At-War's 1st Royal Rumble

Written by Meester, 26.12.2013 at 06:24

Though if it really is very obvious that both players are having a secret peace deal i'll disqualify both of them from the tournament.

Well, Chess's concerns are legit. I don't want anyone to take this personally, but Laochra was throwing everything he has at me, and that is because Waffel isn't attacking him really or pressuring in any way. All they are doing is taking each others cities which is leading to Waffel throwing everything at Soul in Africa and Laochra throwing everything at me in Germany. This really isn't fair and is against your words ^^^ . Nobody take this personally please because this is just a better of right or wrong.

Cheers!

Written by Meester, 26.12.2013 at 06:24

Written by learster, 26.12.2013 at 05:29

I'm in too. As for the alliances: friends and coalition mates will work together regardless of how many alliances are set. Did you think of a way to prevent this?

Will try my best to distribute the players away from their coalitions as much as possible but overall there really isn't any way to stop them from having secret peace deals. Though if it really is very obvious that both players are having a secret peace deal i'll disqualify both of them from the tournament.

Well you're right it's impossible to prevent players from making secret deals,like not attacking each other with full force etc. but it's kinda annoying to see total peace in a ffa game where almost everyone is a decent player,god I mean we even have an "official" peace in group A (dunno how that's possible). Not that I'm mad or something,idc if I go to the next round or not,it's just not fair nor the right thing to do

I completely agree with all of you I already witnessed a few secret alliances in Africa, Europe and Asia. I plan on remaking the qualification phase maybe just an ordinary 1v1. Give me your thoughts.

Will let you all more tomorrow but 1 thing i'm sure of this will be remade.

Well this is good news, I support a remake of the qualifications. I propose only for the people affected by it. Doesn't seem fair for people who basically already qualified to fight again.

Written by Meester, 18.01.2014 at 07:21

I completely agree with all of you I already witnessed a few secret alliances in Africa, Europe and Asia. I plan on remaking the qualification phase maybe just an ordinary 1v1. Give me your thoughts.

Will let you all more tomorrow but 1 thing i'm sure of this will be remade.

That's a good start. However some people already pretty much secured their places in the finals by beating their enemies around them and I don't think they would like to risk their qualification again. This remake should be only for those who are effected by a secret alliance, or just disqualify them since that is what you said before the tournament started.

Yeah looking at both games it's really obvious what is happening in EU/Africa. I'm basically dead myself, but others felt the damage from the secret peace deals in the west.

Just cut out the serious problems and eliminate them. There are people who fought against the odds and won, and don't want to risk their spots in another qualification phase. Plus, casual matches take far longer. Sometimes it's annoying having to log in just to do 1 minute worth of moves every day. Send the final 10 that aren't eliminated of each game to the final round and follow the plan in allowing them to pick an ally and play. These rules

Ok we'll since All you guys are pointing fingers at Africa ( me and spart) I guess getting marines in place Is considered allying up

Though I can't say I enjoy the peace, its the only thing keeping Mauzer off my ass (obviously not working). UK in Group A is going full offensive. However, If you disquaalify peaced players you drop 4 players in Group A.

And no, I don't want to one v one, I worked hard to maintain my spot as number one SP farmer on this game. I want to keep it that way

Current Events/Stats:

Events of Recent Turn (14 I think)
-Buffalo Soldier and Happy New Years finally clash in fields/jungles of Guyana
-Mr_Own_U continues campaigns in Yemen/Saudi Arabia and Assaults of Paraguay
-A flurry assault by me (Ukraine) is repulsed by DBacks
-DBacks still on defense after losing multiple units in London a couple of turns back
-Supersniper(UK) has made successful landings in Tunisia and Libya stealing them from Spart, continues rading W. Germany
-Mauzer Continues the uncontested raping of my Eastern provinces in the Middle East and Yasan
-Desu continues plight for survival, his capital cut off from his southern province
-Spart strikes Portugal and Eastern Coast of Spain
-Anthrax, on full defense after lost of Italy and his General stack 6 turns ago and the recent lost Morroco, Portugal, Libya and Tunisia
-Meester, still watching
-Egg, still doing relatively nothing, fending off Mauzer in Bangladesh

