Figment - Early Game (Started)

[FrozenFalcon]

R'lyeh resigns. Oceania has almost total control over the seas and I see no chance in beating him. Remaining armies of R'lyeh are now controlled by AI.

[Xavier]

Psycho said:
Pangaea seems to be faring better on AI

Yeah, I wasn't throwing enough resources at Pan. But I'm back on task now

[Velusion]

This is moving to 48 hour hosting as I can't keep up and it is well over the 24 turn limit.

[Baalz]

Marverni is in need of earth gems. We can trade anything save astral pearls for them, and remember our friends.

[Psycho]

Deleted

[Foodstamp]

I don't appreciate your accusations. I found a scout in the province the same turn from another nation, so if you want to push the accusation, I can get the other player to verify that you are wrong.

If I could set my 100+ archers to that, the battle would have greatly been lopsided in my favor considering that your commanders were near immobile monkeys.

What really happened is I set my archers to fire at large monsters and thunderstrike caused your cheeseball blessed yavanas to hang out near your commanders causing them to take archer fire as well.

It was a good fight and I would expected more class out of another player, but considering your PMs since your pretender died, I would expect no less than accusations from you.

[Psycho]

There was only one PM and what I wrote was supposed to a phrase like one can see in a movie, when the bad guys hurt someone the good guy cares for and then he goes ballistic and kicks their asses. It was supposed to be funny, but maybe I should have put a smiley in it.

A larger number of your archers fired on my yavanas (pd archers I guess) and a smaller group came forward and fired on a single yaksha commander who was standing alone in the middle right of my placement space. They made no difference, because they fired at him till the end of the combat and didn't kill him. Of course I accept I can be wrong, but the yaksha is the same size as everyone else (although has 5 hp more), so I would think that those archers would shoot the closest large units in the biggest group. On the first turn they didn't even shoot at the units in their range, but moved forward.

I guess I was out of line in the last post. Sorry about that. But still it seems to me like they were targeting that one specific commander from the start of the battle. I would like to hear what the player with the spy thinks.

[Foodstamp]

I will send him a PM and see if he is willing to review the battle.

Edit: I sent the following PM to the Ermor player:

Hello hello.

I (Caelum) have been accused of cheating in the Figment game. I was wondering if you could review the battle with the scout you had in the Caelum province this turn to check for any cheating. The center of the accusation is whether or not I had 'hacked' my archers to fire at commanders only.

Thanks,
Caelum

I am posting it here as well so you will know I did not say something like "Lame Kailasa is accusing me of haxxors blah blah blah."

PS: I rechecked the battle and it seems someone had cast astral window on the battle as well unless it was you.

During the replay a squad of archers fires upon your commander at the south part of the screen. They do this for 2-3 rounds. I imagine they did this because they were set to 'fire large enemy monsters' and they considered him to be the better target because of the risk of friendly fire and he was in range.

After your guy moves out of range, they continue to fire upon the 'large enemy monsters' that are still within range. Thus, they could not be set to 'Fire at Commanders' because they would have moved forward to fire at your commanders.

[Foodstamp]

After continued harassment through private tells by Psycho calling me a cheater, I have decided to place him on ignore.

I delayed my last turn as long as possible so the game would not host, allowing Ermor to review the turn. The Ermor player did not get back to me until yesterday, after the turn had hosted.

I do have the turn in question saved in another folder.

My questions:

Now that the turn has hosted, is it possible for me to get a 3rd party to view the old turn in question, if I supply them the map files and the turn file?

[Velusion]

Foodstamp said:
After continued harassment through private tells by Psycho calling me a cheater, I have decided to place him on ignore.

I delayed my last turn as long as possible so the game would not host, allowing Ermor to review the turn. The Ermor player did not get back to me until yesterday, after the turn had hosted.

I do have the turn in question saved in another folder.

My questions:

Now that the turn has hosted, is it possible for me to get a 3rd party to view the old turn in question, if I supply them the map files and the turn file?

IMHO there needs to be more than just one instance of this behavior to constitute any sort of valid cheating accusation. Even if I were to examine the files and see something that looked questionable it could have just been a quirk of one battle.

If people see this sort of results when fighting Foodstamp multiple times we can go back and scrutinize battle results but with just one fuzzy lone instant I don't think it bears investigation without corroborative evidence.

FYI my opinion having played Foodstamp in the past is I don't think he would cheat knowingly - though I'd be happy to investigate any accusation if the accuser thinks he has definitive proof.