Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)
12-25-2012, 03:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-25-2012 03:28 AM by CombatEX.)
Post: #411
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - Quarterfinals
Sharkfood Island "tiebreaker" (we haven't finished the other game yet but I guess we can move to the next round in the interest of time)
P1 GreatGonzales P2 Szei W Szei Replay |
|||
12-25-2012, 08:48 AM
Post: #412
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
SEMI-Finals on Glitch! Start your matches at your earliest convenience please!
Looks like the FINALS will be USA vs Sweden or Saudi Arabia! Szei (USA) vs blueswimmer95 (USA) Alvendor (SWE) vs Blckace (KSA) Good luck all! |
|||
12-25-2012, 06:47 PM
Post: #413
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
Also, the winner of the World Cup will get a wildcard for the Super-Duper-Titan tournament!
|
|||
12-27-2012, 01:34 AM
Post: #414
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
Ggs Szei. You are quite calculating!
|
|||
12-28-2012, 06:03 AM
Post: #415
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
Thanks GreatGonzales. Those were fun matches. It's always great having a challenging opponent.
|
|||
12-30-2012, 03:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2012 03:58 AM by Szei.)
Post: #416
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
I'm forfeiting my games and dropping out of the tournament because I was mislead. I don't know if it was intentional but it impacted the result of one of the games in a major way. blueswimmer95 was going to win one if the games anyway, but I was likely going to win the other before the incident. It's a shame it had to end this way. It stems from a mistake on my part, but I also shouldn't have been so trusting of someone I don't know well.
|
|||
12-30-2012, 04:15 AM
Post: #417
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
What happened?
|
|||
12-30-2012, 04:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2012 05:03 AM by Szei.)
Post: #418
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
My Mistake
I fired my bombshell but then was interrupted before I could play out the rest of my turn. I wasn't able to get back to the game until a day or two later at which point I had forgotten what my bombshell had seen. I was pretty sure there was a 2 hp soldier beneath a 3 hp heavy, but I've played a few games on glitch recently so I might have had it confused with another game (it turns out I was). As I said above, this was my mistake as I should have written down the info but I didn't realize I wouldn't be able to get back to the game for such a long time (day before the 25th). The Consequences At this point, I was playing without information which I should have had since my bombshell had already fired. I was missing the radar info and potentially info regarding what a unit was that was in a space in the fog after shelling. Since I should have had this info, I asked blueswimmer if there was a 2 hp soldier in the fog under the heavy and explained the situation. I actually uploaded a screenshot proving that I had already fired my bombshell (clicked my bombshell after I had fired it so the unit description is displayed at the top of the screen instead of attacking and moving options). I didn't end up having to use the screenshot to prove it though because blueswimmer decided to give me the benefit of the doubt and confirm that there was a "soldier in the fog". "I think there is a 2hp soldier beneath your heavy." "Yes there is a soldier in the fog." I think most people would assume that the second statement is an affirmation of the first. In this case it was not as blueswimmer didn't actually have a soldier beneath the heavy. Instead there was a 3 hp soldier in a different location than where I told blueswimmer I thought it was. Actually, the location didn't really matter (though it was still false) but the 3 hp instead of 2 hp was critical. Now, to be fair, the second statement was made 2 days after the first so it's quite possible blueswimmer simply did not recall the first statement correctly. In other words, it's quite possible it was completely unintentional, however it was misleading nonetheless. Conclusion I knew that he was in no way obligated to tell me and I would have been completely fine with him saying that he didn't want to reveal this information. However, instead I was mislead by a half truth. As I said above, I'm not saying it was necessarily intentional, it likely stemmed from negligence instead of ill-will. Either way it adversely impacted the game. The game was still salvageable, but I would rather not play out a game like this. From a different angle I tried to consider what it had looked like from a different perspective. What would I have done if my opponent had told me the same story? Personally I would be hesitant. Had they really fired the bombshell or are the trying to get extra information? A perfectly valid choice is just to refuse info whether I believe him/her or not. However, in the case where I am open to revealing the info my opponent should have had at their disposal, I would proceed to the next dilemma. To trust or not to trust? Don't Trust I would have ignored this request unless my opponent provided me with a screenshot. With a screenshot as proof I would then move to "Trust". Trust If I trusted my opponent enough then I would have given him/her the requested confirmation in full. What I wouldn't have done is given my opponent partial information. Why? If my opponent speculated that s/he saw a particular unit in the fog with a particular life total at a particular location, then s/he has told me which spot s/he fired at (at least in this is true of the situation in our game). Since I have already chosen to 'trust', then this means I'm assuming my opponent really did fire there and should know any information regarding the fog surrounding the space s/he fired upon. In this case it would mean that my opponent was actually mistaken since there isn't a 2 hp soldier beneath the heavy. I would then have two options. 1. Actually maybe my opponent is lying and I should switch to "Don't Trust". 2. I still "Trust" my opponent so I will correct them with the proper information that was revealed (if a screenshot was provided as proof, then this is the clear choice over the first). In this case, a 3 hp soldier a hex away from the location my opponent incorrectly recalled. Partial confirmation is just confusing and misleading for the opponent which is why I wouldn't choose this in either case, be it "Don't Trust" or "Trust". |
|||
12-31-2012, 07:45 PM
Post: #419
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
That sucks sorry to hear that Szei. I think re-watching the moves you've made in the middle of your turn should definitely be allowed, I know I've been screwed in similar ways before. Like I'll move a runner without noting where units were with what HP or more similarly to you shooting a bombshell and not even paying attention to what I saw in the fog, then being just stuck not knowing, even though it should be available information to me.
|
|||
01-04-2013, 07:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2013 07:23 PM by awpertunity.)
Post: #420
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Outwitters WORLD CUP - SEMI-Finals
Alvendor and Blckace! Could we get a status update on your games?
|
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)
2 Guest(s)
Return to TopReturn to Content