Critical List (players basically waiting to die)
-Basically all of Europe
-Ukraine (me) by DBacks (Germany) and Mauzer (India)
-Germany (Dbacks) by Supersniper (UK) and JustinM.Martinez (UK)
-Spain (Anthrax) by ~Spart (Nigeria or some shit)
-China: North/Manchu (Desu) by Terminal (Taiwan)

Disqualification? (Players in peace, in danger of possible anti-hippie crackdown by Meester and Chess)
-Egg (Indonesia) : Offically peaced with Terminal
-Terminal (Taiwan): Officially peaced with Egg
-Supersniper (UK): Ceasefired with Anthrax (Spain) since turn 2 (speculation)
-Mr_Own_U (S Africa) Ceasefired with ~Spart (Speculation; completely fucking obvious)
-~Spart (Nigeria or some shit): Ceasefired with Mr_Own_U (speculation)
-Meester (Mariutus) : Hasn't attacked anyone since rejoing game in turns 8-11 (Speculation? I think not!)

SP Leaderboards (in order of highest):
JustinM.Martinez (Me fuck yea)
DBacks
Terminal
Mauzer Panteri
Happy New Year
Buffalo Soldier
Supersniper
Desu
~Spart
Anthrax
Egg
Mr_Own_U *basically last*
(Meester)

Players w/ze most kills (Based on what I remember):
Me: Two (Sweden/Eygpt)
Buffalo: Two (USA MT/ Texas)
Terminal: One (S. Korea)
Mauzer: One (Iran)
Happy New Years: One (Brazil NE)
(I'm missing one other dead player, anyone care to elaborate and call dibs?)

That is all, I hope you enjoyed this heavily Egocentric view of Turn 14
I will post another of turn 15, w/o the huge amount of stats.

Written by ChayaNyx, 18.01.2014 at 10:38

Disqualification? (Players in peace, in danger of possible anti-hippie crackdown by Meester and Chess)
-Supersniper (UK): Ceasefired with Anthrax (Spain) since turn 2 (speculation)

nope,I attacked london sometime around week4,made me lose all my army,so I just didn't have anything to attack with ;_;

Written by AnthraX., 18.01.2014 at 14:27

Written by ChayaNyx, 18.01.2014 at 10:38

Disqualification? (Players in peace, in danger of possible anti-hippie crackdown by Meester and Chess)
-Supersniper (UK): Ceasefired with Anthrax (Spain) since turn 2 (speculation)

nope,I attacked london sometime around week4,made me lose all my army,so I just didn't have anything to attack with ;_;

Like I said, its only speculation. I hadn't seen you attack him in ages

I don't want to play qualification again. Meester said he will disqualify players who obviously peace each other and as required per rule #1 I trust that he will stand by his words.
With these dimwits out of the tournament their spots could be given to the more worthy players who had lost to them. If there are more players than spots they can play for these and then join those who are already qualified.

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2014 at 07:11

Well, Chess's concerns are legit. I don't want anyone to take this personally, but Laochra was throwing everything he has at me, and that is because Waffel isn't attacking him really or pressuring in any way. All they are doing is taking each others cities which is leading to Waffel throwing everything at Soul in Africa and Laochra throwing everything at me in Germany. This really isn't fair and is against your words ^^^ . Nobody take this personally please because this is just a better of right or wrong.

Cheers!

