Sarmats victory over Graywolf. Aftermath

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Sarmats victory over Graywolf. Aftermath

    Guys,

    All these rotten talks sound somewhat immature. So much time and effort wasted in finding out who started the war at what time, and whether it was agreed, or was there a misunderstanding involved, or was it a form of malfeasance, and what should be the appropriate punishment...

    What it really reveals, apart from outsized egos, is deficiency in organization of those "elite" battles. The rules of engagement cannot be so easy to break. They should be bullet-proof. Then the victory will be most prized and mutually acknowledged rather than contested in the forums after the fight.

    With toxic atmosphere surrounding those "elite" games, my enthusiasm to participate in them has diminished significantly. So did my respect to the alliance ranking that is derived from the outcome of such games. I have enjoyed playing CoN so far, and I see no need to prove anything to anybody.

    DISCLAIMER: I am a member of the SARMATS alliance. I did not take part in that particular game, nor in any negotiations that surround it.
    You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone // Al Capone

    The post was edited 12 times, last by micgamer ().

  • Are we in Kindergarten? Do the devs need to hold our hands?

    Elite Challenges are a fair goldfree playfield offered for us from the devs, including their oversight.

    They gain nothing from offering those Elite Challenges except a lot of work.

    Even if there are surely some issues with them, I'm thankful, that we got them.

    Even more if there are alliances who think, breaking agreed rules is fair game, just because it is possible.


    Do you lift a shop, just because there is an opportunity?

    It is very sad, when an alliance like Sarmat seems to feel the need to take such actions, even though they seem to be good enough to not need it.

    As far as I heard, Sarmat would have won easily against Whitewolf anyway, but by trying to trick the rules, they just spoiled their own accomplishments.

    They betrayed their own players in the end.
  • I want to thank the OP of this thread @micgamer for his open and levelheaded words.
    It also proves that it isn’t everyone in Sarmats driving the hysteria and not all members are at fault.
    Remember: there isn’t such a thing as collective guilt.

    This said, we deliberately did not ban or disband Sarmats and if in the future they adhere to pre match agreements all will be fine (and no, we will not create a match setup bonanza for these matches — at least not for the time, with us working frantically on the mobile version)
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
  • This is an important thing to precise indeed : I'm 200% convinced that Sarmats is a skilled alliance that needs absolutely no trick to win or to raise in the ranking, except for martial expertise and planning. This is exactly why it's even less acceptable, coming from people that play well, to be under the lights for misbehaviour of this level.

    Ultimately, it's not our pleasure to disband an alliance like Sarmats because we discovered that they were playing fake challenges against multi-accounts. "Why do they do that ? They know how to play".

    When the leadership of Sarmats tricks other alliances into agreements that they know they will break (and i don't even know if the players of the match are aware that their leader trick their opponent like that), we wonder too "why", but we can't tolerate it because it's not the vision the game has for the future of competition.


    Elite challenges can only be as bullet-proof as alliances are willing to play fairly. Devs have provided a framework that allows to play with 100% certainty without gold, and it's already huge. It's up to the alliances to be responsible and virtuous enough to not willingly try to abuse the trust of their partners.

    On another topic, Firu said (translation in english) that for him, it was normal to break agreements in challenges if you have the opportunity to. It's precisely the point where we disagree harshly, and we will act against this mindset. As you said, you have nothing to demonstrate to anyone, and so, you'll easily show that your results are the same without tricks and betrayals.

    If you correct this misbehaviour, you'll have both glory, respect, and (something that we seek for the game), the pride to benefit the community instead of harming it.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Opulon wrote:

    On another topic, Firu said (translation in english) that for him, it was normal to break agreements in challenges if you have the opportunity to. It's precisely the point where we disagree harshly, and we will act against this mindset. As you said, you have nothing to demonstrate to anyone, and so, you'll easily show that your results are the same without tricks and betrayals.
    Perhaps you misinterpreted his words. Firu meant that all the battles of the alliances began from time immemorial with the change of day. Therefore, he was surprised when he learned about additional conditions. I also played with him more than once: in your game about the Second World War the world championship is going on right now, at which the war begins immediately after the timer expires. This is done so that there are no situations like this.

