Forces of Good Cheating?
Moderators: Underway, The Dread Knights
- Alkkrision
- Daemon Prince
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 1:06 am
- Location: Liverpool
Forces of Good Cheating?
Is it just me, or does it seem like the forces of good are cheating?
1 Day after reaching Schippel (or however it's spelt), they're winning by 25%! We had 55% on another town one day, then 45% on the next day!
So what's going on guys?! Are we just not posting our victories at all, or are the forces of good resorting to heavy loss action and are saying they won anyway?!
I'm not going to encourage cheating, but for our sake guys, help the forces of evil, and build up a huge bank of victories to report daily!
1 Day after reaching Schippel (or however it's spelt), they're winning by 25%! We had 55% on another town one day, then 45% on the next day!
So what's going on guys?! Are we just not posting our victories at all, or are the forces of good resorting to heavy loss action and are saying they won anyway?!
I'm not going to encourage cheating, but for our sake guys, help the forces of evil, and build up a huge bank of victories to report daily!
- Endrin paladii
- Beastmaster
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:18 pm
Some of the special events we have been playing at GW are horribly disadvantagous twards evil. We lost the first 3 events horibly but have won the more recent 2. The worst one was defend the herdstone, OMG, houndreds of brettonian knights practicly on top of it in turn 2, thats just not fair. We shoudl have been allowed to deploy aroudn it, instead of rushign up and trying to defend.
Inconsistancies in fluff bother me.
The whole SOC campaign is not fair, whatever we do the one who are suppose to win will we. Its out of our hands guys dont you see it. To be honnest with you I'm thinking to stop posting results in SOC the situation got me tired already in the first 25 or so days.... it practicaly sucks....
"Oloth regar nindolen vel'uss b'luthyrr lil Darthiir"
- Alkkrision
- Daemon Prince
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 1:06 am
- Location: Liverpool
Actually, we asked in Games Workshop and they say the campaign isn't rigged, and that we can influence what happens. We now reckon it'll be more on the lines of chaos winning, Archaon becomes a daemon. But he goes away to the higher order of gods. Chaos will fight themselves in the Empire to see who becomes the new leader, and as they weaken, the forces of good begin to rally and push chaos out.
Oloth wrote:And what if it was rigged?
Well it is rigged in that Archaon is guaranteed to reach Middenheim due to the victory conditions of some battle sites, but then they've always said he'll get there. Imagine if it wasn't rigged, then the Attackers would be nowhere near as far as they are now...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
- Albert Einstein.
- Albert Einstein.
Yes you've got a point there Alex but then again its no fun.... I mean look at Boshenfels, I think it wasnt meant to fall from the beginning, thats why our efforts there managed nothing, and the skavens also.... And what about Lustria? Are the results there trully so balanced or is it rigged too?
"Oloth regar nindolen vel'uss b'luthyrr lil Darthiir"
Oloth wrote:And what about Lustria? Are the results there trully so balanced or is it rigged too?
Well, if anything, I expected Lizardmen to win a lot more games and win the subcampaign. They are a much more forgiving army than the Dark Elves and somewhat easier to use. If it is somehow "rigged" (which I don't think any of the campaigns are really, certainly not the subcampaigns) then I would think it would be in favour of the Druchii.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
- Albert Einstein.
- Albert Einstein.
That's for sure but then again as mentioned in another thread since me and my friends are on holiday we play more than 2-3 games per day and it happens that I win more than one. Then I post my one win and the second opponent posts his loss in order to post as many actualy played games as we can. Some people consider this a cheat cause GW said only winners should post but I think its fair enough since the battle was played...
"Oloth regar nindolen vel'uss b'luthyrr lil Darthiir"
- Darkspear
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:50 am
- Location: A Tropical island near the Pacific
Well, if anything, I expected Lizardmen to win a lot more games and win the subcampaign. They are a much more forgiving army than the Dark Elves and somewhat easier to use
i think the main reason y we have a slight advantage in lustria is because de are a united community who share tactics, army lists,tips and so on. I know other forums do it too but compared to druchii.net no doubt the druchii players will have more insight due to the large amt of response and feedback receive. not to forget the in-depth analysis of the lizardman army by dark alliance. i think another thing that people have not taken an account to is that our senior members (DA, underway etc...) have contributed significantly to the no of wins. they have been into the hobby for long and thus i feel that winning isn't a chore for them.
In my land, everyone calls me the darkspear. The most famous spearmen commander of all.
-
- Beastmaster
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 6:33 pm
try these:
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=15606
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=25097
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=15606
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=25097
"Oloth regar nindolen vel'uss b'luthyrr lil Darthiir"
I think "rigging" has absolutely nothing to do with the sub-campaigns. There's no strategy behind it, and there's no special scenarios which would make them stray from simply counting the victories. The results you're seeing are a direct result of the battles being posted.... there would be no reason to skew them. I feel any advantage in the campaigns are because of the difficulties that the armies have when playing eachother.
The Wood Elves have a slight advantage over the Beastmen because of their list, and the Tomb Kings have a significant advantage. Add to that the neglect on the Beastmen and O&G parts, because of posting victories primarily to the main campaign, and you're going to have the results you're seeing.
The Dark Elves and Lizards are fighting each other, to the exclusion of all else (basically ignoring the main campaign whenever possible), and the army lists are fairly even... so you're seeing results that are very close to 50/50. Plain and simple... there's no reason to suspect any tampering is taking place.
I feel this topic is rediculous... if anything, I'd say the Defenders should be the one's complaining. They've dominated almost every conflict so far, and yet they're still beind driven back... sure the argument can be made that Chaos only has to win a war of attrition, but so far I don't think any of the "evil" races have deserved to win a single battle in the Middenhiem campaign.