Yeah Waffel has his gen stack of 47 heading down to Africa (currently in Morocco) with only Spain and Italy in Europe. Logic? I'm busy fighting Joed (S.Africa) and haven't even reached Mauritania yet because of him, I wanna boast about how I have almost 100 units over him (currently) still despite this but that could easily be used to justify why he should come at me lmao. And yeah I don't want to go through another game where it looks like I have a good chance of securing a spot in the finals already. Wouldn't want to have a remake because of it. I've been fighting Spain and South Africa as Nigeria and well I have already said almost 100 units over Waffel and about 70-80 over Joed (S.Africa). Btw they(Spain/UK) stopped taking each other cities far as I can see, more just wfing each other but leaving shit empty. Think Waffel has nothing in Europe

Written by Mr_Own_U, 18.01.2014 at 09:20

Ok we'll since All you guys are pointing fingers at Africa ( me and spart) I guess getting marines in place Is considered allying up

Lol cmon Mou how many marines can you really have in 10k playing S.Africa, I'm playing Nigeria Imp(it's pretty obvious by now) in my group and even when I still had my starting cash could only make 4 subs and 8 marines (all dead now...maybe...lol)made turn 5, turn 13 I can't even use half my reinf, more like can't use three quarters of it. Oh and yea S.Africa starts with like a good 1.5k less than Nigeria or something. Ik in my group its come down to militia and infantry micromanagement and smart walls/wfs/unit movement for the African battle.

Seeing as secret alliances were never prohibited in the tournament rules and only became an issue after the games had already begun I don't think it's fair to pass punishment on players. Frankly, it's impossible to objectively judge who is and is not in some sort of peace agreement. I'll admit that I've made temporary peace with player(s) but only because it was obvious to me that other players were doing so and because it was never mentioned in the tourney rules.

Tourny rules state no clan alliances. Thanks acqui for making me remember.

What acqui said and to add

basically me and waffle have only been fighting a micro war but neither has made a strong move on the otherso i guess we've sort of an unofficial peace, he saw i was focused on tactician so hasnt really bothered to push me and vice versa with me against him and soul.

has tactician been a victim of it? yes and no, he picked germany, a central location in europe which is probably the worst possible pick in a game like this, he was sandwiched between myself grimm waffle and acquiesce, his future in europe was always going to be bleak, likewise grimm is now between myself acqui and death1812.

from what i see many such situations have sprung up in the game, of which im not going to point fingers at anyone because the rules dont condemn them.

i dont think rehosting with same picks and new rules will affect the outcome of the current survivors in group B, not without some strong gameplay as the current eliminated are victims of position and odd country choices(singapore tops? )

Secret alliances are "secret" because everyone knows it's against the rules, even if it's not specifically stated. Why else would they be secret?

Now sometimes in such a game you will have to support another player a bit in order to up your own chances at survival and I don't think this is possible to avoid. You can't make a player attack another if it would be to his disadvantage.
In case of Group B Europe it's an active alliance though and it becomes even more obvious that they knew what they were doing when you consider their joke of taking and retaking some small cities, or breaking a wall every other round to cover their asses. What they call "micro war".
Please disqualify.

Also, @Meester: please consider to give the players with the most SP the benefit of the first pick in the finals. Players who only sat in the Americans on their own should not take best picks again before those who actually fought for their spots. Think of it like qualification for pole position in Formula 1.

Right and on the other hand you have pakistan taking 13 turns to attack a weakened vietnam that was being hit by singapore, instead expanding heavily over into europe.

and @ learster thats nothing but cynical speculation, myself and spain just didnt push on each other.

so apparently since im getting disqualified for something that wasnt in the rules and that was prevalent throughout both games and clearly not emphasised enough. you can give my spot to the tactician

as it would appear obvious that the last victims in group B will be vietnam and perhaps death1812

Written by Chess, 19.01.2014 at 07:18

If the game is hosted without alliances then no alliances should be made.

In AW if a game is hosted without alliances then no alliances can be made. But what that means is no ally end, gifting money, or holding one another's capitals. Secret alliances on the other hand have ALWAYS been a part of no alliance AW games. Why does the fact that this is a tournament make that suddenly not true?

Written by Acquiesce, 19.01.2014 at 09:09

Written by Chess, 19.01.2014 at 07:18

If the game is hosted without alliances then no alliances should be made.