    And I do not remember a single case when Firu violated the terms of agreements with other alliances or players. He often made concessions.

    PS: By the way, if you wish, you can ask about him the administration of the ru-server of this very game about World War II. Firu fought with them and against them too. It will be a fair act to understand who you blame for what he not saying.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Immortal ().

  • It's true that language and google translate can lead to heavy misunderstandings. I'll ask to a russian speaker to help me understand better.

    If i misunderstood what Firu said on the topic, then, indeed, it changes pretty much everything. It changes everything to the point where i'd agree with him.

    "Perhaps you misinterpreted his words. Firu meant that all the battles of the alliances began from time immemorial with the change of day. Therefore, he was surprised when he learned about additional conditions. I also played with him more than once: in your game about the Second World War the world championship is going on right now, at which the war begins immediately after the timer expires. This is done so that there are no situations like this."

    Yes, this is actually what we have with the elite challenge forms, and we advise against having "additional terms" like "let's wait for 8 pm for the war to begin".

    It's better when the only rules are the official rules that are shown on the map : "7 days of peace, War day 8". This is exactly what has been abused by Sarmat Leadership, btw.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Opulon wrote:

    It's true that language and google translate can lead to heavy misunderstandings. I'll ask to a russian speaker to help me understand better.

    If i misunderstood what Firu said on the topic, then, indeed, it changes pretty much everything. It changes everything to the point where i'd agree with him.

    "Perhaps you misinterpreted his words. Firu meant that all the battles of the alliances began from time immemorial with the change of day. Therefore, he was surprised when he learned about additional conditions. I also played with him more than once: in your game about the Second World War the world championship is going on right now, at which the war begins immediately after the timer expires. This is done so that there are no situations like this."

    Yes, this is actually what we have with the elite challenge forms, and we advise against having "additional terms" like "let's wait for 8 pm for the war to begin".

    It's better when the only rules are the official rules that are shown on the map : "7 days of peace, War day 8". This is exactly what has been abused by Sarmat Leadership, btw.
    At least you agree with something...

    On the occasion of your translation: in its text there is no hint that he violates something when possible. He speaks of a well-established approach about the outbreak of war when the day changes. And about the fact that new clans might not know this, which made the hype rise. For me, too, it looks like poor preparation by the wolves, but for justice: the commanders had to approve the conditions before the battle. If there is a fault of one commander, then there is also a fault of another because of an irresponsible approach.
    So I also know that the Sokol itself did not participate in the battle as it had other matters. Perhaps this also influenced the Sarmats ignorance. But no one even began to deal with this.
    But the fact that everyone defended the alliance's reputation is an occasion to be proud of their entire team. There is much to learn.
  • Immortal wrote:

    The commanders had to approve the conditions before the battle.
    And so they did. The only difference is, Whitewolf were preparing for war at the agreed time, while SARMATS were preparing to break the said agreement and attack at the day change. With the level of communication SARMATS have, there is zero chance that anyone was "unaware" (not to mention everyone).


    Immortal wrote:

    But the fact that everyone defended the alliance's reputation is an occasion to be proud of their entire team.
    Cheating isn't something to be proud of, neither is defending that way of playing. And that only adds up to SARMATS' reputation of having yet to win a single challenge without cheating in some way.
  • SergeyPakhomov wrote:

    Immortal wrote:

    The commanders had to approve the conditions before the battle.
    And so they did. The only difference is, Whitewolf were preparing for war at the agreed time, while SARMATS were preparing to break the said agreement and attack at the day change. With the level of communication SARMATS have, there is zero chance that anyone was "unaware" (not to mention everyone).