Bottomline: You're seeing that players who prefer to play Empire are dominating the evil races, and that cheating and subversion is very limited by only posting one battle per day. This way you're getting a true representation of how WHFB armies match up.... not a bunch of pock-faced teenagers who are sitting in front of their computers all day posting hundreds of battles that have never taken place.
The Wood Elves have a slight advantage over the Beastmen because of their list, and the Tomb Kings have a significant advantage. Add to that the neglect on the Beastmen and O&G parts, because of posting victories primarily to the main campaign, and you're going to have the results you're seeing.
The Dark Elves and Lizards are fighting each other, to the exclusion of all else (basically ignoring the main campaign whenever possible), and the army lists are fairly even... so you're seeing results that are very close to 50/50. Plain and simple... there's no reason to suspect any tampering is taking place.
I feel this topic is rediculous... if anything, I'd say the Defenders should be the one's complaining. They've dominated almost every conflict so far, and yet they're still beind driven back... sure the argument can be made that Chaos only has to win a war of attrition, but so far I don't think any of the "evil" races have deserved to win a single battle in the Middenhiem campaign.
Bottomline: You're seeing that players who prefer to play Empire are dominating the evil races, and that cheating and subversion is very limited by only posting one battle per day. This way you're getting a true representation of how WHFB armies match up.... not a bunch of pock-faced teenagers who are sitting in front of their computers all day posting hundreds of battles that have never taken place.
- Sobek
- Lord Commander of the General Staff
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: Looking for his Abacus....
- Contact:
One common misconception that we've found while studying the campaign is that the percentage doesn't represent the percentage of control of a site as it did in the EoT, affected by daily wins. In this campaign, it represents the percentage of overall wins from the start of the campaign until now. This would mean that as more and more battles/wins from either side are reported, it will become increasingly harder to affect the percentage of a site. that is largely what we're seeing now in Lustria. In addition, since all armies are supposedly balanced as GW stresses, this would tend to cause the natural percentage, assuming that both sides 'care' equally about the site and have roughly equal numbers, to statistically average out around 50%.
MTUCache was spot on with his analysis of the reasons why some of the numbers for subcampaigns are skewed. The Beastmen and the "Badlands attackers" just don't care as much about those subcampaigns, and are posting in the Old World. So the WEs and TKs easily have the advantage, explaining the numbers we're seeing.
As for the concern about the initial high numbers in sites in the Old World, this is to be expected as well. The FoL are spreading out wins, while we're concentrating ours on specific locations. Therefore, when a site opens, and they post wins there, while we don't, it's easy for them to get that large initial percentage. However, it's fairly easy to counteract that as we start posting wins to balance it out, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the FoL to maintain that lead. In the end, all the numbers will continue to head toward an average in the low to mid fifties. I say this number merely because of the amount by which they outnumber the FoD. They can post more wins, after all.
MTUCache was spot on with his analysis of the reasons why some of the numbers for subcampaigns are skewed. The Beastmen and the "Badlands attackers" just don't care as much about those subcampaigns, and are posting in the Old World. So the WEs and TKs easily have the advantage, explaining the numbers we're seeing.
As for the concern about the initial high numbers in sites in the Old World, this is to be expected as well. The FoL are spreading out wins, while we're concentrating ours on specific locations. Therefore, when a site opens, and they post wins there, while we don't, it's easy for them to get that large initial percentage. However, it's fairly easy to counteract that as we start posting wins to balance it out, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the FoL to maintain that lead. In the end, all the numbers will continue to head toward an average in the low to mid fifties. I say this number merely because of the amount by which they outnumber the FoD. They can post more wins, after all.
Well, from talking with a friend who is on the O&G side of things, a big reason why the numbers were so skewed in favor of the Tomb Kings at the outset was because the posting was "broken" and no one but Tomb Kings could post in that particular Subcampaign for the first five days or so.....
That would be a real damper on the other side of things if you couldn't post!
As for the rest of it, I'd have to say that GW has a reall good idea of what the meta-plot is, and how the wins fall will influence how quickly things move.
That would be a real damper on the other side of things if you couldn't post!
As for the rest of it, I'd have to say that GW has a reall good idea of what the meta-plot is, and how the wins fall will influence how quickly things move.
Currently Listening To: In Flames
- Sobek
- Lord Commander of the General Staff
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: Looking for his Abacus....
- Contact:
This is true. It hovered around the mid to high 70th percentile at first, then after it got fixed, it began to come down, starting to stabalize out where it is currently. Low 60th percentile, I believe. I'm not looking at any numbers now, so please forgive if they're incorrect. The point, either way, remains the same.Bleys wrote:Well, from talking with a friend who is on the O&G side of things, a big reason why the numbers were so skewed in favor of the Tomb Kings at the outset was because the posting was "broken" and no one but Tomb Kings could post in that particular Subcampaign for the first five days or so.....
Sobek: You are correct with the numbers. Tomb Kings got as high as 78% before Orc Players could post (5 day lead) We have come back and had them done to 60.3% which has now gone up to 61% in favor of the Tomb Kings. One problem with the badlands campaign is that the Tomb Kings can fight anyone they want and post the victory in the badlands. Orcs have to fight Tomb Kings and we are finding it hard, much like you guys here, to find opponents (alot of orc players dont have access to tomb kings players) This really unbalances the sub-campaigns I think (I do see what GW wanted to do).
- Alkkrision
- Daemon Prince
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 1:06 am
- Location: Liverpool