Cheating?

[[:] Narauko]

You know how to make a workload when i finish my shift...

@Stripes: I think what Leen meant was you were on map, I saw you on map for about 5 seconds before you encountered leen. (Hence the sensor mix up, but I am only presuming from what I've seen leen say).

@Rampage: Dude, we're not talking normal substitution in between rounds, we're talking about taking the spot of a inexperienced player by a previously dead pro during a round.

@z][t: This was in no way directed at you guys, I did post quite early in saying that. It was more to keep you out of the discussion so you weren't brought up. The thread was simply created to clear the situation up, it isn't really as straight forward as you think especially when you get various different opinions either for or against.

I actually wanted an official ruling on this, because its not clear in the rules. [DURING GAME i.e. ppl are dieing]Should the clan that looses the player not play the rest of the round a man down, instead of a dead player taking his place?

So you guys as admins have a choice, make this a viable subsitution method, or clarify the rules to cover this situation.

nark?

[cO.twist]

What Vick described earlier is possible....If Magnetic died, he can stay on his body (without clicking the mouse) until Tin exits.  Then when mag clicks his mouse, he will take over the bot. It only works if you stay on your dead body the whole time (not observing the other guys still alive).

Im not saying this is what happened...to be honest, i think its rediculus that this is even a thread.

edit:  in my opinion..this is less than a rare occurance...i don't think i've seen anyone crash in the last 50 cb's i've played in.  If for some reason a player crashes in-game, then they shouldn't have to play a man down...someone that is still alive should be able to take over the bot.  The opposing team shouldn't try to take advantage of a team because they are having net problems.

Again, this is such a rare occurance, i really don't think the rules should be changed to prevent people from taking over bots.

[[:] Narauko]

edit:  in my opinion..this is less than a rare occurance...i don't think i've seen anyone crash in the last 50 cb's i've played in.

50 cbs without crashing once, not once...thats a maximum of 400 rounds of loading/playing, average cb lasts 2 hours IF it every round went the entire distance that means it would have been 100 hours of playing time without a crash from up to eight people. Wow.

nark?

[cO.twist]

give me a break dude...im trying to make a point.  I didnt whip out my calculator.

[[a] kitkat]

I couldnt agree more with twist.  Extremely rare occurance...  If you do it on purpose ofcourse it is cheating...  if you dont, then no biggie...

And if we really want to talk about cheating here shouldnt we be talking about a few members of Gz?  I can recall at least one of them openly bragging about his cheating....  And hearing something about this from just about everybody I play with regularly

[Civrock]

coincidently Musk_Melon? i heard about that too... he left Gz a few hours ago and joined GhRa right away.

[Musk_Melon]

ok this is bs!
Can any of you prove that i (or gz for that matter) cheat? I didn't think so.
Please stop spreading propaganda around,and kitkat has always been pissed at me cuz i own him!
well maybe not,but anyway untill there is some proof(that you can show me to,cuz i am lost with the whole cheating thing)plzz just shut up!

btw. civic i left gz cuz it is done, and ghra has wanted me for sometime.

Musk_Melon

[cO.libre]

stripes i meant to say that you were on map.. sorry for the misunderstanding

seriously though, its not the biggest deal in the world and i dont quite care about this thing. with most of you guys, i agree that it is a rare occurance and rules dont need to be tampered with to change this.

[cO.libre]

..sorry for the double post but for some reason it wont let me edit my last.

again, i have no problem with this really...
i dont think z][t, or any clan for that matter, would have the need to cheat on a little CQB that wasnt even official. i have no problem with the z][t guys and im sorry if any of you got offended during this whole thing.
the whole issue has gone WAY too far overboard for all i know and hope everyone settles down.

-leen

[z][t-Rampage]

I've seen this tactic used by one clan in particular, and if it's not cheating  then it's gotta be something close.