In AW if a game is hosted without alliances then no alliances can be made. But what that means is no ally end, gifting money, or holding one another's capitals. Secret alliances on the other hand have ALWAYS been a part of no alliance AW games. Why does the fact that this is a tournament make that suddenly not true?

Regardless of what the argument is here, tournament games and public games are different. Tournament games are official games that should be addressed strictly as these games actually have incentives/prizes when won. Thus, rules are implemented to prevent cheating so that each and every participating player gets an equal chance. This is also to properly seek out the most skilled player out of the participants. In this case, whether they are avoidable or not, these secret alliances are preventing a full-on equal competition for all participating players.

There is a difference between public and tournament games and there is a reason for it.

Leaf, You are correct only insofar as the tournament rules make clear what makes the tournament different from public games, i.e. what constitutes 'cheating'. If that isn't done then it's fair to assume that the rest is just like regular AW. Obviously the fact that this is even an issue proves that this particular rule was never made (or at least not stressed enough) otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many secret alliances in the first place. If it HAD been made clear players would have surely made more of an effort to cover their tracks for fear of disqualification (or not have made secret alliances at all).

Lets get some facts straight,

1. Yes, it is easier to attack Germany than Spain as UK, but any decent UK would at least reinforce France to ensure its safe not leave its cities open and put all his/her units in Germany, why didn't he at least defend France? He knows he won't get pushed by Spain. A Spain going at least 70% force in Africa is peculiar don't you think? Little to defend with and all the the units in Europe are actually on the aggressive stance not defensive.

2. Taking small cities in French-Spanish border, please. I'm not saying go suiciding on caps, I'm saying when Barca or Bilbao is empty, you send one unit to it to take it. You take it so you eliminate the possibility of UK/France being taken, people know that its a freakin empty port, Laochra certainly knows that.

3. I don't really care about a tourney where I got ... Lets say diplomatically surpassed, all I want now is justice. I don't care about my place anymore, I care about the other people affected by this's place. I care about a tourney where you can actually trust your host and your peers. I also care about the people who already qualified, its not their fault they have nothing to do with this.

4. Wasn't in the rules? Its a FREE FOR ALL GAME that automatically means no allying.

5. Yes rehosting wouldn't have affected much, in my case I'm sandwiched. Other people who tried and succeeded will get affected as their opponents have a chance to do things right. Rehosting everything isn't a good idea.

6. By two people allying, or not attacking each other, this stacks the odds for every individual to succeed when there is a team of two attacking certain directions, while one player is being attacked and is attacking every direction.

Cheers

I don't know how this tournament came about as I did not pay attention to this at all until recently, so I wouldn't be able to make a clear judgement on what went wrong. However, it is unfortunate that something like this has happened to an interesting tournament. If what Acquiesce claims is true, then I believe that disqualifying all suspected players for being involved in a secret alliance would be a little too harsh as they may not have been aware. Otherwise, if players were all warned from the very beginning, the punishment is more than justified.


It really is disappointing and rather very silly that participating players, who are all rather experienced players of at-war was unable to distinguish what "no alliance" denoted.

EDIT: An effort should be made by all participants to identify all players involved in a secret alliance. However, it may prove to be difficult to distinguish between mutual armistice and secret alliances.

Turn 15 Events:

-Desu, lost all remaining provinces and is currently holding up in Manchu
-Terminal, continues seige of Desu's Cap
-Egg, making progress in India
-Mauzer Panteri, conquests are stalling due to fiercer resistance and new fronts opening up
-Me, Continuously suffering heavy losses in Middle East and Balkans
-DBacks, holding out in Germany, losing Balkans
-Supersniper,Continuing the defense of Paris and London
-Anthrax, held up in Madrid building walls
-~Spart, continuing Spanish Seige
-Mr_Own_U, fighting two fronts in Saudi Arabia and Argentina
-Buffalo Soldier successfully pushing south into brazil
-Happy New Years, suffering from two front war
-Meester, not doing much : P

I was read a lot of what was said on this tournament , and the ally secrets
Really get disappointment from what is happening her but i get more disappointment from the player that's none of them is a new player to be afraid from the challenge that's and this why its called tournament


1- rehosting wouldn't have affected much, in my case I'm sandwiched. Other people who tried and succeeded will get affected as their opponents have a chance to do things right.

