Team Round Limits Fixed!

by **Pirlo** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:16 pm

wow shit... this community is really sick and too fucking demanding !! :lol:

by **Gillipig** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:49 pm

Pirlo wrote:wow shit... this community is really sick and too fucking demanding !!

+1

by **rdsrds2120** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:57 pm

The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

by **greenoaks** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:01 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

shortly, what's wrong with immediately

by **Dako** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:35 pm

Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.

by **Gillipig** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:59 pm

Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.

I vote for instantly

!

by **Chariot of Fire** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:04 pm

Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.

A pity more thought wasn't put into the implementation of what is a good rule change. Dako had a fix that would have kept 'active games' using the old system, Lindax pointed out it could have been announced a month ago "New rule coming into place on 27th December" (isn't hindsight a fine thing?) and of course betiko is right - it sucks to lose a game that would have been won under the rules that game was played by (and Team 2 actually deserved to lose for playing like muppets - look at all the troops they could/should have forted to pink to ensure the win).

by **Gilligan** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:43 pm

betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."

this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.

Only one game you mention was affected...can't we take a chill pill and move on?

by **betiko** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:01 pm

Gilligan wrote:
betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."

this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.

Only one game you mention was affected...can't we take a chill pill and move on?

If you read the thread gunn and JCR got screwed as well. I don t know how many other games are afected, and I don t see why I have to be the asshole of the story because I am legitimately complaining of an admin mess up for not respecting common sense. It s like if in your company the tech guy doesn t tell you all network access will be shut down for maintenance for 3h on tuesday at 3pm and you lose all your work as a result. Planning is your job!! You don t just change rules of ongoing games on a random day then announce it! I ll just suck it up, but no one likes to be treated in an unfair way, don t blame me for being bitter as a result!!

by **greenoaks** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:30 pm

Gilligan wrote:
betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."

this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.

Only one game you mention was affected...can't we take a chill pill and move on?

New Regime - 1 update made, 1 update screwed up.

betiko is doing us all a favour by kicking up a stink.

by **rdsrds2120** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:51 pm

greenoaks wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

shortly, what's wrong with immediately

Because I can't change them!

It is fixed.

BMO

by **mc05025** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:17 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:
greenoaks wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

BMO

shortly, what's wrong with immediately

Because I can't change them!

It is fixed.

BMO

Even if that was a bad planning and people are right to complain, I like the new administrator more because he is here. I feel like rdsrds2120 is more like part of the community and not someone that you can not contact and that he just receive my money to have this game active.

by **rdsrds2120** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:09 am

I appreciate that, MC. Thank you very much!

BMO

by **jonofperu** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:00 am

People adding their 2 cents isn't always helpful or appreciated, but I'll risk it to just share an opinion...

Great job new admin on implementing a fix the community requested a while ago! =D>

This feels like a HUGE improvement for the site (more than just the one thing fixed, it's the evidence that admin cares about the community and will in fact act to improve the site).

I completely sympathize with betiko. It's got to be frustrating to lose a game and tournament that you should have won due to admin screwing up a rule/coding change. It's unfair.

It's easy to see how things could/should have been handled to avoid this, but now it's done. Admin have admitted the mistake and said it shouldn't happen again. Based on their willingness to improve and the very fact that they implemented this change I'm certainly willing to cut them some slack.

They got the big thing right - improvement for the site.
Screwed up the announcement/implementation and messed up a few games for people. BUT they're going to do better next time. Apology accepted. Great work admin.

Sounds to me like the balanced solution for betiko is what Metsfanmax suggested:

Metsfanmax wrote:As I said, it is unfortunate that this happened, and I assure you there was no intention to mess up anyone's game. Since this was for a tournament, I recommend that you petition the person running the tournament to have the game not counted; I think this would be a fair request.

by **JCR** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:29 pm

Thats all good and well but that doesnt do anything for the 37 points we "lost" or the approx 80 points we would have gained by actually winning the game we actually won by the rules in place. Yes points come and go, but gunn and I are both working towards goals and that @ 117 points would have been nice to have kept/received for a game we won but did not win. BTW had we known the rules were changing we could have won the other way because the team that received the win did so without forting anything to one player and we sacrificed a good number of troops trying to link up.

