Jump to content


CCWB - Victory Points - June 24, 2015


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

s1r31ch #101 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:20 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 29 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The meeting is tonight. Things will be brought up and settled then. Tfe and dracs is more then welcome to attend with a representative in my opinion. But this is being handled wrong. The forums just give wg reason to not do an event in the future.

Pertinacious #102 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:22 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2284 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012

View PostRob7183, on 25 June 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

 

Shhhh...don't tell the EPA that.  You'll kill the entire premise behind the Superfund Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.  They've prosecuted any number of people by interpreting rules differently after the fact.

 

Well that''s why no one likes them! 

 


PostTraumatic #103 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:28 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

So I want to hear it officially.  Is WS continuing with this dispute at this juncture?  

 

Looking for an official reply from WS.  

 

No need to convene the council if you are no longer disputing anything that is not a broken rule.  Not a specific territory win/loss


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 09:29 PM.


Killerpopcorn #104 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:36 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 375 battles
  • 751
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012


 

This is what I think of all this. At least this will help out in future events as far as rules and issues


Air Raid #1: 4th place/Air Raid #2 3rd Place/Air Raid #4 2nd Place/Air Raid #5 9th place

Crossover #1 1st Place/ Launch Event 1st place


DeltaAlphaVictorEcho #105 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:36 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4 battles
  • 91
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

IF the system is automated - there should be no issues.

 



PostTraumatic #106 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:37 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

There was no gambling on this and no rules were broken.  The rooms were fought for and the points were on the line in a fair battle.  Just because we discussed how many were going in is not against the rules.  Budgeting troops is encouraged and working with clans also is encouraged.  None of this breaks the rules.  We set our numbers to do the battle and it was a level playing field.  If we had lost we would have said, GG

 

Again, We have not heard their specific dispute.  Just hemming and hawing because they lost more than we did.

 

If they actually form a cogent dispute and the board of clans hears it, the rulings need to be based on the actual RULES.  Not what people WISH the rules were.


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 09:42 PM.


Phrap #107 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:41 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 21 battles
  • 539
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Sounds like bias trying to protect farming :P.

 

It was predicted something like this would happen, and it did. Shocking.



SHreDDed__WhEaT #108 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:44 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View Postmacfloam, on 25 June 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

Making agreements with your ENEMIES so that you can both have an opportunity for maximum points in a round by having more battles than you could normally staff if you weren't getting into bed with your supposed enemy...yeah, I'm sure that's EXACTLY what GP intended this event to be all about. This is the worst example of going against the spirit of the competition imaginable. You're gaming the system to allow your clan to grab up as much of the gold as possible. For all the issues TFE & SF had with each other, at least we fought each other to the best of our abilities. We tried to deny each other points, while maximizing the points for ourselves only. TFE made alliances with FALO & FACK to try to spread SF's forces thin to give us an advantage. By contrast, you're making agreements with the very people you are attacking so that you can BOTH benefit. 

 

For the record, agreements made outside of the rules are not binding. -WS- know this, which is precisely why they have not filed a formal complaint. In fact, they've stated multiple times that they are not disputing the results of the battles. If your council of leaders have any spine, they'll vote to nullify all battles where two clans agreed to fight 1v1, as this is a clear violation of the spirit of the competition, and a heinous example of gaming the rules. 

 

Honestly, this is exactly what the World of Tanks Global Map is about.  Diplomacy is a huge aspect of that event.  Nothing in the rules didn't allow collaboration between clans.

Edited by SHreDDed__WhEaT, 25 June 2015 - 09:46 PM.


PostTraumatic #109 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

It was fair battle and all clans can choose how many to add to a battle.  Or even none at all.  So many points in this competition were given out for no battles actually being fought at all and I am being grieved for actually having battles over territories that were legitimately fought with the limited players we felt would be available for battle?  

 

No rule was broken

 

No formal dispute has yet to be filed.  

 

In Tanks Clan Wars, Clans make agreements to 1 chip as a regular course and it happens.  It is a fair and applicable tactic that more than just Vulcan and WS employed. 

 

So if us going in to do a legitimate 1 on 1 battle is not fair for points then how is nobody making a room nor getting points from uncontested battles where people don't show up??

 

Its all just sore loser mud slinging by WS


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 09:48 PM.


Killerpopcorn #110 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:48 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 375 battles
  • 751
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

There was no gambling on this and no rules were broken.  The rooms were fought for and the points were on the line in a fair battle.  Just because we discussed how many were going in is not against the rules.  Budgeting troops is encouraged and working with clans also is encouraged.  None of this breaks the rules.  We set our numbers to do the battle and it was a level playing field.  If we had lost we would have said, GG

 

Again, We have not heard their specific dispute.  Just hemming and hawing because they lost more than we did.

 

If they actually form a cogent dispute and the board of clans hears it, the rulings need to be based on the actual RULES.  Not what people WISH the rules were.

 

That's the same thing Pete said.

 

I never said you(Vulcan) broke any rules, but knowing what I know from this thread it will defiantly help out in the future with preparation at round starts. I am not going to go "in depth" with my opinion on this since this is not my dispute and I am not involved in this. I know how clan wars works I played it in tanks granted the system was more smoother then this.


