Cheating / Gaming Mining

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:47 pm

  • These two guys in an active game are talking about
    gifting mines in order to prolong a game that’s one day left to ending so they can win.

    This seems like intention cheating and when pointed out they say they will just make new accounts if banned.

    Ron thoughts? Game name is “foot long sub, extra salt”

    Player names are “NOVA Heftig” and “Oracolo”
    Attachments
    E637D7EC-E816-409C-8829-8DF7773335B9.jpeg
    E637D7EC-E816-409C-8829-8DF7773335B9.jpeg (102.01 KiB) Viewed 180 times
    kiloeightfour
     
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:36 am

Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 pm

  • I'm interested in the answer too.
    I read the rule page (http://play.subterfuge-game.com/docs/Rulebook/) and the mentioned rule (I think it is the "CODE OF CONDUCT" part) doesn't talk about delay tactics in the endgame.
    I tought it was a nice tactic when a teammate suggested it and I'm interested in understanding if it's considered "gifting too much".
    I'm still leaning the subtleties of this game and its rules so I'd be glad to know if it really is a "ban worty cheat", a frowned upon strategy or just a sneaky delay tactic.
    oracolo
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:21 pm

Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:42 pm

  • I think its a legitimate strategy that requires some trust and has some risk. It also happens so rarely that its not a major issue.
    rlin81
     
    Posts: 371
    Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:49 pm

Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:44 pm

  • I'm a third player in the game and I thought I'd detail the situation.

    With 24 hours to go player 1 is in first place, 2 in second, 3 in third and so on. Player 1 is allied with player 4 but cannot defeat players 2 and 3 or capture their mine before the game is due to end. Therefore Player 1 allows player 4 to capture one of their mines, this extends the game giving player 4 time to overtake players 2 and 3.

    The question is whether this breaks the code of conduct and should be considered 'gifting too much'? On one hand it could be considered a solid tactic to ensure your allies do well, on the other it could be seen as player 1 abusing their power to manipulate the scoring system.

    If be interested to hear the views of the community.
    muscatred
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:40 pm

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:37 am

  • Like rlin said, it is a rare strategy. But it is a legit one.

    I think that, as long as the two players had no contact going into the game, aka they didn’t join together to work together, then it’s okay.
    muscatred wrote: on the other it could be seen as player 1 abusing their power to manipulate the scoring system.

    I disagree with this. Player 1 got himself into such a position that he controlled the board, but not quite enough control to decimate his opponents. What he does with his power is up to him. If he made an alliance with player 4 at the start of the game (once again, not before they both joined) then it’s fine. I don’t see it as any different than working with your ally right from the start of the game. Gifting and outpost trading was made part of the game for a reason. If player 2 and 3 came together to attack 4, they might even be able to keep him out of meddling position
    We got ourselves an album, boys!
    User avatar
    mathwhiz9
     
    Posts: 3287
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:22 pm
    Location: The Great White North

Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:16 am

  • I think it's legit. Helping teammates out is fair game. The game isn't over until it's over. Just because everyone falls in line, it doesn't mean we just need to just accept it and wait for he game to end. Fight it out and help your team
    jsrork
     
    Posts: 29
    Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:36 am

Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:35 am

  • Thanks for calling the idea as "legitimate" move.

    I am one of them in "the game", and probably will take the position 6th. Idea came from me - thanks for calling it as a strategy. I was asked "player 1"; to create such time frame to invade outposts of 2nd and 3rd. The idea is purely product of diplomacy. Since I am not close position to "player 1", I suggested him to organize such a movement with "Player 4 - aka Nova"

    muscatred wrote:... on the other it could be seen as player 1 abusing their power to manipulate the scoring system...
    If it is not allowed to manipulate "scoring system", why are we forming allies?

    mathwhiz9 wrote:Like rlin said, it is a rare strategy. But it is a legit one.
    I think that, as long as the two players had no contact going into the game, aka they didn’t join together to work together, then it’s okay.
    mathwhiz9, You are right about it. As a player of the game, I don't think there is "multiboxing" issue.
    barbar85
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:13 am

Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:30 pm

  • Math and Rlin are right. This is a legit move, one I’m actually using in a game right now.

    Best of luck with pulling it off.
    Simply put, my job here is to keep the forums afloat through any means necessary
    User avatar
    nojo34
     
    Posts: 3069
    Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:22 pm
    Location: Under da sea



Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
cron