My math is estimated
there is no tourney
I agree with Betiko
I actually LIKE the change
I am ticked off that we won under the rules but were not awarded the win
I do feel like we got screwed here,
something should be done
I know it wont

Mistakes are made, I understand it was not intentional, but I usually try to remedy my mistakes when I can.

by **JCR** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:31 pm

mc05025 wrote:

Even if that was a bad planning and people are right to complain, I like the new administrator more because he is here. I feel like rdsrds2120 is more like part of the community and not someone that you can not contact and that he just receive my money to have this game active.

+1

by **HOWITZERHAL** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:08 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:
Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.

A pity more thought wasn't put into the implementation of what is a good rule change. Dako had a fix that would have kept 'active games' using the old system, Lindax pointed out it could have been announced a month ago "New rule coming into place on 27th December" (isn't hindsight a fine thing?) and of course betiko is right - it sucks to lose a game that would have been won under the rules that game was played by (and Team 2 actually deserved to lose for playing like muppets - look at all the troops they could/should have forted to pink to ensure the win).

Funny......

We were clearly aware that the rulz had changed........unbelievable that we do actually read the forum....we did not feel that it was necessary to fort our men over to RJ, since we had overwhelminly dominated the game.....And we could see Betiko's troop count on more then one occasion in this battle..

Re: Round Limit troop count winner didn't win

by hotfire on Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:13 pm

hotfire wrote:oh good...i hope they changed it to the team with the most points

For the record...Spino would have forted his 36 men to RJ and CAPK81 would have forted his 42 men to RJ..being a nuclear game we did not want all our eggs in one basket till the end...even Beitko would have to admit that his team thought I was the power on our team to deal with....Ooopps...I was just the hammer......but since the rulz did change.......well, you figure it out......besides it is more fun to see all the characters come out of the woodwork....FYI: we play more like Yogi Bear stealing a 'picinick basket mr. Ranger sir'......then a Muppet......so get it str8.....

Have a nice day

by **betiko** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:11 am

HOWITZERHAL wrote:
Chariot of Fire wrote:
Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily.

"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.

A pity more thought wasn't put into the implementation of what is a good rule change. Dako had a fix that would have kept 'active games' using the old system, Lindax pointed out it could have been announced a month ago "New rule coming into place on 27th December" (isn't hindsight a fine thing?) and of course betiko is right - it sucks to lose a game that would have been won under the rules that game was played by (and Team 2 actually deserved to lose for playing like muppets - look at all the troops they could/should have forted to pink to ensure the win).

Funny......

We were clearly aware that the rulz had changed........unbelievable that we do actually read the forum....we did not feel that it was necessary to fort our men over to RJ, since we had overwhelminly dominated the game.....And we could see Betiko's troop count on more then one occasion in this battle..

Re: Round Limit troop count winner didn't win

by hotfire on Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:13 pm
hotfire wrote:oh good...i hope they changed it to the team with the most points

For the record...Spino would have forted his 36 men to RJ and CAPK81 would have forted his 42 men to RJ..being a nuclear game we did not want all our eggs in one basket till the end...even Beitko would have to admit that his team thought I was the power on our team to deal with....Ooopps...I was just the hammer......but since the rulz did change.......well, you figure it out......besides it is more fun to see all the characters come out of the woodwork....FYI: we play more like Yogi Bear stealing a 'picinick basket mr. Ranger sir'......then a Muppet......so get it str8.....

Have a nice day

If it's the case I'd rather hear that. By the way we were pretty pissed at our spoils this game cause each time you had your big stack somewhere we had the spoil but no possibility to turn it in before the next round, and you obviously advanced it!

