adjusted,some no change as they had no timeout wins but the easy riders have lost more points than anyone elae, punishment for playing obvious dead players "panterman" over and over again
The thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
players split, so it should be 1 point each.
lets see how many points the scum riders have after collusion adjustment
05 May 17
Originally posted by shortcircuitI know this and understand this.
The thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
players split, so it should be 1 point each.
What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.
Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
but it could also be done on purpose.
Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.
If I see any case where a player is not moving in a challenge,
but is otherwise active on the site (moving in other games)
I'll report this player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.
This is fair enough, yes?
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainJust to be clear, the issue Russ corrected is not the timeout.
I know this and understand this.
What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.
Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
but it could also be done on purpose.
Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.
If I see ...[text shortened]... his player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.
This is fair enough, yes?
It corrects games not reaching 5 moves.
If a player times out on move 6, the game counts.
If a player resigns on move 3, the game doesn't count.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainI really doubt this incident is occurring outside of the the cheats who were merely resigning
I know this and understand this.
What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.
Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
but it could also be done on purpose.
Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.
If I see ...[text shortened]... his player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.
This is fair enough, yes?
their games early in order to get more challenges where they could do the same and
harvest more points for the the Easy Riders.
I know Russ has already instituted a system check that won't allow long term non-movers from being included in challenges.
I can't imagine a benefit of not moving in normal circumstances, not to say that couldn't happen.
In this instance. McTayto and a couple of others, did it habitually, with McTayto being
the worst abuser.
05 May 17
Originally posted by mghrn55Yes I get it, it stops premature ends, the exact wording on the site announcements page is:
Just to be clear, the issue Russ corrected is not the timeout.
It corrects games not reaching 5 moves.
If a player times out on move 6, the game counts.
If a player resigns on move 3, the game doesn't count.
"Ignores all wins under 5 moves"
I know I'm being pedantic now, but....
What if somehow on correspondence chess someone get's scholars mated?
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#
Checkmate.... but wouldn't be counted.
05 May 17
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainA good player would make sure that doesn't happen.
Yes I get it, it stops premature ends, the exact wording on the site announcements page is:
[b]"Ignores all wins under 5 moves"
I know I'm being pedantic now, but....
What if somehow on correspondence chess someone get's scholars mated?
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#
[fen]rnbqkb1r/ppp2Qpp/3p1n2/4p3/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR[/fen]
Checkmate.... but wouldn't be counted.[/b]