Rehosting everything isn't a good idea

its not fair that's one get attack form every city a round him and other they just collect victory from that's
so its would be easy that's we joined with in teams. this easy win with do nothing we just 5 or sex attack all who is in attack side and win them so we don't get hard to get this tournament
i hope from the host just to get care on what tournament mean
(just to do what u should be do )
for me i was think that's i will be apple to handle this game in easy way or hard way but to be attacker one in the game even if i have money and reinforcement i will not hold many side attack. so what my chance will be

and thx for the arrangement its was hard to be done any way without this problem but to bunch the mistake will make it be correct in next time

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2014 at 07:11

Well, Chess's concerns are legit. I don't want anyone to take this personally, but Laochra was throwing everything he has at me, and that is because Waffel isn't attacking him really or pressuring in any way. All they are doing is taking each others cities which is leading to Waffel throwing everything at Soul in Africa and Laochra throwing everything at me in Germany. This really isn't fair and is against your words ^^^ . Nobody take this personally please because this is just a better of right or wrong.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2014 at 22:34

basically me and waffle have only been fighting a micro war but neither has made a strong move on the otherso i guess we've sort of an unofficial peace, he saw i was focused on tactician so hasnt really bothered to push me and vice versa with me against him and soul.

has tactician been a victim of it? yes and no, he picked germany, a central location in europe which is probably the worst possible pick in a game like this, he was sandwiched between myself grimm waffle and acquiesce, his future in europe was always going to be bleak, likewise grimm is now between myself acqui and death1812.

It's actually a Triple-Entente in EU: Acquiesce-Waffel-Laochra (game B)
I didn't see a single attack between Acqui and Waffel. Normally, you might expect Turkey to attack Rome...
This situation makes it very difficult for any other EU players to survive. Central location or not (Laochra is right that me & Tact had tough starting positions). Even so, I would have stood a chance against Acqui if I hadn't lost my gen & 2ATs in a glitch early on. I would have been able to wage an equal war w Turkey and could have mounted an opportunistic attack on Tact or Laochra. Or even expanded east towards Death. Anyway, that's beside the point. What's clear though is that there was a triple unofficial agreement.

Now, what to do about it. It's true that the tourney rules did not expressly forbid secret agreements. Even if they did, how would you enforce such a rule? It's fairly easy to wage a more convincing "pretend war". That said, the tourney was presented as a no rules FFA. I guess I just naively assumed that people were going to play as such... Now I guess I know better .

IMO it's your call Meester.

Written by Meester, 26.12.2013 at 06:24

Written by learster, 26.12.2013 at 05:29

I'm in too. As for the alliances: friends and coalition mates will work together regardless of how many alliances are set. Did you think of a way to prevent this?

Will try my best to distribute the players away from their coalitions as much as possible but overall there really isn't any way to stop them from having secret peace deals. Though if it really is very obvious that both players are having a secret peace deal i'll disqualify both of them from the tournament.

He already made his call.

Written by Grimm, 19.01.2014 at 14:02

IMO it's your call Meester.

Agreed, I've made my reasoning clear. But I understand that players are angry and I'll standby whatever decision Meester makes.

Im the same as acqui

I see many time a micro war come on - what that's mean ?
that's mean one thing ---- ( any one he will try to attack them will get on his attack so in again 3v1 in every time any one he will try to be on them so give the win for them they don't need to get in tournament its known result for them just the other need to continue
or we all get un _secret peace to attack them and be 9v3 and we make also micro war to not make other think we ally
even perfect player will not hold 3 side attack