I understand if a player crashes or whatever, but there is a clan i know that does it pretty steadily.

first Weakspot.(now that im awake) i totally understand Mags response to your post. its bait and if read between the lines, you are actually pretty much calling us "pretty close to cheaters"(using your words) and if this was intended to be a post to clear up a genuine problem that could help in situations and misshaps like this - you should have stayed clear of it. Nark/Leen where doing fine by themselves. u just added some spice to it.  and if this "clan that does it steadily" is not z][t, i suggest you clear that up. because the only thing you have done here, is drag the legitimate issue that a clan brought up - into a fight between two clans. well done

Narauko, u have brought up a genuine problem and i wish we didnt go for weaks bait. it is a problem and we all know it can happen. not often but it does. ofc a sollution would be to end that round right away and restart it. if it is a problem. but on the other hand, i dont really care who i play against in a cb. Also switching players like that would not be healthy for a clan or a new player. because we are pretty much telling him that his skills arent up to par and that one of our rocking good players should take over. this would cause inbalance in our clan and thats not the way it works. if a player feels that he sucks before, during a cb - he should be the first to suggest being subbed. in my book, this goes for most clans.
coming back to your question - perhaps there should be a rule that the clan who has had a player crash, tells the oposing clan and the choice is either - restart the round or allow the sub, whoever it is. on the other hand, this has been such a rare situation through the seasons. either way is fine with us.

Leen/Nark, its all settled down and its all good in the hood. yes Nark you did say so"@z][t: This was in no way directed at you guys, I did post quite early in saying that", but when someone (in this case Weak) adds hints of us of "pretty close to cheating", its hard to stay focused on what one/two people in are trying to get to while the 3rd is baiting. it is understandable that people react. so would you.

if crashing is a big enough problem, lets let the admins will look at it and work out the best ruling on it.

Thanx

[[:] Mr. T]

I know for a fact that Weak cheats big time.

[Ein]

Please do not delete. This is not intended in any way to be spam.

hi nark, for your note.. Tin didnt leave, he crashed. as you saw he joined emmediatly after.

Just wanted to point out that this was the first time z][t was mentioned in this thread and it was by their own member. At no time before that did anyone even mention any specific players or clans besides nark mentioning himself and leen in a hypothetical situation to explain his question. I do not see why everyone is taking so much offence to this simple question.

As twist mentioned, it is possible to wait and spawn once a teammate leaves either by crashing or by force quitting gameranger so this makes it more of a problem.  Now the question is, how do we know that any crash is legitimate? As others have stated, they have thought about this action having been done against there clan in the past which means that crashing is not as infrequent as twist has said. Personally I have been in several cb's where players have crashed however none of those CBs resulted in someone else spawning into the bot.

If this was not a problem before, because of this thread and spreading the knowledge of a way around the system, this could possibly be a problem in the future.

Several clans use their own voice programs to communicate so how would it be possible for us to know if one clan member said "I'll force quit so you can take my body since you died." However, we all know that this could possibly happen weather it does already or not.

Would the admins look into this as a possibility for clans to cheat? Since this is the preseason, would it not make sense to fix bugs or posible way to cheat in the system before the season starts and you can not alter the rules?

Ein

[z][t-Rampage]

He chooses his timing very well in all accounts.

nark?

any clan that has someone mention or even whisper  that they might cheat, will react. and yes i agree, Narks post and using z][t as a hypothetical clan is also fine. but with weaks bate and Narks post a couple of posts after stripes post(he he) can and will surely only poor fuel on the fire.
its not hypothetical anymore when the clan that has not been mentioned (in earlier posts)is actually brought up as reply by Nark. any clan will react to that and with good reason. if we decide to reply to that or defend it, is entirely up to us.