Air Raid #1: 4th place/Air Raid #2 3rd Place/Air Raid #4 2nd Place/Air Raid #5 9th place

Crossover #1 1st Place/ Launch Event 1st place


SHreDDed__WhEaT #111 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:52 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

It was fair battle and all clans can choose how many to add to a battle.  Or even none at all.  So many points in this competition were given out for no battles actually being fought at all and I am being grieved for actually having battles over territories that were legitimately fought with the limited players we felt would be available for battle?  

 

No rule was broken

 

No formal dispute has yet to be filed.  

 

In Tanks Clan Wars, Clans make agreements to 1 chip as a regular course and it happens.  It is a fair and applicable tactic that more than just Vulcan and WS employed. 

 

So if us going in to do a legitimate 1 on 1 battle is not fair for points then how is nobody making a room nor getting points from uncontested battles where people don't show up??

 

Its all just sore loser mud slinging by WS

 

No, its actually you being paranoid your behavior will become known and an effort by you to get in front of a dispute subject WS never said they had.  As Dity's message highlighted.

 

Of the 10 or so (JINN was going to get the actual numbers) battles between Vulcan and WS you are trying to suggest all of those battles were manned and fought by at least 1v1?  That is true.


Edited by SHreDDed__WhEaT, 25 June 2015 - 09:53 PM.


Phrap #112 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:56 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 21 battles
  • 539
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Next time an alliance gets formed to farm points with the obvious loopholes in the system, perhaps you guys should actually do it right rather than try to simultaneously break the agreement immediately.

 

Kind of hilarious, actually.



PostTraumatic #113 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:56 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Thanks killerpopcorn, Phrap and Shredded_wheat.  Your outsiders point of view and trying to muddy the waters is noted

 

As of now CCWB is on HOLD until this is worked out.    The council at this point is set to convene at 7pm EST.  However not all council members have responded to the thread and its being handled by people that actually have read the rules.  I doubt Killerpopcorn Phrap nor Shredded_Wheat have actually bothered to READ THE RULES!

 

It is not farming points when it is an actual battle that is on the line.  There was no trade.  It was not a gift.  We decided to battle and just set terms for the battle based on the troops we figured we had available


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 09:59 PM.


Phrap #114 Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:58 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 21 battles
  • 539
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The reason we decided to never join is because we read the rules. You are hilariously out of touch with reality, my friend.


PostTraumatic #115 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:02 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Well since you read the rules then you decided not to play.  we decided to play by the rules as they were stated and have done so.  The rules encourage clans cooperating to their advantages.  By us agreeing to fight but making an agreement not to overwhelm each other with troops we simply gave our side limited liability on those locations.

 

Its all part of the rules as stated for clans to cooperate for troop allocations

 

Its all within the rules as written that we all agreed to.



Killerpopcorn #116 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:03 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 375 battles
  • 751
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

 

 

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

Thanks killerpopcorn, Phrap and Shredded_wheat.  Your outsiders point of view and trying to muddy the waters is noted

 

As of now CCWB is on HOLD until this is worked out.    The council at this point is set to convene at 7pm EST.  However not all council members have responded to the thread and its being handled by people that actually have read the rules.  I doubt Killerpopcorn Phrap nor Shredded_Wheat have actually bothered to READ THE RULES!

 

It is not farming points when it is an actual battle that is on the line.  There was no trade.  It was not a gift.  We decided to battle and just set terms for the battle based on the troops we figured we had available

 

 

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

View PostPhrap, on 25 June 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

The reason we decided to never join is because we read the rules. You are hilariously out of touch with reality, my friend.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Edited by Killerpopcorn, 25 June 2015 - 10:04 PM.

Air Raid #1: 4th place/Air Raid #2 3rd Place/Air Raid #4 2nd Place/Air Raid #5 9th place

Crossover #1 1st Place/ Launch Event 1st place


Phrap #117 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:04 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 21 battles
  • 539
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I never said it was against the rules. I just said we easily predicted it would happen, and guess what: It did!

 

Kind of funny that the newly-placed "leader" of this event is a part of it too. The entire event has just been a hilarious thing to watch unfold, really glad we didn't have to mess with this silly business.


Edited by Phrap, 25 June 2015 - 10:14 PM.


PostTraumatic #118 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:16 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1536 battles
  • 987
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

If you don't want to mess with it then why post repeatedly on this thread comparing me to Nolan Ryan for playing within the rules?  It is a totally unfair comparison.  

 

You even admit to reading the rules and knowing this was encouraged by GW in the rules.  

 

Seems you and Killer just like to help stir the crap and not post constructive fair analysis of the rules and situation.


Edited by PostTraumatic, 25 June 2015 - 10:19 PM.


Reaper926 #119 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:20 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2365 battles
  • 32
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    03-07-2014

View Postmacfloam, on 25 June 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

Isn't that the very definition of trading points, or do you honestly think that making agreements to have 1-on-1 battles so you can milk the most gold from WG as possible falls under the category of the spirit of the competition?

 

what??? what does it matter if its 15 on 15 or 1 on 1???? your not even in this and  to perfectly frank it was nice not having  the constant  drama in the  forum till now..    if your gonna try to  present an argument  please for the love of god  make your argument  valid...

subwolve #120 Posted 25 June 2015 - 10:24 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 24 battles
  • 199
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostPostTraumatic, on 25 June 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

 

Seems you and Killer just like to help stir the crap and not post constructive fair analysis of the rules and situation.

 

+1, also it sounds like a few drac already formed an opinion on the matter and are no longer unbiased..... just saying

Edited by subwolve, 25 June 2015 - 10:27 PM.





11 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users