I still don't understand with your explanation why you guys wouldn't ve forted each other at the end since you were playing back to back so unless you guys would've nuked yourself there was absolutely no danger, doesn't makes much sense... It just looked like you didn't know the rule and we tried to take advantage of it (just like other teams did to us the first time we got confronted to the situation)
Anyways, we still beat you guys 2-1 instead of 3-0, but since it's so tight on the tournament scoreboard I don't know if it will have consequences.

by **HOWITZERHAL** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:36 am

The rule change came after my play...(lets presume the rule didn't change),and on the chance that you could could nuke either mine or RJ's stack (of course depending on if you could nuke and where you could nuke)....then we had the numbers to deploy on either of us and fort for the win to either of us...since the rule did change, it just was not necessary to anything......either way we would have won this one my friend ..we are at our best when our opponents underestimate us....after all this time you guys should know us a bit better then that...congrats on the win this round.....sorry, no sweep ....lol.....catch ya on the next one...

by **betiko** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:23 am

HOWITZERHAL wrote:The rule change came after my play...(lets presume the rule didn't change),and on the chance that you could could nuke either mine or RJ's stack (of course depending on if you could nuke and where you could nuke)....then we had the numbers to deploy on either of us and fort for the win to either of us...since the rule did change, it just was not necessary to anything......either way we would have won this one my friend ..we are at our best when our opponents underestimate us....after all this time you guys should know us a bit better then that...congrats on the win this round.....sorry, no sweep ....lol.....catch ya on the next one...

no offense, but I've beaten you in every single game before that (5/5) and the way you guys manually team deployed in the other games worked; you guys completely made us lower our guard on this one!

by **HOWITZERHAL** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:40 am

Good memory.....I had to actually look it up...lol....of course with this team it is 2 to 1 your favor......the others I will take the solo heat for the team loss.....since you are taking the solo credit for the other team wins...
No offense taken my friend....

Anytime you would like to test your metal...1 v 1...Let me know

Adieu

by **betiko** on Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:56 am

HOWITZERHAL wrote:Good memory.....I had to actually look it up...lol....of course with this team it is 2 to 1 your favor......the others I will take the solo heat for the team loss.....since you are taking the solo credit for the other team wins...
No offense taken my friend....

Anytime you would like to test your metal...1 v 1...Let me know

Adieu

not memory, I just clicked on games together on your profile; and since it's with different teams for both of us I had to speak of us as individuals. but I m ok if you want to send me an invite teaming with you in trips/quads or vs you in a terminator or assassin game.

by **JCR** on Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:27 pm

So the apology is great, and accepted. Everyone makes mistakes.
The question still stands though. What will be done about the people/teams that got raked over on this?
Gunn and I clearly won based on the rules of the site at the time the game ended.

by **jonofperu** on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:49 pm

Just a guess, but if it's a matter of a few games I don't think there is anything they could do to make up for unfair losses. (Not sure they could do anything if it was thousands of games either.)
If it's a tournament, you could petition for a replay or whatever because it's part of a system under the control of the tournament organizer.
Again, I'm not sure, but I really doubt they could give you back points you lost or something like that.

by **rdsrds2120** on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:27 pm

Unfortunately, Jono is right:

jonofperu wrote:Just a guess, but if it's a matter of a few games I don't think there is anything they could do to make up for unfair losses. (Not sure they could do anything if it was thousands of games either.)
If it's a tournament, you could petition for a replay or whatever because it's part of a system under the control of the tournament organizer.
Again, I'm not sure, but I really doubt they could give you back points you lost or something like that.

There's no way to really equate how much was affected (some people were affected differently on varying levels), and what a fitting reparation would be. And if there were, well, the games affected by this were mostly minorly affected (a couple point swings here or there). Unfortunate, yes, but I think we'll all recover just fine.

BMO

Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Re: Team Round Limits Fixed!

Who is online