on the topic of making a new rule or looking into purposely quitting. i am not against it, but i dont see much reason for it. we'll play any clan and any member the same. there is no Michael Jordan of ghost recon. if there is, he should get a pc and play for money! again, if this is a strategy that clans would use, it would be a very very unhealthy plan for a clan. that means that there is a quality difference between players and some players will feel less than others. oh i'll die because "happyjack" is better than me, or even worse, "happyjack" tells noob that he needs to "crash" so that he can take over because he is better. i dont see the logic in a move like this. but if a clan does it everytime that one player, or the "lesser" players end up last against 2 or more ppl, or even in an even situation, it should be dealt with. it is ofc a time consuming problem for the cb, and a very destructive way to run a clan.

the gentleman way to handle it, would be to tell the oposing clan.

in the years we have played ghr, this has not been an issue. i believe it is because it happens rarely and most people really dont care who they face on the battlefield. we dont.

thanx

[Myth]

The way that I understand the dbl rules for a cb is tat there is 0 spawns. Taking over a bot after you die is like getting a spawn. Right? If not then what would it be considered?
---myth

[theweakspot]

i restate my postion

the only clan i have ever seen do this is z][t.  i say they have done it steadily because it has happened 3 times that i can recall.  did i call it cheating?  no.  i too want this cleared up, as far as rules go.  i dont know why it has only happened with you guys.  perhaps its just sheer coincidence.  could be.  might be.

all facts.  no bait.  no need to read between the lines.

if you dont like what i have to say, oh well.

thanks for spending a good amount of your time responding to my post.  nice to know you care.

oh, and stfu 

[z][t-Rampage]

The way that I understand the dbl rules for a cb is tat there is 0 spawns. Taking over a bot after you die is like getting a spawn. Right? If not then what would it be considered?
---myth

youre right Myth. thay pretty much sums it up. it would ofc be a spawn. but if there is a 1v2 situation and the 1 crashes...there should be a gentlemans rule on what to do. i'd suggest telling the other clan and dealing with it from there. since it is a technical problem, that round should be restarted.

thanx

[[:] Narauko]

I'm happy with that. Restart.


nark?

[cO.twist]

I can see where restarting could be a problem though...if there was a rule saying this was the solution if anyone crashes.  If a clan has a big advantage (having wz locked down, etc) and then all the sudden the other clan has a player crash...I wouldnt want to restart if i were the team that had the advantage...no one would.

I mean its going to be obvious if a player that died 2 minutes earlier takes over someone's bot...I say if a player has been dead more than 15 seconds, he can't take over a bot.  If he does, then their team loses that round.  The issue will obviously be brought up right after the round anyways....save the replay, and go from there.

Im just rambling, but it'd be a solution that would prevent people from using this 'tactic'.

[Croosch]

The problem with that Rampage... in a 1v2 situation the guy by himself could just as easliy just quit and rejoin for a restart, you never know when somebody actually crashes.

I don't agree with that, if you're afraid you might crash I would suggest not playing if you believe it's going to effect the outcome of the cb.

[z][t-Primary]

I think it would cause much MORE problems if it was ruled that after a crash the round would be restarted. What do you do when you're raping the other team 4v1 and you have the wz. And the single opponent "crashes"? I'm sure no one's gonna want want to restart on the winning team, and i can already see maaany threads where situations like this will be argued.


How about this for a solution?

Players that have died before the crash are not allowed to take over the bot. Which means, if there is a 2v1 situation [Player #1 & Player #2 VS. Player #3], and lets say Player #1 crashes. The remaining situation will be Player #2 VS. Player #3, but Player #2 will have a respawn. I know this might sort of contradict a rule, but its maybe the most reasonable solution to this situation.

- The only one who is allowed to take over the bot is Player #2, when he dies. If someone else on the team (by having stayed at their body) takes over the bot, that team automatically loses the round - because they have died BEFORE the crash.
- If i were Player #3, i'd actually be happy if this crash happened. It's always easier to play against one person who has a respawn, than against two players who can corner you and attack simultaneously.

This could maybe be a rule, although i dont trying to cheat by crashing is at all an effective way to play as a team. If this were to be an official rule, there would really be no point in faking a crash, because it really is easier to play with two people than with 1, even if one of the two is slightly less skilled.

Hope you understand my points.