    Immortal wrote:

    But the fact that everyone defended the alliance's reputation is an occasion to be proud of their entire team.
    Cheating isn't something to be proud of, neither is defending that way of playing. And that only adds up to SARMATS' reputation of having yet to win a single challenge without cheating in some way.
    Your words are biased since you were kicked out of their server. So they spoke very negatively about you. If there was a conflict between you, you should not assent: the moderator should try to be as objective as possible, in my humble opinion...
  • Immortal wrote:

    Your words are biased since you were kicked out of their server. So they spoke very negatively about you. If there was a conflict between you, you should not assent: the moderator should try to be as objective as possible, in my humble opinion...
    Ah, yes, of course I would be upset about getting banned from their Discord server because SOKOL got salty that the case of his posts breaking Forum Rules wasn't ruled out in his favour, and he decided to blame me instead of admitting his mistake (basically what happened here with the challenge, he decided to insult the devs instead of accepting the fair punishment and trying to do better). Plus, I was blocked from viewing their main chat rooms long before that, so there was no real interest for me to stay on their server.

    Also, why would I even have to have a personal reason to hate that alliance if I dislike cheaters and backstabbers in general? Once SARMATS stop playing the way they played against Whitewolf and the others, there will be no reason for anyone to dislike them.

    I do feel that I shouldn't share the personal information here, though. But telling someone who said something that you didn't like that they are biased is lazy - I'm being objective with my facts.
  • The thing is : Sergey here is the only one able to read you properly, and the only one able to give us non-russian speaker an close idea of what is said. I'm forced to use google translate, which is far from perfect. He is as objective as one can be, and so we do try. He isn't biased because you kicked him. But maybe you are biased against him because you kicked him and spoke very negatively about him. This can go both ways, and is frankly unecessary as a reasoning.


    "But the fact that everyone defended the alliance's reputation is an occasion to be proud of their entire team. There is much to learn."

    No. It only means that at best there is a huge problem of communication and transparency between Leadership and members (leadership knew, members didn't), and at worst, that the problem is aknowledged by the alliance, and the members don't care. A group that blindly defends leadership against game decisions and facts, to the point of seeing plots against nation/language/skin color/etc..., this is in no way rare, and an example. This is what happens to every supporters group in any sports in any discipline (and IRL, it leaded to people defend outright murderers). This is primal support to the tribe : far from impressive, it's expected, and ignored (it's precisely why we refused to speak with the multi accounts and people that came to repeat the same sentences again and again, in blind support of their leadership that enraged them to try to make the punishment canceled. Needless to say, this hasn't helped Sarmat case, and increased our resolve)

    " If there is a fault of one commander, then there is also a fault of another because of an irresponsible approach."

    On this, i agree : I personally warned Whitewolf against agreeing to ANYTHING coming from sarmats, and he didn't listen to me. Whitewolf commander is guilty of being naïve : he trusted Sarmat Leadership. I think the lesson will be learned for them. The most interesting thing is that i am convinced (i looked at the map) that Sarmats would have won EASILY against Whitewolf, even if they respected the start hour they agreed on. Attacking right at day change when Sarmat leadership had pushed and convinced Whitewolf to begin war at 8 pm looked like... gratuitous and unecessary cruelty.

    If on Sarmats side there is no knowledge of those shenanigans and problems, then internal change of policies are in order. I don't know but maybe the organisation of challenges should be handled by a proficient english speaker that then can give to the alliance back ALL the terms, precisely, without omissions.

    Again, i have no doubts that Sarmats can win without broken agreements. The core is "we don't want broken agreement in elite challenge". Mistakes happen, and we deal with that daily, but when you have 4 mistakes "in a row", it's more problematic.


    Post Scriptum : I myself have been banned from Sarmats Server (where i don't understand anything, to be honest :D ) after the first problem with the fake challenges and multi-accounts. Sokol just likes to think that kicking people out of his server is somewhat of a retaliation (it isn't)
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Firus explanation, why Sarmats attacked first, reads as follows (after translation):

    "If there are no hard restrictions in regards of war declaration, the young alliance (Whitewolves) was likely violate the agreement, so we of course violate the agreement first."

    I don't consider such reasoning even in the slightest reasonable, after all most our matches rely on such arranged war times, because day change tends to be at a bad time of day.


    The translation:
  • As hinted micgamer, we should be cautious with google translate.

    However, i'll point (again) that "one of the white wolfs players, using a bug in the game, was able to declare war on one of the sarmatian players [...] Thus, an attempt to violate the rule"

    Please check the screenshot twice : it shows the exact opposite.




    Sergio Geraschenko's (Sarmats) units have crossed the border and are now engaged in combat with Fatihsultan Saruhan (Whitewolf). If you do tests, you'll be able to confirm by yourselves that the war has been triggered by Sarmat Side. This is a real bug, though, and we'll need to investigate.
    This is a good example of why we shouldn't defend blindly leadership without taking some time to think : I saw this screenshot be copy-pasted by at least ten people that ALL repeated like parrots "WHITEWOLF BUG USED". None of them checked, or took the time to investigate.

    This is clearly an mistake (because the Sarmat gave peace back 40 minutes after), but it isn't something to use as a reason to betray a young alliance.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Firus explanation, why Sarmats attacked first, reads as follows (after translation):

    "If there are no hard restrictions in regards of war declaration, the young alliance (Whitewolves) was likely violate the agreement, so we of course violate the agreement first."

    I don't consider such reasoning even in the slightest reasonable, after all most our matches rely on such arranged war times, because day change tends to be at a bad time of day.


    The translation:

    Firu talks about the reason why all games begin after a timer expires: because verbal arrangements are often violated by novice clans. Do not distort his words.
    I hope Sergey Pakhomov confirms that there are no calls for violation or anything other than a statement of this fact.

    Regarding the bug: in the newspaper they often write incorrectly. Argument: Sergio Question.
    "как такая ситуация с войной на 4 день могла быть?"



    It seems to me that the indignation of the entire alliance is justified. And I'm glad that at least Opulon is trying to figure something out. If I were banned without explaining the reasons, I would also be outraged. But any discussion begins with a compromise.
  • I first talked to Zoopi about it, and clearly, it's a language problem. The system is hardcoded with variables from a game that is (originally) english, and i was not surprised that it was genuinely misunderstood.

    About firu, Kalrakh shown what we had to read from google translate, and that help to understand what we misuderstood.

    This is very true that novice clan often break their agreements, but i'll precise something : they often break it because their members lack basic training and discipline, and leadership doesn't manage to keep them in line. It's different from a leadership planning ahead and anticipating to break agreements.

    It's why we have beginner challenges, and with beginners, you never negotiate complex rules : only basic, easy to explain rules.


    EDIT : "indignation of the entire alliance is justified". No. It's not a just indignation to have been unable to read properly system data, to accuse your opponent of bug-use when the fault was on your side, then to use this accusation to legitimate violation of agreement against your opponent. To the contrary, it's worrysome, in an alliance as skilled as Sarmats, that nobody raised his hand in concern to say "hem... the screenshot says it's Sergio that declared war" . And if this is truly the reason why sarmats decided to launch assault at day change instead of 8 pm... then you have policies to change.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Opulon ().



  • почему они решили что начало должно быть в 20:00 по Киеву?/why did they decide that the start should be at 20:00 by Kiev time?
    Они думали что в этой битве работают условные правила, а не те, которые выставил админ./They thought that in this battle conditional rules work, and not those that the admin set.

    All players are confused: they do not understand what they were accused of. The timer expired at the time of day change and they even in their chat discuss what is wrong?
  • Because 8 pm was the start hour asked by SOKOL and agreed by Whitewolf.

    Sokol made a video where he shows his private conversation with Whitewolf. I'll ignore that it's supposedly forbidden too, to ask you to look closely at the said video (and to pay close attention to things sokol writes in english, but that he doesn't show with his mouse. You'll see several occurences of the "War Start at 8 pm", giving you a hint of what Sarmats Leadership asked from Whitewolf. )
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Immortal wrote:



    почему они решили что начало должно быть в 20:00 по Киеву?/why did they decide that the start should be at 20:00 by Kiev time?
    Они думали что в этой битве работают условные правила, а не те, которые выставил админ./They thought that in this battle conditional rules work, and not those that the admin set.

    All players are confused: they do not understand what they were accused of. The timer expired at the time of day change and they even in their chat discuss what is wrong?
    Are you saying that SOKOL indeed did not inform his alliance about his agreement with Whitewolf (SOKOL betrayed both Whitewolf and his own alliance by making SARMATS' members non-knowingly break the agreement that he made, that resulted in a punishment for his own alliance)?